Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thought I would rise to discuss legislation designed to address the bureaucratic overreach in the Environmental Protection Agency's air regulations. Since I last introduced these bills in June of 2014, EPA's failures in this area have become even more glaring. At present, air regulations are stifling to both businesses and private citizens, and they are negatively impacting our economy. Let me say from the outset, we all want clean air. We are always in favor of protecting the environment and the air we breathe. I think we are not in favor of an EPA that places real regulations over common sense. Today I am introducing S. 638, S. 639, and S. 640, the CLEER Act, the ORDEAL Act, and the Agency PAYGO for greenhouse gases. The CLEER Act eases the regulatory burden on States, including desert States such as Arizona that are home to so-called exceptional events such as dust storms. Dust storms in Arizona are not caused by man. They are naturally occurring events, just like tornadoes or blizzards in other parts of the country. When these dust storms occur in Arizona, they can cause a spike in the dust, or the PM-10 level. This is nothing the State can control. Yet this blip can cause Arizona and other affected States to fall out of compliance with Federal air quality standards. Again, this is through no fault of their own. It can lead to a loss of transportation dollars, even from the Federal Government. Thanks to EPA rules, States end up wasting vast amounts of manpower, countless work hours, and lots of taxpayer dollars on reviews and appeals for events they cannot control or avoid. For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the Maricopa Air Quality Department, and the Maricopa Association of Governments in 2011 and 2012 spent $675,000 and 790 staff hours just to prove a spike in PM-10 levels was caused by a dust storm, not pollution. These EPA reviews are arbitrary, cumbersome, and costly. They lack an appeals process that further defies common sense. The EPA has continually assured me it would issue a rule to help ease the burdens on States, all the States that have to weather forces of nature such as this. Yet despite these promises, the EPA has continued to backtrack and shift deadlines, and to date has not issued a workable proposed rule. My legislation on the CLEER Act would require the EPA to move forward with a rulemaking, and it would require decisions on such events be based on a preponderance of evidence, and will accord deference to States' own findings of when such events happen. It would also require the EPA to review the States' exceptional-event documentation within a reasonable time period of 90 days instead of dragging out the process. Part of the cost is due to the fact that the EPA drags out the process. These practical fixes will alleviate the undue hardship States are having to deal with and when we have to deal with the effects of these natural events. Secondly, the ORDEAL Act is an attempt to overhaul the EPA's unnecessary ozone standard reduction until 2018. When the EPA reduced permitted ozone standards in 2008, counties across the country that were in nonattainment were forced to enact expensive and complicated compliance plans. Relying on a dubious scientific basis, the EPA has proposed lowering the ozone emissions standards even further to 65 parts per billion, while accepting comments on lowering it to 60 parts per billion. By some estimates, this proposal to lower the ozone level may be the most expensive regulation in EPA history--and that is saying something-- costing as much as $1.7 trillion. Lowering ozone standards from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion will cost a whopping $140 billion annually. Yet EPA's own science advisers disagree on the very basis upon which this regulation is built. The ORDEAL Act will stop shaky facts and assumptions from being used as a basis for long-term public policy, and will give States the flexibility and the time to implement their own innovative and proactive measures. The bill would also extend air quality standards reviews, including ozone, to a 10-year timeline instead of the current 5 years. Third, Agency PAYGO. This administration has set its sights on reducing carbon emissions, most recently putting draconian regulations on existing powerplants, despite the inevitable job losses and spikes in energy costs. It has placed a mandate on Arizona to reduce 52 percent of its carbon emissions by 2030. This is unattainable, unless Arizonans are forced to greatly reduce their standard of living. The Agency PAYGO Act I am introducing would simply give the EPA a taste of its own medicine by requiring the Agency to offset the Federal cost of any greenhouse gas rules to an equivalent reduction in Agency spending. If the EPA proceeds without offsetting these costs from its own budget, the final greenhouse gas rule must be approved by Congress, simply saying if you cannot do this as an offset within your own budget, bring it to Congress and let's approve it. This bill specifically forbids the EPA from denying costs to Federal agencies by passing on costs to the Federal agency's ratepayers. If capital costs are imposed by a greenhouse gas rule, the EPA must offset those costs or get Congress's approval. The EPA has a history of implementing costly and stringent standards for negligible and even questionable benefit. All three of these bills--the CLEER Act, ORDEAL Act, and Agency PAYGO Act--provide more certainty than presently exists to States and counties and businesses that have to deal with the EPA and will hold the Agency accountable for its decisionmaking process. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thought I would rise to discuss legislation designed to address the bureaucratic overreach in the Environmental Protection Agency's air regulations. Since I last introduced these bills in June of 2014, EPA's failures in this area have become even more glaring. At present, air regulations are stifling to both businesses and private citizens, and they are negatively impacting our economy. Let me say from the outset, we all want clean air. We are always in favor of protecting the environment and the air we breathe. I think we are not in favor of an EPA that places real regulations over common sense. Today I am introducing S. 638, S. 639, and S. 640, the CLEER Act, the ORDEAL Act, and the Agency PAYGO for greenhouse gases. The CLEER Act eases the regulatory burden on States, including desert States such as Arizona that are home to so-called exceptional events such as dust storms. Dust storms in Arizona are not caused by man. They are naturally occurring events, just like tornadoes or blizzards in other parts of the country. When these dust storms occur in Arizona, they can cause a spike in the dust, or the PM-10 level. This is nothing the State can control. Yet this blip can cause Arizona and other affected States to fall out of compliance with Federal air quality standards. Again, this is through no fault of their own. It can lead to a loss of transportation dollars, even from the Federal Government. Thanks to EPA rules, States end up wasting vast amounts of manpower, countless work hours, and lots of taxpayer dollars on reviews and appeals for events they cannot control or avoid. For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the Maricopa Air Quality Department, and the Maricopa Association of Governments in 2011 and 2012 spent $675,000 and 790 staff hours just to prove a spike in PM-10 levels was caused by a dust storm, not pollution. These EPA reviews are arbitrary, cumbersome, and costly. They lack an appeals process that further defies common sense. The EPA has continually assured me it would issue a rule to help ease the burdens on States, all the States that have to weather forces of nature such as this. Yet despite these promises, the EPA has continued to backtrack and shift deadlines, and to date has not issued a workable proposed rule. My legislation on the CLEER Act would require the EPA to move forward with a rulemaking, and it would require decisions on such events be based on a preponderance of evidence, and will accord deference to States' own findings of when such events happen. It would also require the EPA to review the States' exceptional-event documentation within a reasonable time period of 90 days instead of dragging out the process. Part of the cost is due to the fact that the EPA drags out the process. These practical fixes will alleviate the undue hardship States are having to deal with and when we have to deal with the effects of these natural events. Secondly, the ORDEAL Act is an attempt to overhaul the EPA's unnecessary ozone standard reduction until 2018. When the EPA reduced permitted ozone standards in 2008, counties across the country that were in nonattainment were forced to enact expensive and complicated compliance plans. Relying on a dubious scientific basis, the EPA has proposed lowering the ozone emissions standards even further to 65 parts per billion, while accepting comments on lowering it to 60 parts per billion. By some estimates, this proposal to lower the ozone level may be the most expensive regulation in EPA history--and that is saying something-- costing as much as $1.7 trillion. Lowering ozone standards from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion will cost a whopping $140 billion annually. Yet EPA's own science advisers disagree on the very basis upon which this regulation is built. The ORDEAL Act will stop shaky facts and assumptions from being used as a basis for long-term public policy, and will give States the flexibility and the time to implement their own innovative and proactive measures. The bill would also extend air quality standards reviews, including ozone, to a 10-year timeline instead of the current 5 years. Third, Agency PAYGO. This administration has set its sights on reducing carbon emissions, most recently putting draconian regulations on existing powerplants, despite the inevitable job losses and spikes in energy costs. It has placed a mandate on Arizona to reduce 52 percent of its carbon emissions by 2030. This is unattainable, unless Arizonans are forced to greatly reduce their standard of living. The Agency PAYGO Act I am introducing would simply give the EPA a taste of its own medicine by requiring the Agency to offset the Federal cost of any greenhouse gas rules to an equivalent reduction in Agency spending. If the EPA proceeds without offsetting these costs from its own budget, the final greenhouse gas rule must be approved by Congress, simply saying if you cannot do this as an offset within your own budget, bring it to Congress and let's approve it. This bill specifically forbids the EPA from denying costs to Federal agencies by passing on costs to the Federal agency's ratepayers. If capital costs are imposed by a greenhouse gas rule, the EPA must offset those costs or get Congress's approval. The EPA has a history of implementing costly and stringent standards for negligible and even questionable benefit. All three of these bills--the CLEER Act, ORDEAL Act, and Agency PAYGO Act--provide more certainty than presently exists to States and counties and businesses that have to deal with the EPA and will hold the Agency accountable for its decisionmaking process. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, on a separate topic, I would like to urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 8, the joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the National Labor Relations Board's final rule regarding union representation election procedures. As we heard today, it is often called the ambush election rule. It gained its namesake because it shortens the time between when a union files a petition for an election and the holding of that election. As a cosponsor of this resolution and a signer of the discharge petition to bring it before us for consideration, I believe this rule needs to be stopped before it takes effect on April 14. According to NLRB data for the last 10 years, the median time before the union election was 38 days. This proposed rule could shorten that timeframe to as few as 11 days. The rule gives employers only 7 days to find legal counsel and appear before an NLRB regional office at a preelection hearing. Prior to that hearing, the employer must file a Statement of Position, which raises any and all legal challenges they may use later on. This is particularly burdensome for small businesses that typically don't have inhouse legal counsel. They have little time to get advice on what is permitted during this process. There are also privacy issues with this rule's requirement that employers must hand over employees' personal information--including cellphone numbers, personal email addresses, shift times, and locations--to unions. With more than 95 percent of these elections occurring in less than 2 months, it is hard to understand why this onerous ambush election rule is even necessary. Instead of burdening small businesses with complicated legal work and increased regulations, this administration and the NLRB should be focusing their efforts on increasing job growth and improving the economy. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democrats control the time between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and the majority control the time between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I am here to also talk about the DHS funding bill. I will say from the outset that I don't think the President did the right thing by taking this unilateral action. I think he has made it more difficult to pass immigration reform in this body. Having said that, to attempt to use the spending bill in order to try to poke a finger in the President's eye, in my view, is not a good move. I believe that rather than poke the President in the eye, we ought to put legislation on his desk, and we ought to use this time--we have already used up 2 weeks trying to attach measures to a funding bill when we could have used this time to move actual immigration legislation. Coming from the State of Arizona, we desperately need immigration reform. We desperately need to have more resources and better security on our border. We have needed that for a long time. We have had situations where part of the border gets better and then falls back. As soon as the economy ramps up again, we can expect a lot more flow across the border. We don't have sufficient border security in the State, and Arizonans pay the price in terms of the cost of health care, education, criminal justice. We bear the brunt of the Federal Government's failure to have a secure border and to provide for a secure border. We need to pass that kind of legislation. There has been a bill that has been introduced in the House and the Senate. I happen to be a cosponsor of the bill in the Senate which would help us to get a more secure border. That is one piece of legislation we could be moving right now so it could be put on the President's desk. Second, we all know we need better interior enforcement. We need to make sure employers who employ illegal aliens are not able to do so. We need to make sure employers have the tools to find out if those they are hiring are here legally. That has been needed for a long time. It has been provided in other pieces of legislation. We could do a bill just on interior enforcement. We could be doing that now rather than simply making a statement on a spending bill. We also need legislation to expand the guest worker plans and programs we have now. There has been legislation introduced in this body already to deal with high-tech workers. We need to make sure those who are educated in our universities and receive graduate degrees in the STEM fields are encouraged to stay. They ought to be encouraged to stay to help create jobs in this country rather than returning to their home country and competing against us. That has been needed, and that is recognized on a bipartisan basis. We could move legislation right now with regard to high-tech visas. We also need to expand other visa categories. We need an ag worker bill to make sure areas where we simply don't have enough labor to deal with the needs we have on our farms--we need to pass legislation to do that. Legislation has been introduced and could be moved through now. We could be doing that. We also obviously need to move legislation to deal with those who are here illegally now--the so-called DREAMers. They are here through no fault of their own. They were brought to this country when they were 2, 10 or 12 years, and they are now as American as you or I. They ought to be given a path where they can stay and have some kind of certainty moving