Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator. I have just one other point. The second amendment, as I mentioned-- and the Senator mentioned that this 2-year extension leads to another 10 years in subsidies. Depending on when they actually start production, it could be another 20 years. So it really distorts our budget process, our appropriations and authorizations and everything else, for a longer period of time than it should. I thank the Senator for his work and look forward to hopefully seeing these amendments debated. I yield the floor, unless the Senator has any closing remarks.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I understand there are 75 amendments filed at the desk to this bill. Some of them are mine. Twenty-four of them have been filed by Democratic Senators who hope to offer them to this bill. We keep hearing about amendments that are being allowed. These are amendments or amendment language which has been drafted into a manager's amendment to the bill, not to be offered on the floor. I should note that the vote on the Keystone Pipeline is one of those amendments that could be offered to the bill if there was agreement to move ahead. So I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent be modified so that all filed amendments to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, be in order for floor consideration of this bill.

Mr. FLAKE. I object.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the notion that Republicans are trying to repeal the Clean Air Act--if somebody were offering an amendment to that, then it would simply be defeated on this floor. Let the amendments be offered. That is what the Senate is all about. This is a place of unlimited debate and usually unlimited amendments. But we are told now they can only agree to amendments the majority leader agrees should be offered. That is not right. That is not the Senate. Let's go ahead and allow the amendments to be offered. If the amendments are wild-eyed and out there, they will surely be defeated. But let's debate the bill. Let's actually have an opportunity to amend the bill with amendments of our own choosing, not somebody else's choosing. That is what this debate is about. Production Tax Credit Mr. President, last month the Senate Finance Committee considered legislation to extend a number of expired tax provisions. We have become so accustomed to extending various tax credits and deductions on a year-by-year basis, we have given this bill the name ``tax extenders'' when it comes up every year. Unfortunately, these short-term fixes passed by Congress fail to give any certainty to taxpayers in the future, other than the fact that the government continues to give preferential treatment to certain chosen industries. Now, rather than blindly extend these provisions, what we ought to do is eliminate these wasteful extenders which are really just subsidies. These benefit just a few. Those that are necessary for the economy let's extend permanently so we don't go through this exercise year after year. But today I will discuss for a minute one extender that is ripe for elimination--the Production Tax Credit, otherwise known as the PTC. In 1992, the PTC was temporarily established to promote development of renewable energy--electricity, particularly. This was for the then- fledgling wind power industry. Congress gave energy producers a lengthy 7-year window to take advantage of and prepare for the eventual expiration of this tax credit in 1999. But as we know, here in Washington, very few of these programs are temporary. So here we are 15 years later, and the PTC is still hanging around. Since its inception, this credit has been extended eight times. Having expired on January 1 of this year, there is now another effort afoot to resurrect what can only be described as a zombie credit. Do we really need a ninth extension? Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to decide, if this government's policy is worth it, to simply permanently renew? Yet we go through this exercise year after year. Last month there was a glimmer of hope that common sense would prevail. The tax extender package put forward by Senator Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch excluded the PTC--allowing the credit to finally expire so it wouldn't have been part of this package. However, it didn't take long for those who benefit from this government subsidy to activate the rallying cry. A few short days later, the PTC was back in the package to provide the wind industry 2 additional years, until the end of 2015, to start construction on projects that would be eligible for the subsidy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this short extension would cost more than $13 billion over the next 10 years. But this isn't a true cost. Wind producers get to claim the credit for 10 years, beginning on the date of first production, as opposed to the start of construction. In reality, the Federal Government's financial commitment extends well beyond the 10-year period considered in the JTC's initial estimate. The government will still likely be passing out these credits in 2027 and beyond. That is a long commitment for a technology that former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said was mature in 2009. In fact, he projected that wind would be cost competitive with other forms of energy without subsidies by the end of this decade. Wind power generation is no longer an infant industry. It is no longer in need of Federal support. By the end of last year, more than 61,000 megawatts of wind power capacity had been installed around the U.S., which is 15 times the amount that existed in 2001. In 2012, wind power was the top source of new generating capacity, beating out additional capacity from natural gas. The PTC is, in fact, so generous that at times it is more valuable than the wholesale price of electricity. That is a whopper of a subsidy. According to the Congressional Research Service, as a result of government subsidies, there are times when wind producers actually pay the market to take their power. Recently, some of my colleagues who support this tax credit have pointed to the growing share of wind power generation in the U.S. and more than 550 wind-related manufacturing facilities around the country which will supply tens of thousands of jobs. Rather than depicting an infant industry, these advances describe an industry that should be ready to stand on its own two feet. We all know the U.S. has a $17.5 trillion debt. All subsidies like this need to be eliminated. The production tax credit distorts the market by having the government favor one source of energy over another. An ideal energy market is one largely absent of the government's convoluted tax policies. Simply put, no industry's success should be predicated on congressional action. Instead of extending an energy subsidy that picks winners and losers and creates market inefficiencies, Congress should eliminate the PTC and support an energy policy that encourages entrepreneurs to satisfy demand by providing consumers with alternative sources of energy. This law has run its course. The PTC should meet its long overdue end. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. It is. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Quorum Call

