Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act, I rise today to honor my esteemed colleague and friend Senator John McCain. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for the past 32 years and as chairman for the past 4, Senator McCain has worked tirelessly to steer this essential legislation through the U.S. Senate. Under Senator McCain's leadership, the NDAA has authorized pay raises for troops, invested in modern equipment and advanced training, has helped to restore military readiness, and provided America's allies the support needed for security missions around the globe. We all know Senator McCain has been a fixture in the Senate during every NDAA debate. Wagging his finger and raising his voice, he mustered the rest of us to support and defend our troops. He made it a priority to reduce wasteful spending and crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. Year after year under Senator McCain's leadership, the Senate Armed Services Committee has identified billions of dollars in unnecessary spending in the Department of Defense, and because of his efforts, we have reinvested savings in providing critical military capabilities for warfighters, meeting the unfunded priorities of our service chiefs and our combatant commanders, and supporting critical national security priorities. The fact that Congress has approved the NDAA legislation every year that he has been involved in this process speaks to his ability to unite his colleagues around what matters most. While Senator McCain is missed here--his physical presence is missed--his influence and legacy will remain for years to come in this body and, certainly, with this important legislation. Nominations of Susan Brnovich and Dominic Lanza Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a nominee who was reported to the floor last week, Susan Brnovich. Judge Brnovich has been nominated to be a district judge for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, a seat that badly needs to be filled. Judge Brnovich is absolutely the right person to fill this seat. She has spent her entire legal career representing the people of Arizona and Maricopa County, and for that, I thank her. Upon confirmation, Judge Brnovich will join the district court bench in Phoenix alongside another highly qualified Arizona nominee, Dominic Lanza, whom the Judiciary Committee reported to the floor in April. Mr. Lanza will fill another seat on the Arizona district court that has remained vacant for far too long. He, too, is the right person for the job. Just 2 weeks before the committee considered Mr. Lanza's nomination, he and his colleagues at the U.S. attorney's office coordinated with Federal and local law enforcement in Phoenix to raid the homes of backpage.com's owners. They seized the backpage.com website and indicted those responsible for trafficking young girls online through the company's website. Thanks to Mr. Lanza's efforts, among others, backpage.com is no longer operational, which means the largest online human trafficking scheme in the country has been shut down. Unfortunately, after being reported favorably to the floor 2 months ago, Mr. Lanza's nomination has stalled on the Senate floor. I see no reason that a man who helped shut down backpage should be languishing on the floor for what should be a unanimous vote. I see no reason that my friend, Judge Brnovich, who has dedicated her career to representing her fellow Arizonans, should face the same fate. I urge my colleagues to promptly confirm these two eminently qualified individuals and allow them to take their seats on the Federal bench. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the events of last week--the baffling, inexplicable attacks on our closest allies by the administration one day and the appalling praise for perhaps the most brutal dictator on Earth the next--are not normal. This behavior is not normal. These upside-down values are not normal. These actions mistake disruption for dynamism. They are empty bravado for bold displays of leadership. These actions are not serious or sober. They represent the opposite of statecraft, and the implications of such thoughtlessness for America, her allies, and the world could be lasting and grave. In many ways, the President is a steward of America's foreign policy--shaping it during their time, yes, but also understanding it is based on relationships and norms that have existed since long before they took office and will continue to exist long after they exit the political stage. Over the past several months, I have spoken of our abandonment of the international rules-based order that we took the lead in establishing. I have spoken of the profound implications of this abandonment, what it means to our economy, to national security, and to our relations throughout the world. This administration's dangerous dance with protectionism and its unwarranted besmirching of our allies, such as Canada, are illustrative of precisely the kind of harmful implications I feared would become reality. This is not a matter of one instance of a poor word choice or a single moment of absentmindedness; this attitude of contempt for those nations that share our values and respect for those who do not has been a common thread throughout the administration's actions over the past 18 months. It is disturbing when the American President and his administration are going on about the ``great personality'' of the murderous dictator, Kim Jong Un, or how Kim ``loves his country very much,'' while at the same time calling the Canadian Prime Minister ``obnoxious, weak, and dishonest'' for merely pushing back on imposed tariffs or declaring that the European Union is ``solidly against'' the United States when it comes to trade policy. Consistently ridiculing our allies by suggesting they are somehow abusing us, while voicing admiration for despots and dictators, represents a fundamental departure in behavior for American administrations. