Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, we currently have the highest Federal corporate tax rate in the developed world. Businesses are moving from here overseas to seek a friendlier tax environment. If we are going to compete globally--and we are in a global economy-- we have to have a conducive tax and regulatory environment to do so. We don't have a conducive tax environment now. We cannot compete globally with the second highest or the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We also have a tax code that is far too complicated. Taxpayers and companies alike spend about 9 billion hours a year--9 billion hours a year--combined with IRS requirements, and this costs the U.S. economy more than $400 billion a year. This is just compliance costs. The Tax Code is also full of costly loopholes which allow businesses and millions of individuals to get away with paying no income tax or no corporate tax. After over 30 years, I am pleased to see Congress finally getting down to the work of doing a tax overhaul. A few weeks ago, we passed a budget that allows some cuts--about $1.5 trillion. I believe that when we do cut certain taxes, it does generate a greater economic activity, which does in turn mean additional revenue to government. However, there are limits to that model. We cannot simply assume we can cut all taxes and realize additional revenue. It is important that tax reform comes as well. We have been hearing a lot about cuts, cuts, cuts. If we are going to do cuts, cuts, cuts, we have to do a wholesale reform. With the national debt exceeding $20 trillion, we have to take this seriously. Rate reductions have to be accompanied by repeal or reform. We cannot simply rely on rosy economic assumptions, rosy growth rates to fill in the gap. We have to make tough decisions. We cannot have cuts today that assume we will grow a backbone in the out-years in terms of the real reforms we are going to need. We have seen this before. We make the cuts now; we rely on rosy economic assumptions; and then, in the out-years, if those don't come about, we forget what we were supposed to do in terms of reform. We can't do that today, not with a debt of $20 trillion, not with a deficit of over $600 billion a year adding to that total debt. I welcome this opportunity to do tax reform. It is needed. As I mentioned, we have to have a conducive tax and regulatory environment in order to compete, but we have to be realistic as well about what we can achieve, and we can't push off the reforms for cuts today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of religious liberty. In particular, I urge this body to respect our constitutional values and avoid any hint of applying religious tests to those who heed the call of government service. Freedom of religion is as foundational a principle as we have in this country. Yet some in this Chamber want to take a cabined view of it. If you are a judicial nominee, it is fine to attend the occasional worship service, but don't let on that you take it too seriously. That seems to be unacceptable. From the inception of our Republic, religious believers have chosen to serve the country in countless ways. Whether through the Armed Forces, holding elected office, or sitting on the courts, Americans of faith always answered the call. We should welcome this service, and we should not sit idly by while others question the propriety of their service by suggesting a de facto religious test. The Framers of the Constitution were fearful of this very thinking. They understood the importance of religious participation and foresaw the benefits religious believers of all backgrounds would contribute to the common good. They also knew, from centuries of war and suffering in Europe, the high cost of religious intolerance. That is why they made it clear in article VI of the Constitution that no public officers could be subject to a religious test. This edict was entirely unambiguous in its language and its intent. This country is to be served by people of all faiths, committed to the Constitution and the common good. It is up to us to question the qualifications and jurisprudence of nominees, not their religious views. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening to Professor Barrett. I was at the confirmation hearing, where she faced inappropriate questions and objections based on her religious views. I witnessed a citizen heeding the call to serve her country, only to face inquiries into her religious beliefs that bordered on ridicule. My friends on the other side of the aisle defended their questions and their conduct, and I don't doubt their sincerity, but there is little comfort in the defense that it doesn't matter that Professor Barrett is a Catholic, but somehow it matters what sort of Catholic she is. These are unconstitutional distinctions without differences. In addition, otherwise respectable news outlets have provided sensational reports of Professor Barrett's personal charismatic religious practices. As a Member of the Senate, I find this troubling, as a person of faith, I find this objectionable, and above all, as an American, I find this abhorrent. It is religious liberty--enshrined in constitutional provisions like article VI and the First Amendment--that has allowed my faith and so many others to flourish in the United States. It is also religious liberty that is threatened when we seek to evaluate the fitness of nominees for high office based on religious orthodoxy. I have endeavored to be consistent on this issue during my time in public service. When the Presidential nominee of my party--the party of Lincoln--called for a Muslim ban, it was wrong, and I said so. That is not what we stand for. When a judge expressed his personal belief that a practicing Muslim shouldn't be a Member of Congress because of his religious faith, it was wrong; that this same judge is now my party's nominee for the Senate from Alabama should concern us all. Religious tests have no place in Congress. Standing up for people of faith--whether Muslim or Catholic--who are facing unfair prejudice should be an act of basic conscience. It should be expected of all of us, regardless of party. It is no better for Democrats to evaluate the judicial nominee based on how many books are in the Bible on which she swears her oath, than it is for Republicans to judge a Congressman who swears his oath on the Koran. To suggest that somehow a Roman Catholic judge would discard the Constitution in favor of Church doctrine--which she has emphatically and repeatedly said she would not--is as wrong as suggesting that a Muslim judge would be somehow forced to follow sharia law over the Constitution. Religious liberty must not depend on the religion in question. So I ask, in light of these circumstances, who will stand today against all cases of religious bigotry? Are there true liberals who will stand up for the liberal values of religious tolerance? Some have, like Professors Larry Tribe, Noah Feldman, and Chris Eisgruber. They have said: Enough. Who here will join them? This very body is made up of individuals from around 15 different faiths. Each of us has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Each of us here feels we can competently carry out our duties, as do those in the judicial branch who swear a similar oath to uphold the Constitution. Let us stand together today without equivocation and say no to religious intolerance in all its forms by examining the jurisprudential views and professional qualifications of judicial nominees, not their relationship with the Almighty. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been very much on my mind. At a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than by our own values and principles, let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office, and there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles. Now is such a time. It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret--regret because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by ``our,'' I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end. In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order, that phrase being the ``new normal.'' But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country, the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people whom we have been elected to serve. None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that it is just politics as usual, then Heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as ``telling it like it is'' when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified. When such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength, because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness. It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us ``Why didn't you do something? Why didn't you speak up?'' what are we going to say? Mr. President, I rise today to say ``enough.'' We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes the normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that. Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill the obligations under the Constitution by adhering to our article I ``old normal''--Mr. Madison's doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation, which affirms Madison's status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51, held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. ``Ambition counteracts ambition,'' he wrote. But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability or if decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course we wouldn't, and we would be wrong if we did. When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that silence and inaction are the wrong things to do because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseam, when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of our institutions and our liberty, we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics. I am aware that more politically savvy people than I will caution against such talk. I am aware that there is a segment of my party that believes anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a President who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect. If I have been critical, it is not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the President of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe it is my obligation to do so as a matter of duty of conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters, the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided. A Republican President named Roosevelt had this to say about the President and a citizen's relationship to the office: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. President Roosevelt continued: To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by a President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and, as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in this regard. I am holier than none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing until the accommodation itself becomes our principle. In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice any principle. I am afraid this is where we now find ourselves. When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country, and instead of addressing it goes to look for someone to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops, humility helps, and character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly or debased appetites in us. Leadership lives by the American creed, ``E Pluribus Unum''--``From many, one.'' American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have been at our most principled, and when we do well, the rest of the world does well. These articles of civic faith have been critical to the American identity for as long as we have been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership, and to behave as if they don't matter is simply not who we are. Now the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II, we contributed about half of the world's economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping those countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn't do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years. Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary, rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it. The implications of this abandonment are profound, and the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum, and our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. What do we, as U.S. Senators, have to say about it? The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity. I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so I will not be complicit or silent. I have decided I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself of the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles. To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019. It is clear, at this moment, that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro- immigration has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party--the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things. It is also clear to me, for the moment, that we have given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified, but anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy. There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal, but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican Party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party. We were not made great as a country by indulging in or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorifying in the things that divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake, and we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are. This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say, the sooner the better because to have a healthy government, we must also have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity, and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man and always look for the good. Until that day comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it because it does. I plan to spend the remaining 14 months of my Senate term doing just that. The graveyard is full of indispensable men and women. None of us here is indispensable, nor were even the great figures of history who toiled at these very desks in this very Chamber to shape the country we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place--values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career does not mean much if we are complicit in undermining these values. I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today. I will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healthy enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time and are no less in ours: We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely as they will be, by the better angels of our nature. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, this amendment would set up a deficit- neutral reserve fund relating to making the American tax system simpler and fairer for all Americans. Not only do we need to do tax reform, but we need to do it urgently. It has been more than 30 years since we have reformed the Tax Code in any significant way. We have more preferences and loopholes and deductions out there than we know what to do with. In fact, if we total all of them together, there are more expenditures in the Tax Code, or money avoiding coming to Washington--tax avoidance--than we spend on our entire discretionary budget. It is about $1.26 trillion annually. So we have to have a code where we lower the rates and broaden the base. Broadening the base means going after some of these popular loopholes and deductions and preferences that make the Tax Code a lot bigger and scarier and more complicated than it should be. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the much needed topic of tax reform. The high rates and complicated nature of the current Tax Code are burdening individual taxpayers and making businesses less competitive in the global market. That simply has to change. It has been more than 30 years since we have passed major tax reform, and we are well past time. Unfortunately, I recently learned of a serious threat to reforming the Tax Code called alpacas. Now, what do these cute, mild-mannered pets have to do with Federal tax policy? Earlier this year, I issued an oversight report entitled ``Tax Rackets: Outlandish Loopholes to Lower Tax Liabilities.'' That report demonstrated how clever accounting allows nearly anything imaginable to become a writeoff, including alpacas. To illustrate the point, the report outlined how local and Federal tax bills can be sheared by claiming exotic pets--these exotic pets--as livestock and turning backyards into barnyards. That is when the fur really started to fly. Alpaca owners associations that once brazenly touted this tax fleece as a key selling point for the animals now feigned outrage at the suggestion. The association tried to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers by retaining a professional PR consultant. They launched a media campaign, inundating my office and others with phone calls, social media messages, and letters with photos of alpacas. Through slick reporting and aggressive lobbying, tax-subsidized alpaca ownership was somehow presented as a bulwark of small business and a flourishing middle class. If this mere mention of a tax break costing $10 million annually and enjoyed by relatively few taxpayers elicited such an outmeasured and aggressive response, imagine the backlash we will face when we are attempting to actually eliminate tax preferences benefiting powerful corporations and special interests to the tune of billions of dollars. There are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $123 trillion annually. Again, there are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $1.23 trillion annually. This exceeds the total amount spent annually by the Federal Government for all discretionary programs, which includes defense, education, transportation, foreign aid, and protecting the environment. These exemptions increase the bill for the average taxpayer. They also make the Tax Code so complicated that most individuals have to hire a tax professional or buy software to help complete their tax returns. At more than 74,000 pages in length, no one--not even those in Washington who write the laws or enforce them--truly understands Federal tax law. Special interests are taking advantage of this confusion by hiring armies of accountants and Washington lobbyists to dodge taxes and cash in on the complexity of the code. For example, developers are claiming--these are a lot of homebuilders are claiming $8 billion in tax credits every year supposedly to construct low-income housing, but with fewer homes being built and no basic accountability requirements, it is nearly impossible to track how this money is being spent. The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is investigating, said the ``IRS and no one else in the federal government really has an idea of what is going on.'' The same is true with hundreds of other tax loopholes. A luxury yacht can qualify as a second home and can be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction. Alaskan ship captains can expense costs for whaling as charitable contributions, even though no money goes to charity and whaling is typically illegal otherwise. High rollers can itemize the cost of gambling trips, including entertainment. Even the cost of losing lottery tickets can be deducted, a kind of scratch-off writeoff. Only the IRS knows who is taking advantage of these loopholes, and the agency often cannot verify whether those claiming the tax giveaways are eligible. In order to achieve meaningful tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer, we have to be able to first evaluate who is benefiting from these loopholes, for what purpose, and for what price. That is why I am introducing the Tax Expenditures Accountability Act, which will publicly disclose the names of the corporate and special interests receiving tax credits and the costs of these tax credits. This bill requires the Department of Treasury to disclose the special interest receiving tax credits just as all other Federal expenditures are currently disclosed on the public website USAspending.gov. Sunlight is obviously the best disinfectant, and I look forward to exposing many of these loopholes, eliminating them, and returning the savings to individual taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. As the alpaca lobby demonstrated, riding herd on tax breaks will cause every special interest benefiting from the code's complexity and unfairness to cry foul. Washington's powerful special interests will mobilize and threaten to derail tax reform. Many would rather protect these loopholes than allow taxpayers to keep more of their own paycheck. Coming up short on reform is not an option. We have to do it this year. Individuals and businesses are suffering under a broken, antiquated tax code that is in dire need of fixing. We can't be deterred in efforts to achieve real reform that reduces the tax bill for everyone.