Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to mark the passing of a pillar of the Arizona law enforcement community. When people think of the Old West, they often picture a Stetson-wearing lawman sitting astride his horse, keeping watch over his community. For generations of residents in Southwestern Arizona, that lawman was Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden. With his towering frame and trademark mustache, Sheriff Ogden looked every bit the part. Despite having an imposing physical presence, Sheriff Ogden was a kind, compassionate man, beloved by his deputies and celebrated by his community. After 4 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, Ralph Ogden began his 42-year law enforcement career as a dispatcher and a jailer in Parker, AZ. A dedicated public servant, he would eventually serve as chief deputy for 12 years. Ralph would go on to be elected to five consecutive terms as sheriff, with his 20-year tenure the longest ever in Yuma county history. Sheriff Ogden always understood the importance of getting to know the community he served. He encouraged his employees to get involved in charities, religious groups, and service organizations. He valued teamwork. He recognized that no one can succeed on their own. This philosophy of always having some other person's back was something he carried with him throughout his time in the sheriff's office, and it was reflected in the way he treated those around him. I was fortunate to get to know Ralph over the last few years and learned a lot of what I know about the border and about law enforcement from that great man. Sheriff Ogden was known to write personal birthday and anniversary cards for each of his employees, just to show that he valued their service and their friendship and to show they were important to him. When asked about the benefits of serving law enforcement, Sheriff Ogden said that when you go home tired and beat after a long day, you sleep well knowing that you did some good. Sheriff Ralph Ogden did a lot of good. I know he is resting well. I yield back my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, with a heavy heart I wish to mark the passing of a pillar of the Arizona law enforcement community. When people think of the Old West, they often picture a Stetson- wearing lawman sitting astride his horse, keeping watch over his community. For generations of residents in southwestern Arizona, that lawman was Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden. With his towering frame and trademark mustache, Sheriff Ogden looked every bit the part. Despite his imposing physical presence, Sheriff Ogden was a kind, compassionate man, beloved by his deputies and celebrated by his community. After 4 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, Ralph Ogden began his 42-year law enforcement career as a dispatcher and jailer in Parker, AZ. A dedicated public servant, he would eventually serve as chief deputy for 12 years. Ralph would go on to be elected to five consecutive terms as sheriff, with his 20-year tenure the longest in Yuma County history. Sheriff Ogden always understood the importance of getting to know the community he served and encouraged his employees to get involved in charities, religious groups, and service organizations. He valued teamwork and recognized that no one can succeed on their own. This philosophy of always having each other's back was something he carried with him throughout his time with the sheriff's office, and it was reflected in the way he treated those around him. Sheriff Ogden was known to write personal birthday and anniversary cards for each of his employees, just to show that he valued their service and friendship and that they were important to him. When asked about the benefits of serving in law enforcement, Sheriff Ogden said that, when you go home tired and beat after a long day, you sleep well knowing you did some good. Sheriff Ralph Ogden did a lot of good, and I know he is resting well.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as I did last week and as I will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist. I look forward to helping make sure he receives an up-or-down vote here on the Senate floor. After meeting with Judge Gorsuch and learning more about his judicial philosophy, I continue to be impressed by his humble respect for the law and by his commitment to service. Before the Judiciary Committee begins our hearings, I want to highlight aspects of his jurisprudence that qualify him to serve on our Nation's highest Court and make him an ideal candidate to fill such a consequential position. Earlier this month I spoke about his fitness to fill Justice Scalia's seat, as well as his respect for the separation of powers. Today I would like to focus on his approach to religious freedom. I have always supported religious freedom as a universal principle. It doesn't matter if we are defending our own First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion here at home or standing up for the religious freedoms of people under repressive regimes abroad, our country has always valued the right of individuals to practice their faith as they please. Just as religious freedom is part of our national character, it also provides insight into the character and judicial philosophy of a prospective justice. When I had the privilege of meeting with Judge Gorsuch last week, I asked him about his thoughts on religious freedom. I was struck by his ability to plainly articulate his understanding of the law and the Constitution. He explained his religious liberty opinions by telling me that he simply went ``where the law led him.'' His explanation was indicative of his fundamental approach to interpreting the law. Judge Gorsuch doesn't make the law; he follows the law. He reads the Constitution as the Framers understood it. He interprets laws the way they were written. Lately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been vocal about the importance of respecting our independent judiciary. I couldn't agree more. They have decried the perils of discriminating on the basis of religious belief. Well, they are in luck. The Supreme Court nominee before us would be a staunch defender of independent courts and religious freedom. All they have to do is help us confirm him. I don't blame them for wanting to do their homework on a Supreme Court nominee. They should, as should we all. They will find that studying Judge Gorsuch's record will make for enjoyable reading. On the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch has authored a number of judicial opinions respecting the fundamental principles of religious liberty. His most notable was a concurring opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. In this landmark legal case interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Gorsuch ruled that the Federal Government cannot force individuals to assist in conduct that violates their deeply held religious convictions. I note that this law used to be noncontroversial. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and then Congressman Chuck Schumer. It was passed almost unanimously in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. In his concurrence, Judge Gorsuch wrote: ``The [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] doesn't just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation's long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.'' Religious tolerance--that is what our country stands for, and that is what Judge Gorsuch stands for. Judge Gorsuch's position was later vindicated by the Supreme Court. The Court agreed that it is the government's job to protect an individual's ability to practice their religion, not to instruct them on how to practice their religion. In closing, let me reiterate that I believe Judge Gorsuch is a mainstream jurist who will uphold the Constitution to ensure justice for all, regardless of an individual's religious beliefs or which administration is in power. As someone who embraces religious freedom, it is a privilege to support and confirm a judge like Neil Gorsuch, who respects this central constitutional principle. As I have said before, and I will say again, 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 he will be. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as I did last week, I rise again to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. As we know, he is an accomplished, mainstream jurist, and he is a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia. I look forward to seeing him receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I truly hope that happens. After meeting with Judge Gorsuch and learning more about his judicial philosophy, I continue to be impressed by his humble respect for the law and his commitment to service. Before the hearings in the Judiciary Committee, I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight one aspect of his jurisprudence that I find particularly important: the separation of powers. To hear some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, Judge Gorsuch represents two equal yet opposing dangers to the country. First, they warn that he will lack any independence of thought or commitment to the Constitution. They allege that he would serve merely as a rubberstamp for President Trump and his agenda. In the same breath, though, they claim he would engage in unprecedented judicial oversight of the Federal executive agencies. In other words, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle assert that Judge Gorsuch would be both too deferential to Federal agencies and not deferential enough. The truth is, these warnings and accusations are entirely unfounded, and they appear to be grounded more in political calculations than in honest concern. For my part, I am excited about the prospect of confirming a Justice who not only represents the separation of powers but reveres it as one of the central principles of the Constitution. A commitment to our constitutional separation of powers could not come at a more crucial time, as executive branch agencies have increasingly accumulated power and autonomy over the years. Both the Congress and the Federal judiciary bear responsibility for this. Legislatively, Congress simply cedes too much of its own lawmaking power to the executive branch. We have been doing that for years. These agencies have been legislating through Federal regulation. In turn, Congress has allowed unelected bureaucrats to create law and determine how that law should be implemented. We have to stop this erosion of our article I power. Congress needs to take ownership of its lawmaking authority and reverse this dangerous trend toward governance by executive fiat. That is only part of the equation. The Federal judiciary needs to use its constitutional prerogative to rein in the executive branch. Ever since the 1980s, Federal courts have grown far too deferential to executive agencies. Under a doctrine known as Chevron deference, the courts defer to agency decisions if it makes ``reasonable'' regulations based on ``vague'' statutes. In fact, this means that when the Federal courts consider an agency decision, the judges have a new catchphrase: ``The agency is always right.'' This should concern my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voiced strong concerns about rubberstamping. I don't think the Founders ever intended for two constitutional branches of our Federal Government to voluntarily cede the power to the third. Importantly, neither does Judge Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch has written extensively both about delegation and deference in his role as judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. He addressed the issue of delegation in a recent case called Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Burwell. In it, he noted: Executive agencies today are permitted not only to enforce legislation, but to revise and reshape it through exercise of so-called ``delegated'' legislative authority. He continued: The number of formal rules these agencies have issued, thanks to their delegated legislative authority, has grown so exuberantly, it's hard to keep up. The Code of Federal Regulations now clocks in at over 175,000 pages. He noted that delegation presents both separation of powers problems and due process problems. The reason is simple. The executive is doing the work of the legislature. In terms of due process, Judge Gorsuch wondered ``whether and how people can be fairly expected to keep pace with and conform their conduct to all this churning and changing `law.' '' He further questioned: ``What happens if we reach the point where even these legitimate legislating agencies don't know what their own `law' is?'' Judge Gorsuch could not be more correct. With tens of thousands of pages published in the Federal Register every year, it is fair to wonder how any agency can be certain of the legal effect of its own rules. If the agencies that write these laws can't keep track of them, how can a small business owner in Arizona be expected to comply with the litany of ever-changing rules written by unelected bureaucrats? Judge