Jeff Flake

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an Arizonan. Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far too many who have served our country lack a support system that can help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life. For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law. While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service- connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and increases recidivism. To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial incarceration and reducing recidivism. The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their needs. I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them successfully transition and help them with treatment. The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans. The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and veterans will go unserved. That is not right. That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional VJOs in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an Arizonan. Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far too many who have served our country lack a support system that can help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life. For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law. While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service- connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and increases recidivism. To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial incarceration and reducing recidivism. The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their needs. I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them successfully transition and help them with treatment. The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans. The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and veterans will go unserved. That is not right. That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional VJOs in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, as I have done from the time he was nominated and as I will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist. I look forward to helping make sure he can receive a vote here on the Senate floor. In the weeks since his nomination, I have spoken at length about his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. I have recognized him as a conservative champion of religious liberty, a defender of the separation of powers, and a westerner who will bring some much needed geographic diversity and a regional perspective to the Court. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Gorsuch showed the country what it means to be a judge. Big or small, popular or unpopular, powerful or powerless, Judge Gorsuch promised to render judgments based on the facts of the case, nothing else. He also has a remarkable record of respectful cooperation with judges appointed by Presidents of both parties. During his decade-long tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch participated in more than 2,700 appeals. These comprised some of the most difficult cases across six States. Of those cases, 97 percent of them were decided unanimously--97 percent. Judge Gorsuch was in the majority 99 percent of the time. He was in the majority on those cases 99 percent of the time. This is a testament to Judge Gorsuch's ability to consider other points of view and to seek out consensus, where possible. To try to paint Judge Gorsuch as an ideologue simply doesn't work. Those are essential qualities for any prospective Supreme Court Justice. Now that we have reported Judge Gorsuch out of committee as of today, I would like to say a few words on the obstacles that stand in the way of his being considered here on the Senate floor. As we proceed with Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, I would like to explain my support for confirming him in light of what transpired in the waning months of the previous administration. For nearly 230 years, Presidents have been making nominations to the Supreme Court. According to the Congressional Research Service: ``From the appointment of the first Justices in 1789 through its consideration of Nominee Elena Kagan in 2010, the Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme Court nominations out of 160 received.'' I would like to reiterate that number. Out of 160 Supreme Court nominations in our Nation's history, 124 were confirmed. The Congressional Research Service goes on to state: ``Of the 36 nominations which were not confirmed, 11 were rejected outright in roll-call votes by the Senate, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of substantial committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate.'' The manner in which the Senate decides to provide its constitutional advice and consent on Presidential nominations has varied over the centuries with respect to nominations. This includes decisions not to take up Supreme Court nominees. As Jonathan Adler put it in his article in the George Mason Law Review: Much as the Senate may reject a legislative proposal that originated in the House of Representatives by voting it down, killing it in committee, or simply refusing to take up the measure, the Senate may withhold its consent by voting against confirmation of a nominee, rejecting the nominee in committee, or simply refusing to act. Is refusing to act the preferred outcome? I can certainly see where some would say no, as would I. However, the history of the Senate demonstrates that to do otherwise in similar circumstances, as we just experienced is, in fact, a rare exception. To cite Adler's law review article again, he states: ``The last time a Supreme Court vacancy arose in the calendar year of a Presidential election and was filled prior to [the] election was in 1932.'' President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the heat of the 2016 Presidential election. When he was nominated, I understood the frustration of those on the other side of the aisle over the fate of that nomination. I met Judge Garland. He is a good man and a good judge, but the decision by the majority not to take up Judge Garland's nomination was not inconsistent with a longstanding practice of filling Supreme Court vacancies after elections. This brings us today to why I support confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. There is no question about the appropriateness of confirming Supreme Court nominees during the first years of the President's term, let alone the first 3 months. In fact, there is absolutely no justification for filibustering a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee put forward by the President who was just elected. That is just unprecedented. There was an attempt to use this tactic in 2006 with Justice Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but