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the much needed topic of tax reform. The high rates and complicated nature of the current Tax Code are burdening individual taxpayers and making businesses less competitive in the global market. That simply has to change. It has been more than 30 years since we have passed major tax reform, and we are well past time. Unfortunately, I recently learned of a serious threat to reforming the Tax Code called alpacas. Now, what do these cute, mild-mannered pets have to do with Federal tax policy? Earlier this year, I issued an oversight report entitled ``Tax Rackets: Outlandish Loopholes to Lower Tax Liabilities.'' That report demonstrated how clever accounting allows nearly anything imaginable to become a writeoff, including alpacas. To illustrate the point, the report outlined how local and Federal tax bills can be sheared by claiming exotic pets--these exotic pets--as livestock and turning backyards into barnyards. That is when the fur really started to fly. Alpaca owners associations that once brazenly touted this tax fleece as a key selling point for the animals now feigned outrage at the suggestion. The association tried to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers by retaining a professional PR consultant. They launched a media campaign, inundating my office and others with phone calls, social media messages, and letters with photos of alpacas. Through slick reporting and aggressive lobbying, tax-subsidized alpaca ownership was somehow presented as a bulwark of small business and a flourishing middle class. If this mere mention of a tax break costing $10 million annually and enjoyed by relatively few taxpayers elicited such an outmeasured and aggressive response, imagine the backlash we will face when we are attempting to actually eliminate tax preferences benefiting powerful corporations and special interests to the tune of billions of dollars. There are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $123 trillion annually. Again, there are over 200 loopholes buried throughout the Tax Code that collectively cost $1.23 trillion annually. This exceeds the total amount spent annually by the Federal Government for all discretionary programs, which includes defense, education, transportation, foreign aid, and protecting the environment. These exemptions increase the bill for the average taxpayer. They also make the Tax Code so complicated that most individuals have to hire a tax professional or buy software to help complete their tax returns. At more than 74,000 pages in length, no one--not even those in Washington who write the laws or enforce them--truly understands Federal tax law. Special interests are taking advantage of this confusion by hiring armies of accountants and Washington lobbyists to dodge taxes and cash in on the complexity of the code. For example, developers are claiming--these are a lot of homebuilders are claiming $8 billion in tax credits every year supposedly to construct low-income housing, but with fewer homes being built and no basic accountability requirements, it is nearly impossible to track how this money is being spent. The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is investigating, said the ``IRS and no one else in the federal government really has an idea of what is going on.'' The same is true with hundreds of other tax loopholes. A luxury yacht can qualify as a second home and can be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction. Alaskan ship captains can expense costs for whaling as charitable contributions, even though no money goes to charity and whaling is typically illegal otherwise. High rollers can itemize the cost of gambling trips, including entertainment. Even the cost of losing lottery tickets can be deducted, a kind of scratch-off writeoff. Only the IRS knows who is taking advantage of these loopholes, and the agency often cannot verify whether those claiming the tax giveaways are eligible. In order to achieve meaningful tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer, we have to be able to first evaluate who is benefiting from these loopholes, for what purpose, and for what price. That is why I am introducing the Tax Expenditures Accountability Act, which will publicly disclose the names of the corporate and special interests receiving tax credits and the costs of these tax credits. This bill requires the Department of Treasury to disclose the special interest receiving tax credits just as all other Federal expenditures are currently disclosed on the public website USAspending.gov. Sunlight is obviously the best disinfectant, and I look forward to exposing many of these loopholes, eliminating them, and returning the savings to individual taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. As the alpaca lobby demonstrated, riding herd on tax breaks will cause every special interest benefiting from the code's complexity and unfairness to cry foul. Washington's powerful special interests will mobilize and threaten to derail tax reform. Many would rather protect these loopholes than allow taxpayers to keep more of their own paycheck. Coming up short on reform is not an option. We have to do it this year. Individuals and businesses are suffering under a broken, antiquated tax code that is in dire need of fixing. We can't be deterred in efforts to achieve real reform that reduces the tax bill for everyone.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing. This bill offers solutions to the serious problems facing us with regard to border security, while at the same time addressing the needs for a legislative solution for those issues faced by the children who were brought here through no fault of their own. With respect to the border, this bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for border security measures that the President requested and the House has already approved in a bipartisan vote. As an Arizonan, I am more than familiar with the steps we need to take to increase border security. We have a better situation on the border than we have had in a while, but there are still measures that need to be taken. In addition to the appropriate barriers that will aid in preventing illegal crossings, we need access roads that actually get to the border. If there is one issue I hear from property owners, ranchers, Border Patrol agents, and others near the border, it is that they need better access. We have had an issue with regard to roads that are used by the Border Control that are paid for by the county. It is a situation that needs to be resolved, and it will benefit all of us who travel near the border. This bill addresses that. The road issue was also raised by the GAO. I requested a study on behalf of my constituents, along with my colleagues, to see what we could do with the roads and access situation. GAO came back with recommendations, and this would implement some of the recommendations. The bill also aids law enforcement by ensuring the swift deportation of individuals determined to be members of violent gangs and drug cartels. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Comstock for her leadership on this issue by sponsoring the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which passed the House. With respect to the children brought here through no fault of their own, this bill takes a measure that has already earned bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, the Recognizing America's Children Act, which provides a solution for the DACA kids. These young immigrants were brought here as children and simply know no other country. For all intents and purposes, these young people consider themselves Americans. If we can protect these DACA recipients and provide solutions to better secure our borders at the same time, that is a win-win. The President and Congress both want to improve border security. We both want to respond to the threat of dangerous gangs and drug cartels. We both want to arrive at a legislative solution for the rescission of the DACA Program that benefits those who want to contribute to their communities and to the American dream. This bill is the best way to thread the needle and deliver what the President has asked for, what the Congress wants, and what my constituents in Arizona deserve. These issues are far too important for us to delay. To be clear, I will work with anyone to support any number of proposals that accomplish these goals, but I believe that the straightforward approach of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing today, is the best chance we have to put this bill on the President's desk.