Gorsuch has also discussed the problem of deference and explained the proper relationship between Federal agencies and the judiciary. In his concurring opinion, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch explained: In enlightenment theory and hard won experience under a tyrannical king, the founders found proof of the wisdom of a government of separated powers. He continued: The founders considered the separation of powers a vital guard against governmental encroachment on the people's liberties, including all those later enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Judge Gorsuch found Chevron deference inconsistent with this constitutional framework, which he called ``no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.'' He concluded: We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again. Put simply, it seems to me that in a world without Chevron, very little would change-- except perhaps the most important things. The separation of powers is the most important feature of our constitutional system of government. When each branch of government serves as a check on the other, it fosters a more deliberative, judicious, and limited form of governance. As someone who embraces limited government, it is a privilege to support and confirm a judge like Neil Gorsuch who supports this philosophy. As I have said before, and I will say again, Judge Gorsuch deserves fair consideration by those who serve in this body, and he deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. When he receives that vote, he will be confirmed overwhelmingly. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about the Supreme Court. A year ago, we lost one of the greatest legal minds to ever serve on the Nation's highest Court. For nearly three decades, Justice Antonin Scalia fought for individual liberty and defended the integrity of the Constitution. No Justice in recent memory has so fundamentally influenced the trajectory of the Supreme Court. From his landmark decision that protected our Second Amendment right to bear arms to his staunch defense of limited government and enumerated powers, Justice Scalia stood as a bulwark against any erosion of our constitutional rights by an activist judiciary. He did this with his unshakable commitment to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Through this lens, he did not read words that were not there or infer intent that did not exist. Instead, Justice Scalia simply understood the Constitution, as the Founders understood it. Judge Scalia's passing marked a watershed moment for the future of our country. Suddenly, in the midst of the last Presidential campaign, voters were empowered to determine the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court at the polls. By entrusting Republicans with the stewardship of our Federal Government, voters signaled their desire for change and for the values that our party embraces. From strong separation of powers to a commitment to federalism, to religious freedom, people in Arizona and around the country wanted to restore these foundational principles. Now, President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will help usher in that change and solidify those values on the Court for a generation to come. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the ceremony at the White House and listen to Judge Gorsuch accept his nomination. I was impressed by his humble respect for the law and for his commitment to service. I was particularly struck by his recognition that ``it is for Congress, not the courts, to write new laws'' and that a Justice should make decisions based on what the law demands, not the outcome that he or she desires. I also appreciate his experience as an appellate court judge. This experience has given him a firm understanding of a properly functioning Federal circuit. As someone who has tried to reform an oversized and overworked Ninth Circuit, I really appreciate that insight. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist with a judicial philosophy worthy of Judge Scalia's seat. We can be confident that he will read the law as written and not attempt to legislate from the bench, but if we allow rigid partisan and ideological calculus to seep into our confirmation process, I fear that no President will ever be able to get a Cabinet or Supreme Court pick confirmed. A favorite line of our former President is that ``elections have consequences.'' Indeed, they do. Like it or not, the winning party governs. That is democracy, and we have a responsibility now to govern. My hope is a return to the longstanding traditions of bipartisan cooperation on this Supreme Court nomination. Judge Gorsuch is experienced. He is qualified, and he deserves a fair hearing. He deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I am confident that when he receives that up-or-down vote, he will fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the rule of law is the promise of swift access to the courts, but that promise has been broken in my home State of Arizona. That is because Arizona falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is both oversized and overworked. With the jurisdiction encompassing 13 districts spread across nine States and 2 U.S. territories, the Ninth Circuit covers 1 in 5 Americans. It hears roughly 12,000 appeals each year. The next busiest circuit doesn't even hear 9,000, and for the thousands of cases under its consideration, the average turnaround time exceeds 15 months. Now, if excessive delays weren't bad enough, it turns out the Ninth Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 77 percent of the time when the Supreme Court grants cert--77 percent of the time. That is obviously higher than any other court. So not only is the court excruciatingly slow, but in many instances it is simply wrong. The court, itself, is unusually large. It has 29 authorized judgeships. That is 12 more than the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit is so big that it can't even rehear cases as a whole body, like every other appeals court does. Instead, cases are reheard with limited en banc; these are panels of 11 judges each. That means that only one-third of its judges are deciding law for the entire court--only one-third. Of the States suffering under the weight of the Ninth Circuit's crushing backlog, Arizona shoulders a uniquely heavy burden. Per capita, Arizona has the busiest Federal docket in the circuit. That puts Arizonans at the back of an already long line just to get their day in court. As if the deluge of cases continues to fill the Ninth