he garnered sufficient bipartisan support so that cloture was invoked. Today, it appears that we will not enjoy that same rational support. My preference would be to change the behavior of Senators rather than change the rules of the Senate. But here we are, where a nominee who would have received unanimous or nearly unanimous support just a few years ago is about to be filibustered. My question is this: If we can't confirm a judge like Judge Gorsuch under contemporary use of Senate rules, who can we confirm? It looks as if we will move forward later this week and make the rest of the Executive Calendar subject to the same simple majority threshold. Again, a change in Senate rules is not my preferred outcome, but this rule change will simply make de jure what was de facto prior to 2003, when filibusters were virtually never used on the President's Executive Calendar. Now, I want to make clear my steadfast support to preserve the legislative filibuster. We need to distinguish between the President's Executive Calendar, which has traditionally never been filibustered or subject to filibuster, and the legislative filibuster, which is used frequently here to ensure that we work across the aisle. The Framers of our Constitution had the wisdom to create a Senate with a strong minority to serve as a check on runaway power. If we were to eliminate the legislative filibuster, we would cease to be that check, and, indeed, the Senate would cease to be the Senate. We have a qualified mainstream jurist before us. That is Judge Gorsuch. I encourage all of my colleagues to give him fair consideration and to advance his nomination to an up-or-down vote. I will be voting to confirm him, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, border security is one of the Federal Government's most important responsibilities, and the Federal Government has no better partners than local law enforcement agencies from border communities like those in my home State of Arizona. These officers and deputies serve on the front lines. They provide critical assistance to the missions of Federal agencies. Unfortunately, these efforts are expensive and the locals end up picking up most of the tab. For example, local law enforcement agencies hold those facing immigration violations at county-operated jails, and they provide medical care for the undocumented inmates while they are in custody. In providing these services, Arizona's counties have incurred more than $310 million in costs associated with criminal undocumented immigrants since 2009. That is $310 million since 2009. Despite these enormous costs, the Federal Government has left many local jurisdictions to shoulder the burdens of illegal immigration on their own. This is particularly frustrating when so many of our local law enforcement agencies are already struggling to carry out basic duties on overstretched budgets. I hope we can all look forward to a time when we have the appropriate resources for securing the border, the means for those seeking to fill the needs of our economy to enter the country legally, a remedy for those who are here already illegally, and also a way for employers to ensure that those whom they hire are legally present. These critical steps toward solving our immigration problems will require Congress to act. However, in the meantime, we can't continue to allow the Federal Government to pass off immigration responsibilities onto cash-strapped local agencies. That is why I wish today to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reform the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP. This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, John McCain, and is supported by the Arizona Sheriffs Association. SCAAP is a Federal program that reimburses State, local, and Tribal law enforcement for the costs associated with incarcerating and caring for criminal undocumented immigrants while in custody. To ensure that local law enforcement receives sufficient reimbursement under SCAAP, my bill would make some commonsense reforms under the program. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize SCAAP through fiscal year 2021. Reauthorizing this program will provide local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and across the country with the certainty that any costs incurred from incarcerating criminal immigrants will be covered by Federal reimbursements. Our State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies are committed to partnering with the Federal Government on immigration enforcement. But that partnership can't succeed unless the Federal Government provides the necessary reimbursements for those services. As Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels said: Arizona's counties continue to struggle under the fiscal strain of anemic growth in rural areas and cost-shifts from the State of Arizona. Housing criminal aliens without federal assistance diverts needed resources away from our communities' public safety priorities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Arizona Sheriffs Association in support of my bill to reauthorize SCAAP be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the SCAAP program is the foundation of the immigration partnership between local law enforcement and the Federal Government for keeping our communities safe. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to reauthorize and reform the SCAAP program.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, border security is one of the Federal Government's most important responsibilities, and the Federal Government has no better partners than local law enforcement agencies from border communities like those in my home State of Arizona. These officers and deputies serve on the front lines. They provide critical assistance to the missions of Federal agencies. Unfortunately, these efforts are expensive and the locals end up picking up most of the tab. For example, local law enforcement agencies hold those facing immigration violations at county-operated jails, and they provide medical care for the undocumented inmates while they are in custody. In providing these services, Arizona's counties have incurred more than $310 million in costs associated with criminal undocumented immigrants since 2009. That is $310 million since 2009. Despite these enormous costs, the Federal Government has left many local jurisdictions to shoulder the burdens of illegal immigration on their own. This is particularly frustrating when so many of our local law enforcement agencies are already struggling to carry out basic duties on overstretched budgets. I hope we can all look forward to a time when we have the appropriate resources for securing the border, the means for those seeking to fill the needs of our economy to enter the country legally, a remedy for those who are here already illegally, and also a way for employers to ensure that those whom they hire are legally present. These critical steps toward solving our immigration problems will require Congress to act. However, in the meantime, we can't continue to allow the Federal Government to pass off immigration responsibilities onto cash-strapped local agencies. That is why I wish today to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reform the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP. This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, John McCain, and is supported by the Arizona Sheriffs Association. SCAAP is a Federal program that reimburses State, local, and Tribal law enforcement for the costs associated with incarcerating and caring for criminal undocumented immigrants while in custody. To ensure that local law enforcement receives sufficient reimbursement under SCAAP, my bill would make some commonsense reforms under the program. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize SCAAP through fiscal year 2021. Reauthorizing this program will provide local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and across the country with the certainty that any costs incurred from incarcerating criminal immigrants will be covered by Federal reimbursements. Our State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies are committed to partnering with the Federal Government on immigration enforcement. But that partnership can't succeed unless the Federal Government provides the necessary reimbursements for those services. As Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels said: Arizona's counties continue to struggle under the fiscal strain of anemic growth in rural areas and cost-shifts from the State of Arizona. Housing criminal aliens without federal assistance diverts needed resources away from our communities' public safety priorities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Arizona Sheriffs Association in support of my bill to reauthorize SCAAP be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the SCAAP program is the foundation of the immigration partnership between local law enforcement and the Federal Government for keeping our communities safe. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to reauthorize and reform the SCAAP program.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the FCC's broadband privacy restrictions. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Privacy Subcommittee, I have spent more than a year closely examining this issue. In February of 2015 the FCC, under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler, took the unprecedented step of reclassifying broadband providers as ``common carriers'' under title II of the Communications Act. In other words, on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, the FCC decided that internet service providers should be treated like telephone companies for regulatory purposes. The decision encroached on the Federal Trade Commission's jurisdiction to regulate ISP privacy policies, stripping these companies of their traditional privacy regulator. Recognizing that his actions to impose net neutrality on ISPs created regulatory uncertainty, last spring Chairman Wheeler began to float the idea of implementing new FCC privacy rules. The FCC decided, again on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, to move forward with the rule change just before election day. The whole process was unsettling, to say the least. The FCC ultimately decided to commandeer an area of regulatory authority for itself, without any meaningful check on this unilateral action. Once it initiated the bureaucratic power grab, it proceeded to establish new rules restricting the free speech of its regulatory target. I submitted comments to the agency expressing my constitutional concerns about its proposed rule. I wasn't alone in doing so. Noted Harvard law professor Larry Tribe, hardly one to be confused for a conservative, did the same. But the rules were finalized nonetheless. While the FCC recently took a step in the right direction by staying the application of the privacy rules, these midnight regulations are still hanging out there. Congress needs to repeal these privacy restrictions in order to restore balance to the internet ecosystem and provide certainty to consumers. These regulations have altered the basic nature of privacy protection in the United States. For decades, the FTC policed privacy based on consumer expectations for their data, not bureaucratic preferences. These consumer expectations were just common sense: Sensitive data deserves more protection than nonsensitive data. Unfortunately, the FCC rules dispensed with this commonsense regulatory approach. Under the new rules, what matters isn't what the data is but, rather, who uses it. This creates a dual-track regulatory environment where some consumer data is regulated one way if a company is using it under the FCC's jurisdiction and an entirely different way if its use falls under the FTC, or the Federal Trade Commission. This is all confusing enough, but it gets worse. In the consumer technology sector, innovation is the name of the game. Companies are constantly rolling out new products and competing to win over consumers. By the same token, consumers are always on the lookout for the newest gadget or app. But the FCC's privacy order makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to learn about the latest product offerings from broadband providers. Instead of being notified about faster and more affordable alternatives for their family's home internet needs, under the FCC's privacy order, Arizonans might get left in the dark. The FCC's heavyhanded data requirements restrict the ability of broadband providers to offer services tailored to their customers' needs and interests, and they lead to inconsistent treatment of otherwise identical data online. When a regulation diminishes innovation, harms consumer choice, and is just all-around confusing, it is a bad regulation. The FCC's privacy rule for ISPs is a bad regulation. When it chose to impose needlessly onerous privacy regulations on broadband providers while leaving the rest of the internet under the successful FTC regime, the FCC unfairly picked one politically favored industry--the edge providers--to prevail over a different industry-- broadband. Repealing the FCC's privacy action is a crucial step toward restoring a single, uniform set of privacy rules for the internet. The FTC's privacy rules are the result of an ongoing, data-driven effort to understand and protect consumer expectations. That is the FTC. The FCC's rules, on the other hand, are the hasty byproduct of political interest groups and