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing. This bill offers solutions to the serious problems facing us with regard to border security, while at the same time addressing the needs for a legislative solution for those issues faced by the children who were brought here through no fault of their own. With respect to the border, this bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for border security measures that the President requested and the House has already approved in a bipartisan vote. As an Arizonan, I am more than familiar with the steps we need to take to increase border security. We have a better situation on the border than we have had in a while, but there are still measures that need to be taken. In addition to the appropriate barriers that will aid in preventing illegal crossings, we need access roads that actually get to the border. If there is one issue I hear from property owners, ranchers, Border Patrol agents, and others near the border, it is that they need better access. We have had an issue with regard to roads that are used by the Border Control that are paid for by the county. It is a situation that needs to be resolved, and it will benefit all of us who travel near the border. This bill addresses that. The road issue was also raised by the GAO. I requested a study on behalf of my constituents, along with my colleagues, to see what we could do with the roads and access situation. GAO came back with recommendations, and this would implement some of the recommendations. The bill also aids law enforcement by ensuring the swift deportation of individuals determined to be members of violent gangs and drug cartels. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Comstock for her leadership on this issue by sponsoring the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which passed the House. With respect to the children brought here through no fault of their own, this bill takes a measure that has already earned bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, the Recognizing America's Children Act, which provides a solution for the DACA kids. These young immigrants were brought here as children and simply know no other country. For all intents and purposes, these young people consider themselves Americans. If we can protect these DACA recipients and provide solutions to better secure our borders at the same time, that is a win-win. The President and Congress both want to improve border security. We both want to respond to the threat of dangerous gangs and drug cartels. We both want to arrive at a legislative solution for the rescission of the DACA Program that benefits those who want to contribute to their communities and to the American dream. This bill is the best way to thread the needle and deliver what the President has asked for, what the Congress wants, and what my constituents in Arizona deserve. These issues are far too important for us to delay. To be clear, I will work with anyone to support any number of proposals that accomplish these goals, but I believe that the straightforward approach of the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act, which I am introducing today, is the best chance we have to put this bill on the President's desk.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last week I filed an amicus brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear and then overturn the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez. I am proud to have been supported in this effort by all 15 sheriffs in my home State of Arizona, as well as the Western States Sheriffs Association and the National Sheriffs' Association. I should mention that this is not a partisan issue we are talking about. We have sheriffs representing both parties in Arizona. Every sheriff in Arizona has supported this amicus--all 15. This decision by the Ninth Circuit is just another example of a ruling that is well outside of the judicial mainstream. Unfortunately, in this case, their ruling dramatically undercuts effective border enforcement, and it creates a dangerous situation for law enforcement and the public. In this case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it violates the rights of prisoners for marshals and other sheriffs or other courtroom personnel to employ commonplace, thoughtfully crafted courtroom safety policies in which prisoners appear before a judge, fitted with appropriate restraints. This is a significant change from common practice, and it conflicts with two other courts of appeals. More troubling, the decision has prompted public safety concerns for Arizona and throughout the West. First, law enforcement will have no choice but to increase the number of officers needed to maintain the safety of individuals inside courtrooms. This means that more U.S. marshals and sheriffs will be spending their days in courthouses instead of pursuing violent fugitives or preventing street crime. Even with these increased numbers, law enforcement officials have expressed concern over the high threshold they are now forced to attain in order to get permission to fit dangerous prisoners with restraints. By putting these restraints on law enforcement rather than prisoners, this ruling limits the ability of sheriffs and U.S. marshals to ensure the safety of the judges, jurors, lawyers, prisoners, victims, and members of the public inside these courthouses around the country. This decision also dramatically undercuts the ability of the Federal courts to process illegal immigration border crossing cases as part of Operation Streamline, the very successful border enforcement program that has worked so well in some parts of Arizona. By establishing a zero tolerance approach to illegal border crossings, Operation Streamline has made a dramatic difference in the number of illegal border crossings in communities like Tucson and Yuma. This year, the Operation Streamline Program averaged around 45 individuals per hearing. Even with these high caseloads, the program could remain efficient, thanks in part to traditional courtroom safety procedures. They could take 40 prisoners at a time and process them if they were allowed to use the current courtroom practices. These old policies allow law enforcement to bring up to 75 individuals into the courtroom at once, but under the Ninth Circuit's decision to relax courtroom safety protocols, law enforcement officers are now forced to limit groups of prisoners before the court to no more than a handful at a time. This makes it increasingly impractical for judges to hear cases due to the amount of time required for law enforcement to move small numbers of prisoners in and out of the courtroom. There simply aren't the hours in a day. I take the independence of the courts very seriously. That is why, when every sheriff in my State comes to me and says that there is a court ruling that is endangering their deputies and the public, I am going to urge that the decision be overturned by the proper authority. This makes a difference in Arizona for another reason as well. We have a lot of older courthouses. Some of them are historic courthouses. These buildings simply aren't built for today's needs in terms of access for prisoners and the public within these courthouses. Sometimes they have to go in the same doorways and in the same hallways. If law enforcement and courtroom security personnel are not allowed to have standards in terms of prisoner restraint, then you endanger the safety of individuals visiting the courthouse and others. You are simply unable to process the number of cases that we have in Arizona, particularly near the border with regard to immigration cases. I hope that the High Court, the Supreme Court, will grant cert here and examine this ruling. It really makes a difference in a State like Arizona. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss how we allow religious believers to participate in public life. From the founding of our country, religious believers have played a central role in our government. The Declaration of Independence was signed by a Presbyterian minister, John Witherspoon, and Charles Carroll, the cousin of our first Catholic bishop. The importance of religious participation was in the air the Founders breathed, and the benefits religious believers of all backgrounds contributed to the common good was understood by the Framers of the Constitution. That is why they made it clear in article VI of the Constitution that no public officers could be subject to a ``religious test.'' This new country wouldn't be a country for Anglicans or for Congregationalists or for Quakers; it would be a country for all Americans and all faiths--all of those who are committed to the Constitution and the common good. Unfortunately, the religious test clause is no longer just the subject of history lessons. During this Congress, there have been a number of cases where my friends in the minority have seemed to ask nominees about their substantive religious beliefs. I find this particularly troublesome because, as a Mormon, I am a member of a faith that, while it is growing rapidly, still counts fewer adherents than many other religions. It is religious liberty, espoused in constitutional provisions like article VI and the First Amendment, that has allowed my faith, despite a very difficult history, to flourish in the United States, and it is religious liberty that is threatened when we seem to evaluate the fitness of nominees for higher office on religious orthodoxy. The most recent example of this was the recent Judiciary Committee nomination hearing of Professor Amy Coney Barrett of the Notre Dame Law School. During the hearing, she was asked repeatedly about her Catholic faith and faced what bordered on ridicule when she repeatedly stated that she would perform her judicial duties without interference from the doctrines of the Catholic faith. It was stated by one questioner: ``The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern.'' What does that statement mean in this context, if not to question Professor Barrett's judicial fitness based on her religious beliefs? Liberal groups have been relentless in their opposition to Professor Barrett, mischaracterizing her record to paint her as some kind of fringe ideologue waiting to take orders from the Pope or others in clergy on how to decide cases. Just last week, the New York Times ran a 1500-word story on where Professor Barrett worships. As it turns out, apart from her parish church, Professor Barrett has been part of an ecumenical charismatic community. I should note that charismatic Christianity is gaining a lot of ground among Latinos in the United States and throughout Latin America. It is a vibrant and very diverse religious tradition. According to the Times, Professor Barrett should have disclosed her participation in this charismatic community to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Professor Barrett's former professor and colleague, Professor Cathy Kaveny of Boston College, went so far as to ask: ``[Nominees] have to disclose everything from the Elks Lodge to the alumni associations we belong to. Why didn't she disclose this?'' Well, I am no law professor, but I can tell you why: because in the United States of America, it doesn't matter where you worship when you are being considered for Federal office, and that is as it should be. The Judiciary Committee does not require disclosure of religious affiliation, and I trust my colleagues would join me in strenuously objecting if it did. It is ironic that a Notre Dame professor is a target of this kind of animus. Notre Dame, of course, has long been at the forefront of fighting prejudice in this country. Early in its years, Notre Dame helped rid America of the scourge of slavery. Many artists have rendered Notre Dame professor, Father William Corby, giving the Irish Brigade general absolution during the Battle of Gettysburg. The school then faced down the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. At a time when a large number of White men in Indiana were members of the Klan, Notre Dame students made it clear that the Klan's brand of nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic hate was not welcomed in South Bend. Four decades later, Notre Dame's president, Father Ted Hesburgh, received a call about a rally at Soldier Field being organized by Dr. Martin Luther King. Hesburgh was told that Mayor Daley and Cardinal Cody had declined invitations to appear at the civil rights rally, and the organizers wondered if he would be willing to appear. In response, Hesburgh drove to Chicago, locked hands with Dr. King, and sang ``We Shall Overcome.'' Whether it is slavery, nativism, or Jim Crow, Notre Dame has stood up to it and has triumphed. In that same tradition, I am confident that Professor Barrett is up to that task. What is remarkable is that I need to say this in 2017. It bears repeating that a Roman Catholic can be a faithful steward of the law. So can an Episcopalian. So can a Mormon. So can a Muslim. Of course, so can an atheist. We in the Senate give the President advice and consent on judicial nominations. We therefore should examine their jurisprudential views and their qualifications. We must not examine their relationships with the Almighty. I sincerely hope this body will step back from this dangerous ledge and evaluate Professor Barrett based on her impeccable qualifications, not where she attends church. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the Democrats talked this morning about the Affordable Care Act and what the reform efforts are trying to do and what they are not trying to do. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, earlier today. A lot of talk has been thrown around about how the new effort would cut Medicaid spending. As my colleague from Nebraska mentioned, here in Washington a cut is not a cut anywhere else. But if you deal with the rate of growth, if you raise spending only by the Consumer Price Index rather than the medical Consumer Price Index--5 percent rather than 6 percent, for example--then you are somehow cutting the program. We know that the program as it currently stands is unsustainable. I think we all recognize that. So any efforts to deal with and to allow Governors and others at the local level to have more of a say on how these funds are spent and to gain efficiencies that way are frowned upon. It is said that we simply can't do that because it would be cutting Medicaid. That simply isn't the case. Arizona, for example, has a version of Medicaid called AHCCCS. It is done far more efficiently than some of the other States do it. That is because at the local level they have been able to do what local governments do best. The government that is closer to the people generally spends money more wisely and finds efficiencies that the Federal Government