ahead, but that needs to be done by Congress. It cannot simply be done by the President in Executive action. That kind of legislation could move here now as well. We obviously need to deal with legislation for the broader class of those here illegally. We dealt with it in S. 744, which was introduced and passed in the Senate in the last Congress. It provided a way for those who are here illegally to get right with the law and to deport those who are in a criminal class but also allow those who are here and want to adjust their status to find a way to do so and to be able to stay. Legislation such as that could move as well but instead we are spending weeks trying to make a statement on a spending bill. So I hope we will actually do what this Senate is prepared to do and is ready to do again, which is actually to legislate--to move legislation through the committee process to the floor and on to the President's desk. That is how we ought to respond to the action the President has taken. I hope we will do so. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to express sorrow--both mine and that of the people of Arizona--at the news that one of our own, Kayla Mueller of Prescott, has died at the hands of ISIL. Kayla's entire adult life--cut short at the tender age of 26--had been dedicated to the service of others and the ending of suffering. When she was taken hostage in 2013, Kayla was leaving a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria. She had been in the region working with Syrian refugees. Kayla once said that what inspired her work was that she found ``God in the suffering eyes reflected in mine. If this is how you are revealed to me, this is how I will forever seek you.'' Regardless of the exact circumstances surrounding Kayla's death, the fact remains that had ISIL militants not kidnapped this young woman, she would still be with us today. Her death can and should be laid squarely at their feet. It is yet another example of this group's mindless, alarming savagery. The best action Congress can now take is to authorize a mission against ISIL and to let our allies and our adversaries know we mean business and that we are united in our resolve. We should remember Kayla not for her death but for her life and for her devotion to the highest calling: dedication to the service of others. Our deepest, heartfelt condolences go out to Kayla's family and her loved ones in Prescott and elsewhere around the State and the country.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an Arizona original-- former Senator and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Senator Goldwater was no stranger to this Senate floor, having served five terms in this body and having been his party's Presidential nominee in 1964. By the end of his time here, Goldwater was an elder statesman and the go-to guy on national security, having chaired the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence and having reorganized the Pentagon structure with the Goldwater- Nichols Act. He was also respected for his unapologetic fiscal conservatism. Goldwater was probably best known for his staunch defense of personal liberty and for reviving and redefining what it means to be conservative. While he may have lost the election in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson, he laid the groundwork for the Republican Party's future and the eventual resurgence under Ronald Reagan. As columnist George Will once noted, it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964, and Goldwater won. For many of us, he was a role model. Before I came to Congress, I was honored to serve as the executive director of the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona organization that bears his name and his philosophy. Born before Arizona was even a State, Goldwater, as did so many great men, honed his passionate interests in the nonpolitical world around him. He was an avid, published photographer. In fact, Goldwater's estate contained some 15,000 photographs, many of them of Arizona landscapes and the people he loved so much. He also occasionally took his camera to social events, once even snapping President Kennedy at the White House. Kennedy inscribed the photo, ``For Barry Goldwater, whom I urge to follow the career for which he has shown such talent--photography.'' In addition to being a conservative warrior, Goldwater was an actual warrior, having flown supply missions over ``the hump'' in World War II and retiring as a major general in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He believed in peace through strength. Barry Goldwater was plainspoken. He was stubborn. He was patriotic. He was independent. In short, Goldwater embodied the very spirit of Arizona. Tomorrow--at long last--Barry Goldwater will be honored with a statue in the Capitol, representing his beloved Arizona. Goldwater may have once described himself as ``the most underdog underdog there is,'' but I can't think of a more deserving recipient nor of a more fitting representative of our State. Well done, Barry Goldwater. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office-- the CBO--released its budget and economic outlook showing the forecast through 2025. It should strike fear in the heart of anybody who is concerned about this country's financial future. The very short-term news is good. The deficit is projected to fall-- but only for another 2 years. In 2017 the deficit is projected to start rising again to $1.1 trillion in 10 years. That is the annual deficit. By 2025 the deficit will be 4 percent of our overall economy. Right now the country's debt in cumulative deficits over the years-- the cumulative debt--is $18 trillion. This year we will pay about $277 billion just servicing that debt. That amount might seem low, but it is because of artificially low interest rates. In 10 years we will pay about $827 billion a year just to service the debt. That is 3 percent of our economy just to pay interest on the debt. That is unsustainable. Don't take my word for it, though. You can take CBO's. They said: Such large and growing Federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of a financial crisis. I have been working on these issues--this issue in particular--for a long time, and I have to admit that sometimes it is tough to get people to focus on this topic. But we shouldn't be fooled and patting ourselves on the back just because we have done things such as getting rid of earmarks. That is a good thing, but it is certainly insufficient to address our spending. The culture in Washington is still the culture of runaway spending, not just in earmarks, as I said, not just in wasteful spending. For example, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will nearly double over the next decade alone. This is not a revenue problem that we are having. Projected revenues will exceed their 50-year historical average of 17 percent of GDP this year and will grow to over 18 percent of the economy in this decade. The culture of spending in Washington is something that defies logic, defies math and an honest assessment of who we are as a country. As a result, the United States is fast becoming a once-prosperous nation. We don't want that designation. It is truly a frightening distinction. Yet too few in Washington are motivated to get this country's fiscal house in order. One has to wonder how bad it is going to have to get to prod those who are not yet motivated. Some will argue that we need to take baby steps to address our fiscal crisis. I think we are well past that time, but whatever kinds of steps we take, we need to take them now. We need to turn this culture of spending in Washington to one that will fully repair our economy. That will give the private sector the stability and confidence to create jobs. We also need to reform our cumbersome Tax Code. Most of all, we need to relieve future generations of the burden of our financial mess. In short, it is well past time to start climbing our way out of this fiscal hole we are in. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe we do need more certainty, and the certainty ought to be that it is time for this tax credit--particularly the wind PTC--to expire. This was enacted 23 years ago as a temporary tax measure. There has been a lot of wind that has blown since that time, and we have a mature industry. In fact, the other day the President said we are No. 1 in the world in wind power. We ought to have more certainty, and the certainty that needs to be there is that the tax credit is going to end and that we stop picking winners and losers in the energy economy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 103.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in its 2012 annual report on opportunities to reduce duplication and achieve savings, the GAO noted that in 2011 there were 94 Federal initiatives to foster green buildings in the non- Federal sector. This report highlighted many initiatives that provided similar types of assistance, grants, technical assistance, tax credits, and so forth. This obviously doesn't sound like a recipe for proper oversight if this is still going on 5 years later. This amendment would help tackle the problem simply by requiring agencies to evaluate and eliminate duplicative green building programs consistent with GAO's recommendations. We ask GAO to study these things, and we often don't follow through and make sure the agencies follow up on the recommendations. This is simply ensuring that happens. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding, and I wish to thank her also for her hard work on this lands package. These are difficult pieces of legislation to put together. It is particularly living the West, when we have States such as Arizona that are about 87 percent publicly owned by either the Federal Government, State government or tribal governments. To have access and to have rural communities have access to economic development when we are dealing with resources that are often on these lands, and when land exchanges need to be done, it is extremely difficult to do that because it is often seen as a parochial interest, and it is difficult to get support from around the country for something that is needed in Arizona without putting a package together that has other items that are needed in other States, particularly in the West. So I wish to compliment the Senator from Alaska and others who worked so hard to put this complex package together that has many beneficiaries and also to put it together in a way where we are not contributing or increasing the size of the Federal or State, that we are promoting economic development in States such as Arizona. As the Senator mentioned with regard to Arizona and what this does, it allows land exchange to happen that will allow a copper mine to be developed that will ultimately produce, likely--or can produce--about 25 percent of the copper needed for manufacturing, for use in this country. That is not just an economic development issue; that is a national security issue as well, to make sure we are more independent with regard to our source minerals. In terms of economic development of the State, it