reflect the narrow preferences of well-connected insiders. To sum all of this up, the FCC's midnight privacy rules are confusing and counterproductive. This CRA will get rid of it, pure and simple. But let me say what it won't do. Despite claims to the contrary, using this CRA will not leave consumers unprotected. That is because the FCC is already obligated to police the privacy practices of broadband providers under section 222 of the Communications Act, as well as various other Federal and State laws. Both Chairman Wheeler and Chairman Pai agree on that point. Just last week, Chairman Pai wrote to my friends on the other side of the aisle confirming this legal fact. This resolution will not disrupt the FCC's power, nor will it infringe on the FTC's jurisdiction elsewhere. Neither will it affect how broadband providers currently handle consumer data. Broadband providers are currently regulated under section 222, and they will continue to be after these midnight regulations are rescinded. Passing this CRA will send a powerful message that Federal agencies can't unilaterally restrict constitutional rights and expect to get away with it. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as I did 2 weeks ago and will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist, and I look forward to helping to make sure that he receives an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Next week, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee will hold confirmation hearings on Judge Gorsuch. I look forward to hearing his testimony. I am confident that he will impress the country with his knowledge of and respect for the law, just as he has impressed me and my colleagues. But before the hearings get under way, I thought I would use this opportunity today to highlight an additional aspect of his life and his jurisprudence that make him an ideal nominee to serve on the High Court. So far I have spoken on the floor about his fitness to fill Justice Scalia's seat, as well as his defense of the separation of powers and his support for religious liberty. Today I would like to discuss a more personal aspect of Judge Gorsuch's background--the fact that he is a westerner. As an Arizonan, I cannot overstate how important it will be to have a fellow westerner serving on the Supreme Court. Where you are from influences your understanding of cultural and regional sensitivities. When you look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court, there is an unmistakable lack of geographic diversity. Of the eight current Justices, five of them were born in New York or New Jersey, and that number was six before Judge Scalia's passing. Granted, Justice Kennedy is from Northern California, but to be frank, much of Northern California is about as culturally western as Justice Breyer's hometown of Boston. The Supreme Court is in desperate need of a western perspective. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill. When I had the opportunity to meet Judge Gorsuch in my office last month, we discussed our respective western backgrounds. I talked to him about my days growing up on a cattle ranch in rural Arizona. He told me that his heart has always been in the American West. You can learn a lot about a person by how they spend their time with their friends and their family, and there is no mistaking this aspect with Judge Gorsuch. He is a westerner through and through. He told me about his home outside of Boulder, where his daughters raise and show chickens and goats. I was pleased to learn that each year he takes his law clerks to the National Western Stock Show in Denver, one of the Nation's largest rodeos. By now, I think we have all seen the picture of him fly fishing with Judge Scalia. While all this demonstrates how much he has embraced the western lifestyle, what makes Judge Gorsuch a true westerner is more than just where he lives or where his personal interests are. Judge Gorsuch's western values are evident in his jurisprudence, which reflects a strong commitment to public service. Arizona has had its share of distinguished public servants. In fact, it was from this very desk that the late Barry Goldwater, one of Arizona's favorite sons, steered the public policy debate for years after he chose to leave a successful career in the private sector. Judge Gorsuch's career reflects the same ethos. Early on, a young Neil Gorsuch rocketed to the top of the legal profession, becoming a partner in one of Washington's most elite law firms. But instead of enjoying the comforts of a lucrative private sector career, he left it all behind for a high-responsibility, low- profile job at the Department of Justice. After his time at DOJ, Neil Gorsuch could have easily retired or returned to a white-shoe legal practice. Instead, he returned to his home State of Colorado to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Throughout his tenure on the Federal bench, Judge Gorsuch's western disposition has shone through in his jurisprudence. I have already spoken of his skepticism toward the administrative state, with its executive bureaucracies, which, he cautions, ``swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate Federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.'' He shares a healthy skepticism over an overly intrusive and heavy- handed bureaucracy with millions of his Federal westerners. Judge Gorsuch recognizes how Federal regulations interfere with the ability of Western States to govern themselves, whether it is a former administration's Clean Power Plan, its ozone rules, or even management of the Mexican gray wolf. In numerous opinions, Judge Gorsuch has given voice to many of the frustrations experienced by his western neighbors. From his criticism of an overly assertive DC court that often feels compelled to intervene from 2,000 miles away to his recognition of excessive litigation that arises from the complexities of split-estate property rights out West, he speaks our language. These are perspectives any westerner is familiar with, but they may not be obvious to others, including folks from New York and New Jersey. If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will already bring generational and religious diversity to the Court. Perhaps more than anything, it will be his western perspective that most enriches the debate in the years to come. As I have said before, Judge Gorsuch deserves fair consideration by those who serve in this body, and he deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. He should be confirmed overwhelmingly, and I am confident that he will be. Joining us on the floor today are several members of the Senate from Western States. I see that the Senator from Wyoming has joined us. I think he has some thoughts about Neil Gorsuch and his nomination to the Court.