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, we heard news a week or so ago that the U.S. Government, through the Agency for International Development, was conducting a program in Cuba titled ZunZuneo. It was an attempt to set up a kind of alternative twitter account, and the intent was certainly noble--to increase access of ordinary Cubans to information that would help and assist them. I have no issue with programs such as this. I think overall they are good. The more we can have people have Internet access and meaningful content is good, but I and many others do have an issue with the Agency for International Development--USAID--undertaking this program. USAID's mission is to help with humanitarian needs and to promote democratic development around the world. It need not, should not, engage in covert--or in their case they are saying it wasn't covert, they are calling it discreet. Either way, it casts suspicion on other activities that USAID is undertaking around the world. USAID is in some very tough places around the world--delivering supplies into South Sudan, for example. We work with the people in Syria--not within the country but just outside the country. We work in many dangerous parts of the world, and the last thing we need is suspicion cast on USAID where people think it is an arm of the CIA. It just shouldn't be done. I think USAID does great work around the world and shouldn't involve itself with work of this type. With regard to Cuba itself, as I said, I think our goal should be to make sure that Cubans are better informed, that we have increased contact, and that we have more American influence there. That could be most easily forwarded by simply allowing Americans to travel to Cuba. It is the only country in the world where we have a policy that you have to get a specific license--where only certain classes of people are allowed to go there. That simply makes no sense at all. If our goal is to make sure that Cuban people are aware of what is going on in the world, that they get real information outside of the government sources--the government in Cuba denies Cuban people the ability to get good, meaningful information--we ought to be all about making sure they have access to that, but the best way to do that is simply allowing Americans to travel there. We do that with other repressive regimes around the world. It has been said--I think Freedom House has Iran as the only government that is more restrictive, more authoritarian, and more repressive than the Cuban regime. Yet we allow Americans to travel to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian Government may restrict who may come in--as will the Cuban Government, I am sure, once we lift our travel ban there. But that ought to be their province. I have often said if someone is going to limit my travel, it should be a Communist government, not my government. As we review this program and as we talk about it in the coming weeks--we had a hearing this morning with the head of USAID testifying about it--I hope we simply keep in mind the best way to help the Cuban people to have access to information and to have contact with Americans, to be subject to American influence, freedom, and economic opportunity, is to allow Americans to travel freely there. That would do more than any program we could install, any program administered by USAID, the State Department, the CIA or anybody else--just allow Americans to travel to Cuba.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment No. 2935.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is unfortunate that we are not allowing amendments to be offered here for extending unemployment benefits. The least we ought to do is make it easier to find a job. Unfortunately, there is no room in the legislation to do that. I would like to talk about one area where we could offer some help and relief. Hearing some of the discussion over the past few minutes in this Chamber, it seems that this Chamber has become an echo chamber for happy talk about the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, for those who talk about figures--enrollment figures and whatever--we seem to forget about the number of people who had their health care canceled, who may have been able to pick up new coverage under the Affordable Care Act, but it is hardly--hardly--affordable. In fact, in most cases the cost has gone up significantly. So I am here today to join a number of my colleagues who are seeking to offer amendments to this legislation, to make it easier for those who don't have jobs and who cannot easily access jobs. As we all know, the ACA or Affordable Care Act placed requirements on what new plans are mandated to cover, including coverage of things--I think they named 10 essential health care benefits, essential being used loosely--like pediatric dentistry, maternity care, mental health. We have all heard stories of those squeezed by the ACA's new mandates and regulations. For many, if it isn't higher premiums, it is higher deductibles, increased copays or even greater out-of-pocket costs. That is the case for most but not all. I think all of us should freely acknowledge that some people have been able to buy more affordable care, but I think those examples are overshadowed completely by those who are facing higher costs. The Wall Street Journal noted in a March 22 article--they cited an eHealth report--that the average premium for an individual health plan that meets ACA requirements was $274 a month, up 39 percent from last year, before the ACA provisions took effect. The same article reported that family plans averaged $663 a month, a 56 percent increase from last year. These facts have real world implications and have a bearing on both a family's financial realities as well as their employment. For instance, I