simply can't find. Let me mention that on the exchange, the Affordable Care Act dealt with a couple of different things. It is a so-called exchange where people who can't get insurance otherwise or don't get it through their employers will buy it on either a Federal exchange or a State exchange. Then you have the Medicaid side. Let me speak for a minute on the exchange side. Arizona has been ground zero for the failure of the ObamaCare exchange. We have 15 counties in Arizona. In all 15 counties, if you are a family of four and you are buying on the exchange, you are paying more on average for your healthcare premiums than you are for your mortgage. Think about that for a minute. You are paying more for your healthcare premiums than you are for your mortgage in every county in Arizona. In some counties in Arizona you are paying double. In every county it is more, in some counties significantly more, and in a couple of counties you are paying double for your healthcare premiums--much more than what you are paying for your mortgage. I spoke yesterday with an elected official from Arizona from one of the rural counties. He told me that his healthcare premium, which he simply can't afford anymore for his family of four children, would have been $2,800 a month. That is what it has gone up to. It has doubled virtually every year. In some counties in Arizona, we saw increases of 116 percent. He owned insurance prior to ObamaCare, was paying a reasonable amount for a premium, and had copays and deductibles that were reasonable as well. But when the Affordable Care Act came in, the promise that you could keep your doctor or keep your plan simply wasn't the case. His premiums have gone up, up, and up until now; he has a premium of $2,800 monthly for his family of four children. Keep in mind, as well, that there are the deductibles on top of that. Were he to use that insurance, by the time he satisfies the family deductible, which is about $12,000, he has paid--or he will pay if he has any medical issues--between premiums and deductibles, more than $40,000 before the first insurance dollar kicks in. So when we hear from the other side of the aisle that there is no problem with ObamaCare, that the only thing we have to worry about is, for some people who have gained insurance, to make sure they keep that--I agree we have to make sure those with preexisting conditions have access to affordable care. But when you have people on the exchange who simply can't find affordable care and if they do have a policy they can't afford to use it because deductibles and copays are so high, we have a problem. The latest figures tell us that 155,000 Arizonans woke up this morning without any insurance. Most of them had insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act, but then insurance was priced out of their reach. So 155,000 people are paying a fine to the Federal Government because of their inability to find affordable insurance. They pay that fine, and they still have no insurance. Tell me that is not something we have to fix. We have to fix that. That is what we are responding to here. This notion that it is all hunky-dory--keep with the plan--belies the fact that 155,000 Arizonans woke up this morning and said: We are paying a fine to the Federal Government because we can't find affordable care, and still we have no care, and we are somehow supposed to be OK with that. Somehow we are supposed to wait until we can find a solution for it all before we address that specific situation. I submit that we have to fix this. People in Arizona and elsewhere are hurting. Let's stop with the rhetoric that this is somehow a cut and people will be left on the streets. We heard that back in 1996 with welfare reform. It was said that the Governors or others at the local level couldn't participate, couldn't be in charge of this program because people would be dying on the streets. Guess what. Within a couple of years, the welfare rolls had been cut in half. We are doing better, and the Federal Government's obligation in that regard has been sustainable, unlike the current situation we have with the so-called Affordable Care Act. I hope we can stop the outrageous rhetoric on this and actually fix the problem. Let's fix the problem for Arizonans who are hurting right now. With that, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.'' committee on energy and natural resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., to hold a business meeting. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:45 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Managing Security Assistance to Support Foreign Policy.'' committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 26, 2017 at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Special Counsels and the Separation of Powers.'' committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Roundtable. committee on consumer protection, product safety, insurance, and data security The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``FTC Stakeholder Perspectives: Reform Proposals to Improve Fairness, Innovation and Consumer Welfare.''

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. He has been at it a long time. The two of us have been at it for quite a while. I think this is the year. This is the time. We are well past time for an AUMF. I wish to thank the Senator from Kentucky for focusing the Senate's attention on the 16-year-old authorization for use of military force. As a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I voted in favor of the 2001 authorization on September 14, 2001--almost 16 years ago to the day--September 14, 2001. I can attest that when I voted for that law, I had no idea it would still be in effect 16 years later. Since its passage, more than 300 Members of the House who took that vote that day, on September 14, 2001--more than 300 Members of the House are no longer in office. Of the Senators who voted, only 23 remain in the Senate today--23 out of 100. That comes out to about 70 percent of the Congress who has not voted to authorize force against terrorist groups abroad. It is long past time for Congress to calibrate the legal underpinning of the war against terrorism to today's realities. ISIS, for example, did not exist when the 2001 law was approved. We have learned a number of things since we voted to go to war with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and I think it is time to incorporate those lessons into a new AUMF. For example, we have learned that no administration is ever going to want to have the powers granted to it under the 2001 law curtailed. The Obama administration fought efforts to put an ISIS-specific AUMF in place, and the Trump administration has signaled it believes the 2001 authorities are adequate, and it does not plan to seek a new AUMF. We have also learned that crafting a new AUMF that garners bipartisan support is an especially difficult task. I know, because we have been trying for a while. I think we can all agree, the only thing worse than having the 2001 statute in place is a partisan vote on a new AUMF. Lastly, we have learned that America is strongest when we speak with one voice, which means Congress needs to have some buy-in. We have to have some skin in the game. Otherwise, we can simply blame the administration for any effort overseas. We can't let wars against new terrorist groups like ISIS be waged only by the executive branch. We in Congress need