is huge. We are talking about thousands of jobs over the next several decades that will be produced and will continue economic development for rural communities in Superior, Globe, and Miami, that have had a tough time and that will be good for those communities and for the entire State. So I commend again those who have put this together. It is never good to see a big package with so many things in it; that is what we want to get away from, and hopefully we can in the new Congress. But it has been very difficult to move individual pieces of legislation over the past couple of years. So unfortunately we are often saddled with trying to put together a package and attaching it to a larger bill, which is the case here. But again, kudos to those who worked so hard to put it together. I appreciate the indulgence of this body to have a package such as this in the NDAA bill. I plan to vote for it and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Fourteen years ago I entered the House of Representatives. I had been elected, but before I took office, I traveled to Washington, and Matt Salmon, the Congressman I was replacing, said: Is there anybody you want to meet? And I said: Tom Coburn. I had watched from afar what he had done on the Appropriations Committee and the stands he had taken, and I admired him. I went and visited with him in his office while he was packing up his stuff. I will never forget that. And I have to say that today I admire him even more than I did then, having watched him go back into the private sector and then enter the Senate. Columnist George Will said Tom Coburn was the most dangerous creature that could come into the Senate. Why? Because he is simply uninterested in being popular. I think that is certainly true. But if he didn't care about it, it happened anyway. I have news for Tom. As you can see around, he has become popular. But one thing he never managed to achieve, if he sought it, was becoming partisan. When you hear those across the aisle lavish praise on this man, realize that was never one of his goals and never happened, much to his credit. I thank you and your staff for your generosity over the years to me and my staff and for what you have done for this institution, for your colleagues, and for me personally. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss title 30 of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the title of which has become referred to as the lands package. As with most of the items Congress considers, this provision has generated some controversy. For my part, however, it appears that many of the concerns here are outpaced by the substance of good public lands policy being advanced here and the economic development opportunities it will generate. The bill the committees of jurisdiction included in the package all have some form of committee procedure in either the House or the Senate. Thirty-four of the measures have passed the House on suspension. Another nine have passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It is also worth noting that because the Federal Government owns so much land, particularly in the Western United States, Congress has to approve all sorts of transactions involving these public lands no matter how small the tracts might be. On the substance, I believe the bipartisan group who assembled this package of bills struck a pretty good balance, deferring to intrastate priorities that will promote responsible economic growth. In Arizona, for example, I was pleased to see the inclusion of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This is a bill sponsored by my colleague John McCain. I was happy to join him to advance the measure. It also shares bipartisan support in the House among Members of Arizona's House delegation: Representatives Gosar, Kirkpatrick, Franks, Salmon, and Schweikert. At its core, this bill will facilitate access to the largest copper ore deposit in North America. By some estimates the economic impact of the mine could exceed $60 billion over the course of the mine operations. It will support approximately 3,700 direct and indirect jobs annually. It is also worth noting that copper is a critical component in most technologies, from weapon systems, to computers, to automobiles, to turbines that generate electricity, to name a few. This mine would supply an amount of copper roughly equivalent to 25 percent of the U.S. demand. Also notable is what this bill does in terms of conservation. It would preserve more than 5,300 acres of conservation land in Arizona. Despite the broad benefits for economic development and conservation as well as the bill's bipartisan support, there has been some opposition. We have done our best to include some provisions that address those concerns. For instance, the land exchange would not occur until after the completion of a NEPA environmental impact statement. It will also generate a special management area around the large escarpment known as Apache Leap. Likewise, it will provide protections for Native Americans to continue traditional gathering and ceremonies after the land exchange has been completed so long as it remains safe to do so. I would also note that Resolution Copper has proactively sought ways to address its anticipated water needs. To that end, I was encouraged to learn that the company has entered into a contract with the Gila River Indian Community to use a portion of the tribe's water supplies to meet the long-term needs of the mine. This is further evidence of how the measure, even before it is passed, can help foster economic opportunities for Indian and