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of our relationship with our allies. It is understandable that we will have disagreements with our allies, but that does not justify upending the international framework and foreign relations painstakingly constructed and cultivated by previous generations of leaders. Issues we have with allies ought to be addressed through constructive dialogue, not bellicose taunts or bombastic tweets. Such behavior is beneath the Presidency, and it is destructive to the position of global leadership this Nation holds. It projects to the world not American values but some sort of creep nihilism. I am astonished to use that word, ``nihilism,'' to describe the actions of any administration, of any party--much less my own--but it is our obligation to call what is happening by its name. When we read this week in The Atlantic, quoting a senior White House official as saying that the ultimate goal of the administration is to destroy the international order so America will, as a matter of policy, have ``No Friends, No Enemies,'' then ``nihilism'' is the only word for it. If I may echo the sentiments of our absent colleague Senator McCain, I would like to make clear to our allies from the Senate floor that a bipartisan majority of Americans stand with you. We stand in favor of the principles of free trade, which have brought about unprecedented prosperity around the world. We stand in favor of preserving alliances based on 70 years of shared values, which have helped secure equally unprecedented peace and comity among nations. As Senator McCain plainly stated, ``Americans stand with you.'' Attacking our friends is not who we are as a nation. It is not responsible diplomacy. It is not helpful to our goals as a nation, and it cannot become the norm, but I fear it is becoming the norm, and that is devastating and it is a reality we must face in this Chamber. We continue to act here as if all is normal, as if all parties are observing norms, even as the executive branch shatters them, robustly trafficking in conspiracy theories and attacking all institutions that don't pay the President obeisance--our justice system, the free press. The list is getting longer. This institution--the article I branch of our government--is not an accessory to the executive branch, and we demean ourselves and our proper constitutional role when we act like we work for the President and that we are only here to do his bidding, especially now. With the time I have left in this Chamber, I will continue to speak out, and I invite my colleagues who are disturbed by the recent treatment of our allies to do the same, but as vital as I feel it is to speak out, for the record and for history, it is clear that in the face of such an unprecedented situation, words are not enough. Mr. Madison's doctrine of the separation of powers tells us it is our obligation to act. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to sound the alarm about the President's decision to impose steep tariffs on our trading partners. Make no mistake, we are not, as some administration officials have suggested, in the leisurely early innings of a baseball game. We are in the nascent stages of a full-scale trade war. Despite the President's statement that this war will be easily won, any student of history knows that unlike a baseball game, in which a winner is guaranteed, a trade war only guarantees there will be losers. Free trade allows the most efficient allocation of labor and capital. Protectionism, on the other hand, stifles innovation and reduces productivity. Recognition of this philosophy has been as close to a consensus as this body has achieved in more than 70 years, and the application of these principles has provided the foundation for growth and prosperity that was unimagined by previous generations. If tariffs aimed at our adversaries produce disastrous results, what will happen when we target our allies? Imagine claiming that imports from Canada represent a national security threat. Well, that is exactly what we are doing. Canada is our largest trading partner--a trading partner, coincidentally, with whom we enjoy a trade surplus. Just yesterday, we learned of a phone call in which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau challenged the President's use of national security as a justification for levying tariffs against a steadfast ally. These new tariffs imposed on our allies will not and are not going unanswered. A number of them have already introduced retaliatory measures. In March, when the tariffs on steel and aluminum were first announced, I proposed legislation to block their implementation. Yesterday, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senator Corker, in introducing legislation to rein in the President's use of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to justify protectionist measures. This bipartisan group includes Senators from coast to coast and from across the political spectrum. The Constitution grants Congress the preeminent role in regulating trade and tariffs. Congress must show leadership on this issue. We are elected to be leaders, not followers here. It is not our charge to just go along because the President shares our party affiliation, to throw out our long-held beliefs just because they might complicate our political standing.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Bedrin, a defense fellow in Senator Moran's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today disturbed by the President's recent decision to consider easing penalties placed on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. Looking at ZTE's history of deception and dishonest business practices, it is deeply troubling to see these penalties cast aside so carelessly in pursuit of what appears to be a type of chaotic diplomatic improvisation that has become standard operating procedure with the administration. Let me briefly outline ZTE's past actions in order to refresh everyone's memory on how the company came to face such serious punitive measures. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce concluded an exhaustive investigation, finding that ZTE had knowingly sold products made with American technology to Iran, North Korea, and other countries banned from receiving such technologies. ZTE violated these sanctions and engaged in a deliberate attempt to cover it up. Once ZTE's deception was uncovered, the Obama administration announced imminent implementation of export restrictions that would deprive ZTE of American technology crucial to the manufacturing of its products. The threat of sanctions brought ZTE to agree to settle the matter, and one year later, ZTE signed a settlement, which included more than $1 billion in fines, the creation of audit and compliance requirements to avoid future violations, and a promise to punish those individuals involved in past violations. Last month, after ZTE was found to have violated the terms of the settlement and to have then sought to deceive the U.S. Government about those violations, the Commerce Department announced a 7-year ban on the export of U.S. components to ZTE. In essence, ZTE has repeatedly