to weigh in and we have to let our allies and our adversaries know we are serious and committed. Taking these lessons into account, I think it is imperative for any future terrorism-related AUMF to include a sunset provision that requires Congress to put its skin in the game. That way, we can avoid being put in the position we are in today--having to vote on an amendment to repeal a law that authorizes force against groups that are actively planning attacks against American interests. Ultimately, I cannot support my colleague's effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF in 6 months because of the very real risk associated with repealing such a vital law before we have something to replace it with. Fortunately, I know the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee remains committed to considering legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF and to replace it. As I mentioned, the Senator from Virginia and I have introduced legislation to do just that. That legislation, S.J. Res. 43, would repeal the 2001 law and authorize the use of force against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and ISIS. It would allow for greater congressional oversight of what groups can be deemed as ``associated forces'' of those organizations. It also contains a sunset provision. So I look forward to working with my colleague from Kentucky and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee to move an AUMF that can garner bipartisan support. That is the right way to do it--under regular order, moving it through the Foreign Relations Committee, and then bringing it here to the floor, where we can debate and we can have buy-in, and the Senate can vote on an AUMF and then the House. Then, the U.S. Government--the Congress and the executive branch--can speak with one voice. With that, 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. FLAKE. Mr. President, last month I spoke here about an amazing story I was told when I had the opportunity to host several veterans who survived the sinking of the USS Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor. They recalled to me the incredible story of a true American hero named Joe George, and I would like to briefly remind everyone of that story now. On December 7, 1941, Joe was a 26-year-old boatswain's mate second class aboard the repair ship USS Vestal in Pearl Harbor, HI. That morning, the Vestal was moored alongside the USS Arizona. At 7:48 a.m., many sailors, including Joe, had just finished their breakfast when the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service attacked Pearl Harbor. As we know, the Arizona suffered a direct hit by a Japanese bomb that detonated in the ship's powder magazine. The resulting explosion sank the ship and claimed the lives of 1,177 servicemen. During this unimaginable chaos and carnage, Joe George displayed stunning composure and courage. Joe spotted six sailors trapped in the control tower of the sinking USS Arizona. These men were severely burned and were searching for a way to safety. Those six wounded sailors were Seaman First Class Harold Kuhn, Seaman First Class Russell Lott, Gunner's Mate Third Class Earl Riner, Boatswain's Mate Second Class Alvin Dvork, Seaman First Class Donald Stratton, and Fire Controlman Third Class Lauren Bruner. Upon seeing these men, Joe threw a heaving line between the Vestal and the Arizona to rescue the wounded soldiers from the sinking ship. Suspended 40 feet in the air, the six sailors climbed 70 feet hand- over-hand across the rope to safety on board the Vestal. These sailors did all this while enduring injuries so severe that two would succumb to their wounds in the weeks following the attack. As they struggled across the heavy line, Joe George remained close by, all the while encouraging the men to push on. The four soldiers who survived their injuries each returned to serve with honor during World War II, and then went on to live long lives. Joe George's legacy of heroism will remain alive forever in the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the four sailors who survived that infamous day thanks to Joe George's incredible bravery and service. Joe George was never awarded a medal for his role in the rescue of these six sailors, although his commanding officer commended his courageous actions. When I met one of the Arizona survivors who was rescued by Joe, he told me: Joe George was never awarded anything for his bravery. He is no longer with us, but I believe in his memory he should be awarded the Navy Cross. Lauren Bruner was another survivor Joe saved. He said to me: The six of us would not have survived except for his courage, in spite of being at high risk himself. He fully deserves high commendations for his actions. I feel he should be recognized for this courage and presented the Navy Cross. In his own words during an interview in 1978, Joe said: I'll tell you, the only thing I could tell you about that day. . . . My conscience was my guide. Well, his conscience was that of a hero. We need more people like Joe George in this world. That is why today I am committed to honoring Joe and why I rise today with the honor and privilege to call for unanimous consent in the adoption of a resolution honoring Joseph Leon George. Joe passed away in 1996, and it is long overdue that the Senate, the U.S. Navy, and a grateful nation honor the heroism of Boatswain's Mate Second Class Joseph Leon George. God bless Joe George, whose immense courage and astounding composure serves as an example for the men and women in uniform who follow in his wake. Let us never forget their heroism and sacrifice. I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Gardner, Lee, Cotton, McCaskill, and Bennet for joining me in this resolution and for helping to ensure its adoption here today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 243.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an executive session to vote on the following nominations: Mr. Joseph Otting, of Nevada, to be Comptroller of the Currency; and the honorable Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a member of the board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; reappointment as a supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and to vote on S. 1463. Following the executive session, the Committee will meet in open session for a hearing entitled, ``Evaluating Sanctions Enforcement and Policy Option on North Korea.'' committee on energy and natural resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2017, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Care: Issues Impacting Cost and Coverage.'' committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stabilizing Premiums and Helping Individuals in the Individual Insurance Market for 2018: Governors'' on Thursday, September 7, 2017. at 9 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 7, 2017, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting. committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Inteligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 2 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Business Meeting followed by a Closed Briefing. subcommittee on investigation The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Cutting Through the Red Tape: Oversight of Federal Infrastructure Permitting and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.''

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.