non-Indian communities around the State. I would also like to take a moment to talk about a couple of the other positive provisions in the lands package. From a resource management perspective, it would support further economic activity on Federal lands by conveying approximately 110,000 acres of land out of the Federal estate. This includes not only the aforementioned Resolution Copper project but also a Copper mine in Nevada, timber harvests in Alaska, and coal production in Montana. The lands package also includes a provision that would streamline the permitting process for oil and gas leases. This is critical. We have seen the pace of oil and gas production on Federal lands decline in recent years while development on private lands has increased significantly. This measure also improves the permitting process for grazing and makes a downpayment on so-called payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT. This is critical in helping communities that are burdened with tracts of Federal land to meet the obligations of providing services related to those lands without a corresponding tax base. This applies to a lot of the land in rural Arizona. Although reasonable people can disagree, I believe this is a good measure for the State of Arizona and the United States as a whole. I am pleased to see that it will advance as part of this package. I know the lands package was difficult to negotiate. They always are. It has achieved strong bipartisan support. I think it does strike the right balance between deference to intrastate concerns and Federal lands decisions. I urge support of the legislation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise to speak against the bill before us, S.J. Res. 19. This is a constitutional amendment that would significantly curtail the free speech rights of all Americans. I oppose this amendment because I believe that while it is critical to support speech with which we agree, it is even more crucial to support speech with which we disagree. Whether it has been campaign finance laws or amendments to prohibit flag burning, I have consistently opposed amending the Constitution to limit the First Amendment. As others have mentioned, if this amendment is adopted, it would be the first time Congress has limited rights protected in the Bill of Rights. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set. By limiting the amount of money individuals and corporations can spend on elections, this amendment would clearly limit their rights under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made clear that this would be tantamount to a restriction on ``the number of issues discussed, the depths of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.'' This amendment would allow us to decide what amount of money is speech and who can use it. This is a perilous amount of power to place in the hands of politicians. I don't think we need to protect incumbent politicians. I think we need to protect the rights under the First Amendment. In addition to concerns with what we know this amendment will do, I am even more concerned about what we don't know. Before we amend the Constitution, we are obligated to understand the effects of the legislation. What does it mean to ``influence elections,'' as the bill states? Who is a ``candidate''? What is the ``press''? Does this include bloggers? What about a citizen who writes his or her own newsletter to their community association and prints it on her home printer? All of these terms and more seem ripe for litigation, which leaves the true meaning of this amendment in the hands of unelected judges. It also bears mentioning that opposition to this amendment is not limited to Republicans or conservative organizations. The ACLU wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, opposing this legislation. The ACLU stated: ``As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would fundamentally break the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.'' I could not agree more. Amending the Constitution is serious business. I believe limiting the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history is a bad decision. I will once again vote to preserve and protect the First Amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same by rejecting S.J. Res. 19. As an incumbent politician, I am the first to concede that elections are daunting. They are unpredictable. It is unnerving to see other groups and individuals spend money to run ads against you. But the alternative is to have me, as an incumbent politician, write rules and regulations to limit the speech of those who would run against me or support those who would run against me. That is wrong. It is wrong for people in this body to define speech and to define who is entitled to it. We need to tread carefully. That is why we need to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to speak on S. 1799, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2013, which recently passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting the President's signature. In addition to the bill's support for Child Advocacy Centers, it contains an important provision that bears mentioning. S. 1799 makes Congress' intent clear that money from the Crime Victims Fund should only be used to assist victims of crime. Since the funds for the Crime Victims Fund are derived from fines collected from those convicted of Federal crimes rather than tax revenue, Congress directed the funds to only be used for crime victims. I offered the provision clarifying this intent as an amendment to the Justice