previously referenced a case of Leanne from Eager, AZ. Her family is facing what she calls ``sky-high'' rates now. This is thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If that isn't bad enough, it looks as if she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents' business. In January I introduced the ReLIEF Act as a response to the administration's announcement that those facing health cancellations due to the ACA will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage. The relief act would allow health insurance providers to provide catastrophic coverage to everyone and would deem these plans as meeting the minimal essential coverage requirement. The bottom line is, if we are going to delay benefits, delay mandates on the Affordable Care Act or delay implementation of certain parts of the Affordable Care Act for some, we ought to do it for everyone. I get a real kick out of hearing everybody reference the happy talk about the Affordable Care Act, but the reality is that much of it has been delayed or postponed or changed. If there are no problems with it, why do we keep doing that? If we are doing that for some, why don't we delay the mandates for everyone or allow others to buy more affordable coverage by giving some relief on these mandates? This ReLIEF Act that I have introduced will allow health providers to offer catastrophic plans that may cost a lot less, that families used to be able to access and simply no longer can because too few insurance companies will offer them because at a certain point they will have to offer compliant plans that are much more expensive. My goal is to provide affordable insurance options and to give individuals who don't need or don't want more extensive coverage options to purchase these plans. I applied the relief act to this bill as an amendment. I hope to bring that up. That was the purpose of the unanimous consent request that was just rejected. Unfortunately, it appears that very few, if any, amendments will be allowed to this legislation. I think that is unfortunate. If we are concerned about the unemployed, as I know we all are, then we ought to at least offer them alternatives, offer them ways to more easily find employment to give them some more relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I rise to discuss the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. I attended Mr. Adegbile's hearing in the Judiciary Committee and submitted additional written questions after the hearing. Unfortunately, after hearing testimony and reviewing his responses to questions, I remain concerned with Mr. Adegbile's ability to set aside more than a decade of advocacy on behalf of this and other liberal causes to serve as a neutral enforcer of our Nation's civil rights laws. And it appears I am not the only person who has reached this conclusion. His nomination is opposed by numerous law enforcement officers, including those represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the New Jersey State Policeman's Benevolent Association, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association. This widespread opposition is clearly not driven by partisanship but by a heartfelt concern that this nominee is not suited for the position. I have no doubt Mr. Adegbile is an intelligent and hardworking lawyer with a commendable record of advocacy, but that does not mean he should head the Civil Rights Division. One of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is to handle civil rights violations by law enforcement officers from across the country. However, serious questions have been raised about Mr. Adegbile's ability to apply the law fairly in these cases, given his advocacy on behalf of a convicted cop killer. As the Fraternal Order of Police stated in its letter of opposition, in the decades Mr. Adegbile pushed this effort, he ``falsely disparaged and savaged the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer'' in order to further his case. The National Narcotics Association shares this analysis of Mr. Adegbile's advocacy, noting that he: . . . fabricated a baseless and unproven defense while also defaming the victim, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, which raises serious questions about the nominee's judgment, especially considering the important position to which he has been nominated. There is no doubt as to Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt. Afterward, he bragged about shooting Daniel Faulkner, and four witnesses saw the shooting. After being convicted and sentenced, Mumia's lawyers filed dozens of appeals on his behalf, which would suggest he had more than adequate legal representation. However, almost 28 years after his conviction, Mr. Adegbile decided to volunteer his time to assist Mumia. In a series of appeals and press events, Mr. Adegbile's organization called into question the motivations of the law enforcement officers responsible for Mumia's conviction and distorted the record, calling his conviction and sentence a ``relic of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.'' As the Philadelphia district attorney's opposition letter states, Mr. Adegbile's work on this case ``sends a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day to maintain the peace.'' The district attorney concluded that Mr. Adegbile ``is ill-suited for a pivotal role in the Justice Department.'' The appalling facts of this case are well known. In fact, in 2006, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the history of this case and recognizing the culpability of Mumia by a vote of 368 to 31. There are others, such as myself, now serving in this Chamber who voted in favor of that resolution. It is deeply troubling that we are faced with voting on this nominee now, after Senate rules have been broken and the minority has no say in executive or judicial nominations. Requiring the support of at least some minority Senators discourages both the nomination and appointment of fringe or problematic nominees, something which benefits the country as a whole. Those rules ensure the Senate was the cooling saucer that George Washington and the other Founders intended. They also ensured heads of executive agencies were responsive to both the majority and minority parties. That is no longer the case. I do not think we would be moving forward on such a divisive nominee--one who elicits widespread opposition from across the political spectrum--if the majority had not employed the nuclear option last November. I hope we don't move forward with this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to this nomination moving ahead. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. If I could, I want to respond to a few of the Senator's items. The Senator is correct, it falls under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. That is part of the reason why I bring this forward. The Finance Committee is undergoing an investigation that is not yet complete, so I think it would be prudent to forestall the implementation of new rules by the IRS while the Finance Committee investigation is ongoing. I think we all agree we shouldn't move forward on imprecise or incomplete information. That is why we are simply saying we are not proposing a rule, we are saying simply delay the new rule until investigations can be completed. Also, with regard to the issue of fairness, I should note that this applies to 501(c)(4) organizations, nonprofit organizations. There are other organizations that are also nonprofit but are not included in this proposed rulemaking--for example, labor unions. They offer, under a nonprofit status as well, a 501(c)(5). They are not included here. The Senator correctly says we should be concerned about fairness for all groups that are under this kind of nonprofit umbrella. That is concerning to a lot of people as well, because those organized under 501(c)(4) status are targeted here when those organized under (c)(5) status are not, when they have some of the same restrictions on what they can do. So we would be imposing new rulemaking and new rules on some organizations and not others. That is one concern and another reason to forestall new rulemaking until we have more complete information about what is going on at the IRS. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I certainly echo his comments. I do rise today to urge the Senate to pass legislation to prevent the IRS from trampling on free speech rights, particularly those of 501(c)(4) organizations. The Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act--it is a mouthful, I know--is sponsored by Senator Roberts from Kansas and myself. It would prohibit for 1 year the finalization of a proposed IRS regulation that would specifically limit the advocacy and educational activities of these groups. This bill would also prevent additional targeting of 501(c)(4) organizations by restoring the IRS standards and definitions that were in place before the agency started targeting conservative groups back in 2010. Last spring we learned that the IRS was targeting conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, thanks to a report by the agency's inspector general. Since this discovery several IRS employees, including the Acting Commissioner, have resigned. Investigations by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Department of Justice are ongoing. Nevertheless, on November 29 the IRS published a proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations, limit their speech, and curtail their civic participation. This rule singles out the same groups that were previously targeted by the IRS and threatens to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and educational activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives. These activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare, which is the precise purpose for which 501(c)(4) organizations are structured. Unfortunately, this proposed rule would suppress these organizations' voices by forcing them to quit these activities or be shut down. While this administration may be focused on quieting its conservative critics, even liberal groups have denounced the rule and called attention to the detrimental impact on free speech by organizations of all ideologies. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this rule ``will produce the same structural issues at the IRS that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for undue scrutiny.'' In response to the Obama administration's claim that these tax groups have become confusing in the aftermath of a Citizens United decision, Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign has commented that 501(c)(4) organizations ``weren't invented in the last election cycle; they've been around for generations. Their purpose isn't to hide donors, it's to advance policies.'' Even the Sierra Club has hammered the IRS rule. As of this morning, I believe it is at least 94,000 comments the minority leader mentioned, and it may be north of 100,000 now, on the proposed rule have been submitted. This marks the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rulemaking. Let me repeat that. This is the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rulemaking. As I said before, to put it in perspective, the Keystone Pipeline proposed rule we have heard so much about has registered just over 7,000 comments. That is compared to somewhere near 100,000 comments here. Clearly the public sees through this administration's veiled attempt to quash free speech and to shut down opposition to its priorities. Yesterday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this same legislation, identical legislation in the House, by a vote of 243- 176. Already, this legislation in the Senate has 40 Senate cosponsors. It clearly deserves the consideration and support of the full Senate. However, this legislation has not been permitted to come up for debate in the full Senate. Earlier today Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to oppose it, stalling further consideration. I suppose the veto threat issued by the President may have had something to do with that. This veto threat is unfortunate. It is clearly a disproportionate response to legislation aimed at protecting free speech rights of conservatives and liberals alike. This bill is simple. It only suspends new IRS rulemaking related to 501(c)(4)s until the ongoing investigations are completed. It simply suspends for 1 year. That is prudent and necessary. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of free speech rights by these groups by approving this legislation to prevent the finalization of the IRS's rule or any other that seeks to continue to target groups based on ideology. Madam President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2011, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. FLAKE. That is. In fact, to give some kind of scale here, the Keystone Pipeline, which has been extremely controversial for months and months, has generated about 7,000 comments--7,000 comments for an issue such as that. This has generated north of 100,000.