engaged in malign activity by deliberately misleading the government for years, all while attempting to deliver American technologies into the hands of State sponsors of terrorism. The instinct to punish ZTE for this behavior was the right one. So it was puzzling to hear, as we did this past Sunday, that the President instructed the Commerce Department to find a way to ease that punishment. First the President tweeted that the restrictions needed to be eased because they would cost China too many jobs. It now appears that this concession is part of a deal that, if reached, would have the Chinese Government agree to remove tariffs on U.S. agricultural products. It must be noted that these are the same tariffs that China levied in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs announced, and now being haphazardly applied, by this administration. Make no mistake, what we are witnessing here is a nascent trade war-- tariffs leading to tariffs leading to ill-advised concessions, haphazard exemptions, and so on and so on. Meanwhile, businesses suffer from increased uncertainty, our national security is threatened, and international allies find themselves dealing with an American foreign policy characterized only by chaos and unpredictability. Punitive measures like sanctions work only when they are consistently executed. How is any other nation meant to take threats of U.S. sanctions seriously when we enforce them some of the time and toss them aside other times when we feel like it? What does such unpredictability say to our allies about our ability to lead on global issues and our reliability as a partner in the future? We are making a mockery of the rules-based international order that we helped establish. Our foreign policy, whether it relates to trade or security, must be characterized by stability and predictability, not confusion and chaos. We are at our best when our allies and our adversaries know where we stand. Let us return to that standard. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today-- (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to fulfill a promise to continue to advocate for a solution that will address the critical issues of securing the border and protecting young immigrants impacted by an uncertain future--those who are part of the DACA Program. Last month, I again offered legislation to extend the DACA Program for 3 years and to provide 3 years of increased funding for border security--a so-called 3-for-3 program. I think this is a way we can reach a compromise on this issue that will do two important things-- one, provide much needed funding to secure the border. Being from a border State like Arizona, I can certainly understand that. We need a more secure border. We need additional resources, including barriers, technology, and manpower, and this legislation would provide that. At the same time, it would provide protection for those kids--numbering about 800,000 and many more eligible as well--who face an uncertain future because we haven't been able to extend or to make permanent this program. By the way, these are kids who were brought across the border through no fault of their own when their average median age, I think, was about 6 years old. It is not their fault that they were brought here this way. For all intents and purposes, they are American--everything without the papers. Many of them have now graduated from college and face an uncertain future in the job market. Many of them are in school looking to continue that education. Many of them serve in our military. We have to do right by them and do what is good for the country, as well, and I think this legislation would do that. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have repeatedly chosen to block the measure. I am the first to admit that this solution is far from perfect. We need to do a lot of other things with immigration reform. We need to address long-term labor needs, as well as a more permanent solution for those who are here illegally who weren't brought across the border as children. But this is a compromise that can pass. Given the action over the last couple of days in the House, where there was a group of House Members--Republicans and Democrats--looking to force that body to finally take action on this, it is again time to have the Senate make another attempt. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask that the Flake substitute amendment at the desk be considered agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have been pleased to hear about the progress in the planned negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear program. I was glad to hear of Director Pompeo's successful visit to North Korea, and I, as much as anyone in this body, wishes the administration success in these talks and negotiations. Given the history of broken promises, I have my doubts as to whether the North Korean regime has any genuine interest or willingness to denuclearize, but even a freeze will be welcome. However, I am concerned about the language used by the President today when discussing the North Korean regime. To say that Kim Jong Un has been ``very open'' or ``very honorable,'' as the President did, surpasses understanding. If this description of one of the world's strongman dictators were a singular event, a one-off statement, it could perhaps be excused as an aberration, but, unfortunately, it is not. It is part of a larger pattern of excusing dictatorial behavior that we should not countenance. We need not sacrifice the truth and reject objective reality in pursuit of our goals. We cannot pretend that the Kim Jong Un of today is somehow different from the authoritarian dictator who has ruled over one of the most violent and repressive regimes on Earth. I am happy to hear that the North Korean Government is apparently engaging as an honest broker in the process of arranging these talks, but I believe that how the President of the United States describes world leaders matters. For the President to describe a leader who stands credibly accused of starving his own people, violently executing his political opponents, and murdering members of his own family as ``very open'' and ``very honorable'' is beyond comprehension. Furthermore, it undermines the moral authority we have long possessed on the world stage. The President himself has previously declared Kim Jong Un as ``obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his own people.'' The President has also repeatedly and correctly referred to the North Korean regime's violent torture of Otto Warmbier as ``horrible.'' The pursuit of these negotiations does not require that we surrender the values we stand for as a nation. We cannot pretend the atrocities of the Northern Korean regime are a thing of the past. We need to enter these negotiations with our eyes wide open. We must understand and recognize who it is we are sitting across the table from. Only then do I believe we will actually succeed in these negotiations and emerge from this planned summit with the result we all seek--a safer world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have and will continue to do until we find a resolution to this issue. I rise to advocate for a solution to address the issue of securing our border and protecting those young immigrants impacted by an uncertain future in the DACA Program. Last month, I offered legislation to extend DACA for 3 years and to provide 3 years of increased funding for border security--this so- called 3-for-3 plan. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have repeatedly chosen to block this measure from coming to the floor, but the President's decision to send National Guard troops to the border displays a continued interest to secure the border. To take care of that aspect, this bill would provide significant resources to do just that, to help secure the border, at the same time protecting these young immigrants from possible deportation. I am the first to admit this solution is far from perfect, but it provides a temporary fix for these critical problems and will provide all sides of the debate with just enough of what they want. It is a compromise. It would begin the process of funding the President's plan to improve border security and, as I mentioned, ensure DACA recipients will not lose protections and face possible deportation. These young immigrants were brought here through no fault of their own. They have waited long enough for these protections. Likewise, border communities, like in my home State of Arizona, have waited long enough for increased security along our southern border. As I have said before, we in Congress have too regularly confused action with results and have been entirely too comfortable ignoring problems that are just actually tough to solve. We may not be able to deliver a permanent solution to these problems at this time, but we now have an opportunity to offer at least some action on them. There are many people whose lives and well-being depend on our ability to deliver meaningful results. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask that the Flake substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments and all those who have worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor, which we will be voting on later tonight. Indian water settlements are an invaluable tool to ensure that Tribes receive the water rights they are entitled to and that other water users are given the certainty they require. In States like my home State of Arizona, water rights have a substantial impact on the lives and livelihoods of so many residents. So these measures are critical to communities around the great State of Arizona. I rise today to support the legislation I introduced aimed at ensuring that the previously enacted White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 is properly interpreted by the Department of Interior. This bill clarifies that settlement funds awarded to the Tribe may be used for a critical rural water system. This new system is essential for the Tribe and will allow them to deliver drinking water to their members. The measure I am proposing today is also time sensitive. The White Mountain settlement includes an enforceability date that means if this water system project is not completely approved by May 2021, it becomes void. In order to realistically meet this deadline, this bill must pass as soon as possible so that the Tribe has time to complete the necessary project studies. This bill also corrects an issue with the National Labor Relations Act. For nearly 70 years, Tribal governments were exempt from the act, just like local and State governments and the Federal Government. However, in 2004 the NLRB inappropriately ruled that Tribes were no longer exempt. This measure would create parity for Tribal governments, giving them the same employer rights afforded to other Federal, State, and local governments. Importantly, this element of the bill also applies to Tribal employers on Tribal lands, meaning any tribally owned and operated institution not on Tribal land would be treated as normal, private- sector employers. This bill also offers two important clarifications-- one of which is desperately needed to allow the White Mountain Apache Tribe to move forward on a vital rural water system project. I urge the bill's passage so that we can ensure that Tribes are best able to serve their people and to improve their communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, today, I rise once again to urge this body to address the critical issue of securing the border and protecting those young immigrants impacted by the uncertain future of the DACA Program. Last week, I offered legislation to extend DACA protection for 3 years and provide 3 years of increased funding for border security. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues chose to block that measure. Let me first say, I understand and sympathize with my colleagues' concerns. I, too, believe that DACA recipients deserve a permanent solution, and I have repeatedly stated my strong preference for such a measure. We have tried to find this permanent solution through Republican-led bills, Democratic-led bills, and bipartisan bills. Yet somehow, each time, we are incapable of finding a compromise that can garner 60 votes. It is clear that we cannot achieve this goal right now, and no one is more disappointed about that fact than I am. I am the first to admit that this solution I propose is far from perfect, but it provides a temporary fix to those crucial and critical problems. It begins the process of improving border security, and it ensures that DACA recipients will not lose protections or be left to face potential deportation. These young immigrants, brought here through no fault of their own, cannot wait for these protections. Likewise, border communities, like those in my home State of Arizona, cannot wait for increased security along the southern border. As I have said before, we in Congress have too regularly confused action with results and have become entirely too comfortable ignoring problems when they seem too difficult to solve. That is why, if this measure is blocked again today, I will be returning to the Senate floor repeatedly until we can pass some sort of solution. To put it as bluntly as possible, it is simply not something we can ignore any longer. I would like to again thank Senator Heitkamp for joining me as a cosponsor of this bill. She has always been a valuable ally in bipartisan efforts to secure the border and to pass other immigration reform measures. We may not be able to deliver a permanent solution for these problems at this time, but we can't abdicate the responsibility of Congress to, at one point, solve them. There are many people whose lives and well-being depend on our ability to deliver meaningful results. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask that the Flake substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, when these ill-conceived tariffs were announced last week, I said I would introduce legislation that would immediately nullify this very unfortunate exercise in protectionism before it could wreak havoc on our economy. If implemented, these tariffs will do just what tariffs have always done. They will lead to job losses and will stymie economic growth. What is worse, the President's attempt at flexibility in the form of poorly defined exceptions only serves to harm the economy further by creating uncertainty. Tariffs are bad enough on their own; tariffs married with uncertainty are even worse. Can you imagine the President saying one day, ``Well, I think that Australia is moving in ways that we think are good in this area or that, so I am going to lessen the tariffs that we impose on steel and aluminum for Australia''? The next day it is Brazil. ``If it does this or that that is unrelated to these tariffs, I might lift tariffs or lessen the burden of tariffs on that country.'' Yet, a week later, if Brazil makes another move, the President might seek to reimpose or to make the burden heavier. That simply doesn't work if you are trying to achieve economic growth and if you are trying to convince countries to enter into trade partnerships with you. Particularly when you are dealing with our allies, that is no way to treat your allies. I understand free trade is sometimes a challenge. I understand that it is a challenge on the campaign trail, certainly. It is often easier to point to a shuttered factory and blame trade or immigration or some other convenient scapegoat other than what is usually the case-- modernization or mechanization or something that has meant that we have increased productivity or simply the best allocation capital in order to facilitate trade. We have to aggressively negotiate both bilateral and multilateral trade deals if we are to catch up. If we fail to do this and continue to withdraw from the global marketplace, we are going to be left far behind. We saw this with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We pulled out of those negotiations, and the other 11 countries involved simply went on their own and left us behind. That has meant, in particular, countries in Southeast Asia, which would like to be a part of our trade orbit, have had no choice but to be more reliant on China. That doesn't serve our interests at all. We have to remember we represent just 20 percent of the world's economic output. We represent just 5 percent of the world's population or just less than that. If we don't trade, we don't grow. You can be pro-growth or you can be pro-tariff, but you can't be both. Those who have reservations about these tariffs ought to support this legislation that I am introducing today to nullify the tariffs. Those who have expressed admiration for free trade or supply-side economics ought to support this bill as well. Those who are happy with the economic growth that we have recently achieved and are interested in seeing it continue ought to support this bill. We now have a better climate for economic growth on both the regulatory side and the tax side. If we enter a trade war, we risk reversing those gains we have made. We in Congress cannot be complicit as this administration courts economic disaster in this fashion. I urge my colleagues to join me in exercising our constitutional oversight and to invalidate these irresponsible tariffs.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, when these ill-conceived tariffs were announced last week, I said I would introduce legislation that would immediately nullify this very unfortunate exercise in protectionism before it could wreak havoc on our economy. If implemented, these tariffs will do just what tariffs have always done. They will lead to job losses and will stymie economic growth. What is worse, the President's attempt at flexibility in the form of poorly defined exceptions only serves to harm the economy further by creating uncertainty. Tariffs are bad enough on their own; tariffs married with uncertainty are even worse. Can you imagine the President saying one day, ``Well, I think that Australia is moving in ways that we think are good in this area or that, so I am going to lessen the tariffs that we impose on steel and aluminum for Australia''? The next day it is Brazil. ``If it does this or that that is unrelated to these tariffs, I might lift tariffs or lessen the burden of tariffs on that country.'' Yet, a week later, if Brazil makes another move, the President might seek to reimpose or to make the burden heavier. That simply doesn't work if you are trying to achieve economic growth and if you are trying to convince countries to enter into trade partnerships with you. Particularly when you are dealing with our allies, that is no way to treat your allies. I understand free trade is sometimes a challenge. I understand that it is a challenge on the campaign trail, certainly. It is often easier to point to a shuttered factory and blame trade or immigration or some other convenient scapegoat other than what is usually the case-- modernization or mechanization or something that has meant that we have increased productivity or simply the best allocation capital in order to facilitate trade. We have to aggressively negotiate both bilateral and multilateral trade deals if we are to catch up. If we fail to do this and continue to withdraw from the global marketplace, we are going to be left far behind. We saw this with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We pulled out of those negotiations, and the other 11 countries involved simply went on their own and left us behind. That has meant, in particular, countries in Southeast Asia, which