Mr. FLAKE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FLAKE. You point out the sensitivities that you have when you come from the West. A lot of it has to do with, if you are in a rural area in particular, you are--as my family grew up--working on the land. Much of that land is either owned by or controlled by the Federal Government, the State government, or Tribal governments in Arizona's case. In fact, 85 percent of the State of Arizona is publicly owned. So when you live in the West and you work the land on a ranch or farm, you are dealing specifically with Federal regulators and Federal property managers. I think those who were raised in the West and have lived here understand the impact of the Federal Government's decisions. The administrative state has an outsized impact on those who live in the West, and I think that is evident in the jurisprudence you see from Judge Gorsuch. How much of Wyoming is publicly owned?

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, within a matter of days, our national debt will top $20 trillion, notching another ominous milestone in our Nation's long-running addiction to spending. How did we get here? A decade ago, taxpayers learned that many of their elected representatives were complicit in an insidious practice that rotted the legislative branch to its core, and that is congressional earmarking. Called a ``gateway drug'' by our distinguished former colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, earmarks have long exacerbated the Federal Government's spending addiction. As old as the Republic, earmarks have always been used by generations of politicians as currency to curry favor with well-connected special interests. After public outrage reached a critical mass, both the House and the Senate instituted bans on earmarking, ending what had been a corrupt pay-to-play culture in Congress. In order to preserve this important check against the corrupting influence of earmarks, I recently sent a letter to President Donald Trump respectfully urging him to veto any legislation containing earmarks that reaches his desk. I thank my colleagues, Senators John McCain, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Ben Sasse, for cosigning this letter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letter.

Mr. FLAKE. To explain the urgency behind my letter to the President, I wish to remind my colleagues in this body, many of whom were not in the Congress before enactment of the moratorium, just how bad the earmarking epidemic became. For the uninitiated, the term ``earmark'' is a euphemism for when lawmakers work to circumvent the regular, normal appropriations process in order to secure special funding for projects in their home districts or their States. This resulted in Federal tax dollars being doled out to Members of Congress on a whim, bypassing normal rigorous Federal and public vetting. Instead of focusing on oversight responsibilities or devising legislative solutions for the Nation's most pressing challenges, lawmakers and staffers devoted thousands of man-hours toward filling earmark requests. Congressional appropriators and appropriations committees transformed into what were termed ``favor factories,'' abandoning oversight responsibilities to focus on rationing out pork. To me, that was one of the most insidious parts of the whole earmarking era. We have oversight responsibilities in Congress. There is a huge Federal budget on which we should be providing oversight, but instead of poring over agency spending and searching for waste in our trillion- dollar discretionary budget, Members and staff devoted countless hours to roughly 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget. There was so much focus on just doling out what represented 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget that we basically neglected the rest of the Federal budget in terms of oversight. In less than 20 years, the number of earmarks in the Transportation bill alone grew from 152 to 6,300. President Reagan, I believe, in 1988 famously said that he vetoed the highway bill because he hadn't seen that much pork since he handed out ribbons at the county fair. There were 152 earmarks in the Transportation bill that year, and by 2005 it was 6,300. That is an increase of more than 4,000 percent. Examples of earmarks range from a quarter billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska--everybody became familiar with that one; $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, paid for by taxpayers across the country; and half a million dollars for a teapot museum in North Carolina. All of these earmarks added up, eventually totaling about $29 billion a year. It was in this environment that, along with a small group of like- minded colleagues, I set out to put an end to this form of transactional politics that had infected the Halls of Congress. Our mission was to place a permanent moratorium on congressional earmarks. It took unprecedented revelations of widespread corruption and illegality and ultimately the jailing of lawmakers, staffers, and lobbyists before the public's outrage forced Congress to clean up its act. But even brazen instances of public corruption didn't stop Congress from dragging its feet on reforms, and the majority party, my party, paid the price at the polls in 2006. The dominant mood of the electorate at that time--that of mistrust in government institutions--is strikingly reminiscent of the drain-the- swamp mentality that permeated last November's