Mr. FLAKE. That is correct. Many of the organizations that have sounded alarm bells here are organizations such as the ACLU, the Sierra Club, and others, social welfare organizations that advocate for policy as well, that are concerned that this goes too far.

Mr. FLAKE. I would certainly agree. If the IRS wants to establish or re-establish credibility that has been lost, then the Commissioner should say to the White House: I will act independently here. To go forward with this rule, after what has gone on, would simply be going in the other direction and would be seen--and I think justifiably so--to be working hand in glove with the White House to stifle free speech.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I would like to speak about an issue, but first I would like to yield to the minority leader.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today to talk for a short period of time about the magnitude of our budget, debt, and deficit. Against the backdrop of a debt ceiling increase, Members of both parties are going to today, likely, repeal one of the deficit reduction measures included in the bipartisan budget agreement that was approved less than 2 months ago. How do we convey to the Nation the seriousness about solving the debt crisis when at the first sign of political pressure we repeal one of the deficit reduction measures? As we all know, the Ryan-Murray budget deal included modest reductions in some spending programs over the next 10 years in order to increase discretionary spending caps in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. I voted against this agreement because I thought the spending cuts did not go far enough. I do not think we are treating our debt and deficit seriously enough. Second, I have been down that road of trading spending increases today for spending cuts later many times. It does not work. We have seen that play before. We know how it ends. Year after year Members of Congress simply refuse to stick to the budget discipline we said we would stick to. Exhibit 1 is before us today. The Congress is about to undo--in fact, repeal--one of those provisions, as I mentioned. It is important to note that the cost-of-living adjustment that will be repealed--or the reform that will be repealed was a cost-of-living adjustment--a COLA--for military retirees resulting in less than a 1- percent reduction for working-age military retirees. That is 1 percent. It stopped far short of the elimination of COLA requirements for retirees under the age of 62 that the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended. Certainly our veterans deserve the utmost respect and generous retirement pay. However, it has been reported that regardless of age, members of our armed services could easily, in some instances, receive retirement and health benefits for 40 years or more. Some of my colleagues have suggested that failing to support measures to repeal the COLA reduction is tantamount to turning our backs on veterans. This is untrue. This is a mischaracterization of the issue at hand. I think we all know that. The U.S. military is at a crossroads. Fast-growing retirement pay and health benefits are threatening to displace investments in the readiness of our Armed Forces. I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at the fiscal mess we face before we vote to roll back one of the few deficit reduction measures the President and Congress have agreed to. Our fiscal situation is serious. We cannot ignore that forever. This problem will continue to get worse. Yes, we ought to be reforming entitlement programs so they will be around for future beneficiaries, veterans and others, but for goodness' sake, when deficit reduction measures get signed into law, surely at some point we need to stand by them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Utah and his recitation of the chronology and how this happened. These regulations are supposedly in response to the scandal that came up, although the President is not calling it a scandal. He says there is not any evidence there was any wrongdoing. But these plans were actually being developed a couple years ago--long before we knew the IRS was targeting conservative organizations. So the notion this is in response to what just occurred is wrong. What is equally troubling--or more troubling--as the Senator from Utah noted, these plans were described, in an internal memo, as ``offplan,'' around the process--that were hidden. So that is what we are asking for in this legislation. Let's not do any rulemaking until the results of the investigations that are going on come back to us. That is a prudent thing to do, and I hope we will follow through. I now yield to the minority whip, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from Texas and my other colleagues who have participated in this colloquy. I hope we can speedily bring the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act to the floor. When the Senator from Texas talks about his constituents and what they endured at the hands of the IRS, how anybody can say there is nothing amiss there or there is nothing wrong, especially when somebody is asked, upon application for a 501(c)(4), to give up their Facebook posts and tweets and let the IRS review them to see if they are worthy of receiving such status, there is something wrong. I think Americans know that. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this legislation and I appreciate the Senator from Kansas, my partner in this effort. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.