would like to be a part of our trade orbit, have had no choice but to be more reliant on China. That doesn't serve our interests at all. We have to remember we represent just 20 percent of the world's economic output. We represent just 5 percent of the world's population or just less than that. If we don't trade, we don't grow. You can be pro-growth or you can be pro-tariff, but you can't be both. Those who have reservations about these tariffs ought to support this legislation that I am introducing today to nullify the tariffs. Those who have expressed admiration for free trade or supply-side economics ought to support this bill as well. Those who are happy with the economic growth that we have recently achieved and are interested in seeing it continue ought to support this bill. We now have a better climate for economic growth on both the regulatory side and the tax side. If we enter a trade war, we risk reversing those gains we have made. We in Congress cannot be complicit as this administration courts economic disaster in this fashion. I urge my colleagues to join me in exercising our constitutional oversight and to invalidate these irresponsible tariffs.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have been in Congress now for about 18 years--12 years in the House and now 6 in the Senate. It is an honor of a lifetime, obviously, to represent Arizona here. After being here so long, I have to say I get a little defensive when I hear somebody say that Congress is incapable of solving big problems. Yet it is a hard point to argue after watching the Senate squander the best opportunity we have had in a long time to pass legislation to protect young immigrants who are impacted by an uncertain future of the DACA Program and to strengthen security along the border. Somehow, despite sweeping public support for both of these items, we have been incapable of finding a compromise that can garner the support of 60 Senators. To say this has been a disappointment would be an understatement. I do appreciate Majority Leader McConnell's attempt to facilitate an open debate. I truly believe he wanted this process to provide the necessary dialogue so as to deliver an effective bipartisan solution. I am certainly not alone in my efforts to forge genuine consensus on these subjects. There are a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle who want to fix this problem. Unfortunately, as too often happens, the siren call of politics brought too many of us back into partisan trenches and blocked any hope of real results. There are teachers and students and members of the military who are DACA recipients. They are friends and colleagues who represent the very best ideas of America. They are hard workers and productive members of their families and communities. They don't have the luxury of being able to admit defeat and move on to the next topic. Likewise, those of us from border States, like Arizona, know that law enforcement officers who are tasked with patrolling the borders and protecting our neighborhoods just can't give up and go home. We have neighbors and family members who simply cannot shrug off failure and accept the status quo when it comes to securing the border. That is why I have introduced legislation to extend DACA protections for 3 years and to provide 3 years of increased funding for border security. I am the first to admit that this is far from a perfect solution, but it does provide a temporary fix to these crucial problems. It begins the process of improving border security, and it ensures that DACA recipients will not lose protections and be left to face potential deportation. We in Congress have too regularly confused action with results and have been entirely too comfortable with ignoring problems when they seem too difficult to actually solve. To put it as bluntly as possible, this is not something we can ignore any longer. I thank Senator Heitkamp for joining me as a cosponsor on this bill and for illustrating that the drive to get something done on these issues is a bipartisan effort. She has been a trusted partner on border security and sensible immigration reform measures. We may not be able to deliver a permanent solution to these problems, but we cannot completely abdicate the responsibility of Congress to solve them. There are many people whose lives and well-being depend on our ability to deliver meaningful results here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask that the Flake substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that we had a debate for a week, and I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his hard work on this topic and constructive contribution during that entire time. We considered several proposals, one of which was this proposal, the Grassley amendment. It did get bipartisan support, but it still fell well short of the goal. I think there were 39 votes in favor. We had bipartisan support for a countermeasure that I supported, but we failed to get the 60 votes as well. We got only 54. I would love to get a permanent solution. I have been working my entire 18 years in this body to try to get comprehensive immigration reform through. The problem is what has been proposed as an amendment here is, for all intents and purposes, comprehensive immigration reform, which, in moving ahead, would make changes to the legal immigration structure. That is, simply, too much to bite off at this time. As much as I don't like to do it, I am offering something that is a stopgap, but at least it is for 3 years. At least it will give 3 years to those who are affected and give us in Congress some time to actually come to a solution. What we cannot do is force these kids through more uncertainty. I would love to get to a permanent solution. That is what I have tried to do for a number of years here. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has, as well, but we just cannot do it right now. I prefer to simply go with the 3 for 3 amendment for which I am asking 3 years of extended protections on DACA in exchange for 3 years of border security funding at the President's request for this year. I think that is a realistic proposal for which we can get bipartisan support here and in the House. I believe the White House can support it as well. So I object to a modification of the request.