For All Act, and it was accepted unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am pleased the sponsors of S. 1799 agreed to include it at my request. Crime victims can face a confusing and sometimes overwhelming system, and so it is important for someone to explain their rights and address other victim-centered issues. Encumbering victim advocates with other non-victim-related tasks could delay or prevent the resources needed to meet victims' needs such as assisting victims with impact statements and collecting restitution information and associated receipts. It could also delay or prevent ongoing safety assessments for the victim. Victim specialists, also referred to as victim advocates, along with their supervisors, victim witness coordinators, should be improving services for the benefit of crime victims and not tasked with other duties, such as arranging travel for witnesses. My amendment makes clear it is Congress' intent that the funds authorized for victims services are limited to those dedicated to victims services and their direct support staff. This will ensure that that none of the funds available is used for purposes that do not benefit crime victims.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I will be brief in support of the amendment by the Senator from Utah to devolve highway trust fund spending to the States. I want to correct something that was said earlier. It was said that all money would be devolved to the States and it would be up to the States to maintain the Interstate Highway System. That is not the case. This amendment is similar to many that have been submitted over the years, myself included. I have submitted some in the House to do this very thing. I think we can all agree that the highway trust fund is in need of a major overall. Since 2008, we have taken, I think, $53 billion from the general fund to replenish the highway trust fund because cars have better gas mileage, and when we have recessions, less driving is done and less money goes into the trust fund, and we are trying to make that up now. In the future, it simply is not going to meet the need out there. So we have got to do something to make sure we get more bang for the buck for highway spending. One way to do that is to allow States greater flexibility to use these moneys and give the States those responsibilities as well. When you do that, you can increase the bang for the buck. When you look at what a lot of the money is now spent on--the Federal money--instead of putting it toward highways, it is diverted to mass transit, bike paths, ferry boats, streetscaping, and countless other projects that are, at best, very local in nature and, at worst, very wasteful. The States generally have a better idea of what their needs are and are better stewards of taxpayer money in that respect. I have been told that if you build two bridges--if a State has two bridges to be built, they are next to each other across the same river and about the same location, if you build one with Federal funds and one with State funds, the one with Federal funds will cost you about 20 percent more, when you take into account the Davis-Bacon requirements and other mandates and lengthy approval processes. So States simply get a lot more bang for the buck. If we want highway dollars to go farther, we ought to do this. In an issue brief by Common Good, it states, ``The environmental review process has grown onerous and expensive, adding years to the length of infrastructure projects without improving environmental outcomes.'' That is another thing that Federal laws require oftentimes is lengthy environmental reviews. We can correct a lot of this by devolving some of these responsibilities to the States. I think the Lee amendment goes a long way toward doing that. I want to say that I appreciate some of the amendments that are being brought forward today. Some of them are a lot less gimmicky than we are used to dealing with on the highway trust fund. But the Lee amendment is one that actually deals with the highway trust fund long term and offers a long-term solution to the problem of not enough money in the fund and misplaced priorities with some of the spending. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment 3551, which is at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer this amendment. I thank my colleagues, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, and the senior Senator from New York for working with my office to make this possible. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act before us extends for 7 years the Federal loss sharing program developed in response to the market destructions that were caused by 9/11. Created in 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program was intended to be just a 3-year program. This program has since been extended twice, and the bill before us would extend its life through December 31, 2021. Given the longevity of the program, I think it would be prudent for us to focus some attention on the growing private market reinsurance capability and capacity. My amendment simply establishes an advisory committee composed of members of the insurance industry to provide recommendations to accelerate the creation and development of private nongovernmental risk-sharing mechanisms for terrorism losses. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this modest step toward developing a functioning private-run market for terrorism risk insurance, thereby reducing dependency on the Federal Government in this regard. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. 59/b