election. But despite this surging anti-insider sentiment across the ideological spectrum, there is now a chorus of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle working behind the scenes to lift the congressional earmark moratorium. These earmark defenders will trot out arguments ranging from constitutional prerogative to the insignificance of earmarks relative to the entire Federal budget. They will say: It is OK to earmark. We are only earmarking 1 percent of the Federal budget. But all of these defenses ring hollow. The constitutional power of the purse is not a blanket mandate for Congress to spend freely; rather, it is a fundamental duty to prevent the executive branch from wasting taxpayer dollars. By using earmarks to funnel billions of dollars to special interests, Congress ceases to be a check on the executive branch. We have become no better than the free-spending bureaucrats whom we rail against. While we were ultimately successful in securing earmark bans in both the House and the Senate, today we are seeing far too many cracks in those foundations. With so many in Congress now willing to sacrifice fiscal discipline, we have to remain vigilant against the return to business as usual. We can't afford to forfeit the hard-fought progress we have made. The Senate Republican conference's vote earlier this year to preserve the earmark ban was an important step in the right direction, but we need to do more. That is why I sent the letter to President Trump, and it is why, should earmarks return, I intend to challenge each one of them on the Senate floor. Just as I did in my time in the House, I will file amendments to force debate and force votes on these earmarks. That way, Members can publicly defend their earmarks to the hard-working taxpayers they represent. As we look forward to the future, I have been encouraged by the President's recognition of Washington's addiction to spending and his administration's commitment to finally doing something about it. I look forward to working with the administration to make the Federal Government leaner, more transparent, and more accountable to the taxpayers it serves. Border Adjustment Tax Mr. President, I take the floor today to express my concern with the border adjustment tax. The border adjustment tax is quickly becoming the centerpiece of a planned overhaul of our tax and trade policies. I am certain that I am not the only one hearing that this approach could make everyday consumer products more expensive at the very places middle-class families shop the most. From the aisles at big-box stores to the checkout lines in grocery stores, household staples could be pushed out of reach for those who can least afford it. In addition, there are concerns that this new policy could disrupt global supply chains and make it harder for our country's largest private sector employers to grow and to do business. There are those who suggest that the known downsides to the new tax will be a wash because the U.S. dollar will be stronger; however, others are not so comfortable gambling the purchasing power of the average consumer on the unpredictability of international currency markets. At first glance, the plan seems simple enough: Tax companies in the United States less and tax goods made overseas more. That seems simple. According to supporters, this would boost our exports, incentivize companies to locate operations here in the United States, and it would reduce our trade deficit. Unfortunately, it turns out that is not so easy. Looking inward, we simply do not produce everything we need here in the United States. That is why we trade with other countries in the first place. And for the things we do make here, those products often require inputs from all over the world. In fact, whether it is raw material or specialty parts, roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports consist of inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing. Let me say that again. Roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports consist of inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing, many times for products that are then shipped overseas. Because of our trade deals with other nations, these inputs are cheaper than they would be otherwise. Cheaper inputs mean lower production costs for U.S.-based businesses, which in turn allows these companies to expand production and to reduce prices. What will happen if we place a 20-percent tax on all imports? Looking beyond our borders, we should also consider the reaction such a tax is sure to trigger amongst our trading partners. If the protectionist trade policies of the past have taught us anything, it is that countries tend to retaliate when they believe trade obligations have been violated. When we increase barriers to trade, nobody wins. Do I agree that we should work to make U.S. businesses more competitive? Absolutely. Do I agree that we need to reform our Tax Code? You bet. Tax reform and pro-growth trade policies have been at the top of my list of priorities throughout my tenure in Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to lower corporate and individual tax rates, eliminate costly tax earmarks, and make our Tax Code flatter, simpler, and more conducive to growth. There will always be winners and losers in a robust debate on reforming the Tax Code. We ought to make sure the middle class isn't in the losing column. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

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