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bipartisan legislation aimed at ensuring that those individuals who are on the Department of Homeland Security's no-fly list are likewise not able to have access to guns. I just met with several of the students from the shooting at the school in Florida and heard the very compelling case they have made to take this issue seriously and do what we can on a commonsense basis to make it more difficult for those who shouldn't have guns to have guns. Regardless of what happened in Florida these past couple of weeks, this is a measure we should have taken before. It has been brought to the floor of the Senate, and it has received majority support here. I think it is simply common sense that someone who is not permitted to fly in this country and is considered by the Federal Government to be a potential threat to national security should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. The no-fly list and the selectee list that we are talking about is composed of those who are not allowed to fly. With the selectee list, it is those who require additional screening. These are both narrowly tailored, defined, targeted lists. This restriction would affect just a small number of people, all of whom would be afforded due process under the Constitution. Those who find themselves on either of these lists would have the authority to challenge that designation, and the onus would be on the government, not the individual; the onus would be on the government to justify the classification and to prove that they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. These are strong, robust, due process protections that would make sure that these restrictions are constitutionally sound. This bill also adds another layer of safety for citizens from those who would do us harm, ensuring that anyone who has been denied the right to fly cannot purchase a weapon without at least undergoing additional scrutiny. It simply stands to reason that if we fear that someone may use our commercial airlines as a weapon or to harm those on board, we should not allow that same person to purchase a weapon without additional scrutiny. I encourage my colleagues to review this bipartisan legislation and to join me, along with Senator Collins and a number of our colleagues here--a bipartisan group of Senators--in supporting this commonsense piece of legislation. I hope we will have a debate on some of these measures. I will be talking in the coming days about some of the other measures that we ought to take to make sure that we don't put guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. My heart goes out to those in Florida, and my vote will go here to measures that will make schools safer. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the massive spending increases included in the proposed budget measure. To propose increasing Federal spending by nearly $300 billion over the next 2 years, on top of the spending increases already established, is simply beyond comprehension. This is all with a national debt of $20 trillion a year, and the current deficit is running $600 billion to $700 billion. Yet we are about to vote on a bill to abandon self-imposed limits on Federal spending. As anybody who has spent time in Washington will know, once you raise spending limits, you just don't get them back down. I love bipartisanship, but not when it is bought and paid for with billions of taxpayer dollars. That is precisely what this measure does. If you sprinkle enough money around, you can get bipartisan support. While I was in the House for 12 years, I kept a journal of events. In December of 2007, when we passed a massive omnibus bill, at that time, I noted in my journal: The Democrats singled out the funding for the Iraq war, which required a separate vote. The tally board on the House chamber wall explaining the vote said the following: ``Agreeing to House amendment to Senate amendment to House amendment.'' I said at that time: That clears it up. But that's the point. Liberal Democrats could vote against the war funding and for more domestic funding. Conservative Republicans could do the opposite. Enough moderates in the middle would vote for both pieces of legislation to ensure that each passed separately. I continued: Then we could all of us, Republicans and Democrats, go beat our collective chests and go home for Christmas. Bipartisanship at its best. I wrote further in my journal at that time: All these shenanigans led one Republican colleague to lean over to me on the House floor and muse: ``You know, Jeff, sometimes the toughest thing about being a member of Congress is remembering everything you're supposed to be outraged about.'' I agreed. Here we are today, and it is clear what we should be outraged about-- a $300 billion spending hike, a return to trillion-dollar deficits, and an apparent end to any attempt to rein in Federal spending. Fiscal responsibility is more than a political talking point to trot out when the other guys are in charge. The rules and principles do not change with the legislative session. It should not take hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending to prompt bipartisanship or to secure a budget agreement. If we Republicans support precisely the kind of reckless spending that we have for so long criticized, it will mean an end of genuine fiscal conservatism in Washington, and it will establish a government without any meaningful spending restraints. I urge my colleagues to consider their commitment to conservatism and whether their past protests over government spending were anything more than convenient political props. Let's be conservative no matter who is in charge, no matter who is in the White House or who controls each Chamber in Congress. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last fall I had the honor to stand in this Chamber and deliver remarks on the subject of a great and growing concern to me--the stewardship of our democracy at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government. I stand again today to sound the same alarm. Words matter. Have we arrived at such a place of numb acceptance that we have nothing to say when the President of the United States casually suggests that those who choose not to stand or applaud his speech are guilty of treason? I certainly hope not. The one who levels such a charge knows neither the meaning of ``treason'' nor the power that the words of a President carry. If we are numb to such words, then we will surely regret that we failed to defend our colleagues in Congress against such a vile remark, but our silence will also mark the day we failed to recognize that this conduct in an American President simply is not normal. I wish I could stand here today and say my words of last October have been proven wrong; that I had been unfair to inveigh against the daily sundering of our country; that I had been mistaken about the personal attacks; that I had exaggerated the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency, and the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people we have all been elected to serve--I wish I could say I had been wrong, but I cannot. I have seen the President's most ardent defenders use the now-weary argument that the President's comments were meant as a joke, just sarcasm, only tongue in cheek, but treason is not a punch line. The President said the State of the Union Address was meant to promote and encourage unity in government. Then why, less than a week later, follow up with this divisive and harmful rhetoric? Unity is not secured in a speech. It must be pursued constantly through appropriate behavior, mutual respect, and gained by effective leadership. Respect is earned, not commanded. Applause signals approval of an idea, not loyalty to one's country. Our Democratic colleagues love this country as much as we do. To suggest otherwise is simply unconscionable. None of us in Congress pledge loyalty or service to the President. This is not a royal court. Our oath is to the Constitution and to the people. As Members of Congress, we must never accept undignified discourse as normal because of the requirements of tribal party politics. None of this behavior should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking this is just the way things are now. We will get through this period, and when we do, we will look back at the destruction of our discourse and the attacks on our democratic values as nothing but a tragedy. May we also be able to say they were an aberration. That, my colleagues, is up to us. We must recognize this is aberrant, destructive behavior, whatever rationale its defenders may offer, and we must never shrink from opposing it, for it is in opposing this behavior that we defend our norms, our ideals, and our values. It is in opposing this behavior that we stand for decency. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as we continue the debate on the issue of immigration as it relates to providing a permanent solution to those young immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the scope of this debate has expanded to include other issues. Some of these issues are directly related to the DACA issue, including persistent concerns on our southern border, like improving barriers and border access roads, providing hiring and retention incentives for Customs and Border Protection personnel to ensure that all locations on the border remain secure. Other things being debated, like changes to legal immigration levels, truly need their own debate. Some appear to have seized on this as an opportunity to push forth an agenda aimed at limiting the future flow of legal immigration. Before this idea gains any steam, we have to fully discuss and debate its potentially enormous impact on our economy. It is easy for some to see unemployed Americans and point to immigrants as a scapegoat. To suggest that every immigrant who passes through our borders represents a job being pried from the hands of an American citizen is farfetched, at best. After taking the time to actually examine the facts, the shortsightedness of this thinking is exposed. For example, cleaving the number of new legal immigrants by almost 50 percent--which is what the White House proposal appears to envision over time--would initially reduce the overall rate of economic growth in the United States by an estimated 12.5 percent when compared to currently projected levels through 2045. This is because labor force growth is one of the most important factors tied to economic growth. More troubling, these changes in legal immigration would come just as the aging U.S. population increases our dependence on a growing workforce. Some have suggested that legal immigrants represent some sort of drag on government resources. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that the average immigrant contributes, in net present value terms, $92,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their lifetime. We can only expect these numbers to increase as we move to a kind of merit or employment-based system. I should note that in the bipartisan approach in 2015, we did restrict the number of family-based visas. I think it was from a total of 75 percent of legal immigration, we moved it down to 50 percent from family-based visas. At that same time, what we did was reallocate those visas to merit-based or employment-based visas so we wouldn't have an overall drop in legal immigration. To look into the future of what happens when the philosophy of limiting legal immigration takes hold, we need to look no further than the current economic struggles Japan is having. In a timely piece by Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post this last Sunday, he points out that Japan's population of 127 million is forecast to shrink by one-third over the next half century. The increase in lifespans coupled with a decrease in fertility is projected to lead to near-stagnant economic growth, reduced innovation, labor shortages, and huge pressure on entitlements and pensions in Japan. These disastrous realities facing Japan are the direct result of that nation's historically low level of immigrants. As Hiatt astutely points out, ``You can be pro-growth. You can be anti-immigration. But honestly, you can't be both.'' Legal immigration policy is complicated, but it is important, and it is worth debating this reform on its own. There may be a strong appetite for merit-based immigration, but rather than drastically cutting legal and necessary immigration flows, we need to work together to provide a way for the best and brightest to make it to the United States, both for their benefit and ours. Let's not be lured into thinking that legal immigration is some kind of simplistic zero-sum game that can be easily reformed without consequence. During the last administration, many of us rejected the new normal of low economic growth driven by overregulation and irrational tax policy. It would be a supreme irony if we were to fix those anti-growth fiscal and regulatory policies only to counteract them with immigration restrictions that affect our workforce. Let's give this important and complex issue the time for discussion, analysis, and debate it deserves and not shoehorn it into a DACA fix. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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