Circuit's docket, the line keeps getting longer and longer if you happen to live in Arizona. With problems like these, we are left to ask: Is the Ninth Circuit simply too big to succeed? If you are an Arizonan, the answer is unquestionably yes. Arizonans deserve better, and that is why today I am introducing a bill to break up the Ninth Circuit. With the support of my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, and the support of Gov. Doug Ducey, I have introduced the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would create a new Twelfth Circuit by moving Arizona, as well as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, out of the Ninth Circuit. Doing so would create two smaller appellate courts where one dysfunctional court stood, all the while establishing stronger local, regional, and cultural ties. This would help alleviate the Ninth Circuit's enormous caseload and ensure a more timely and accurate judicial process for both circuits. Now, importantly, the bill would also free the new circuit from the Ninth Circuit's precedent. That means States like Arizona would be able to chart their own legal course, consistent with their local needs and traditions. A fair and functioning judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. Geography shouldn't limit a citizen's access to the courts. The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act will right this wrong by restoring faith in our judicial system and securing the access to Justice that Americans deserve.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the rule of law is the promise of swift access to the courts, but that promise has been broken in my home State of Arizona. That is because Arizona falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is both oversized and overworked. With the jurisdiction encompassing 13 districts spread across nine States and 2 U.S. territories, the Ninth Circuit covers 1 in 5 Americans. It hears roughly 12,000 appeals each year. The next busiest circuit doesn't even hear 9,000, and for the thousands of cases under its consideration, the average turnaround time exceeds 15 months. Now, if excessive delays weren't bad enough, it turns out the Ninth Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 77 percent of the time when the Supreme Court grants cert--77 percent of the time. That is obviously higher than any other court. So not only is the court excruciatingly slow, but in many instances it is simply wrong. The court, itself, is unusually large. It has 29 authorized judgeships. That is 12 more than the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit is so big that it can't even rehear cases as a whole body, like every other appeals court does. Instead, cases are reheard with limited en banc; these are panels of 11 judges each. That means that only one-third of its judges are deciding law for the entire court--only one-third. Of the States suffering under the weight of the Ninth Circuit's crushing backlog, Arizona shoulders a uniquely heavy burden. Per capita, Arizona has the busiest Federal docket in the circuit. That puts Arizonans at the back of an already long line just to get their day in court. As if the deluge of cases continues to fill the Ninth Circuit's docket, the line keeps getting longer and longer if you happen to live in Arizona. With problems like these, we are left to ask: Is the Ninth Circuit simply too big to succeed? If you are an Arizonan, the answer is unquestionably yes. Arizonans deserve better, and that is why today I am introducing a bill to break up the Ninth Circuit. With the support of my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, and the support of Gov. Doug Ducey, I have introduced the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would create a new Twelfth Circuit by moving Arizona, as well as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, out of the Ninth Circuit. Doing so would create two smaller appellate courts where one dysfunctional court stood, all the while establishing stronger local, regional, and cultural ties. This would help alleviate the Ninth Circuit's enormous caseload and ensure a more timely and accurate judicial process for both circuits. Now, importantly, the bill would also free the new circuit from the Ninth Circuit's precedent. That means States like Arizona would be able to chart their own legal course, consistent with their local needs and traditions. A fair and functioning judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. Geography shouldn't limit a citizen's access to the courts. The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act will right this wrong by restoring faith in our judicial system and securing the access to Justice that Americans deserve.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn. Under the standing order, we will convene at 12 noon tomorrow. Following the prayer and pledge, we will proceed to the consideration of the Chao nomination under the previous order. Following disposition of the Chao nomination, we will continue consideration of the Tillerson nomination postcloture.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I move to adjourn.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak of legislation I am introducing today--the Transportation Investment Recalibration to Equality Act, or the TIRE Act. The TIRE Act would suspend the Davis- Bacon prevailing wage requirement on all transportation-related infrastructure contracts. This would free up billions more in taxpayer dollars to be spent on jobs and on projects. For those who are not familiar, Davis-Bacon is a Depression-era law that requires contractors on Federal construction projects to pay workers no less than the so-called local prevailing wage. Now, since its enactment over 80 years ago, the Department of Labor has been unable to devise an effective system for determining prevailing wages. In fact, a 2004 Department of Labor inspector general report revealed that Federal wage reporting surveys, which are a key metric used to determine prevailing wages, are fundamentally flawed. Of all the wage report surveys reviewed by the IG, 100 percent contained flaws. Let me say that again: 100 percent of all the surveys were flawed. In addition, some of the wage surveys have not been updated since the 1980s. The bottom line is that every time Davis-Bacon applies to a Federal project, less money is going to construction and more money is going to meet onerous wage requirements. According to the Beacon Hill Institute, Davis-Bacon forces taxpayers to pay 22 percent above the market rate for labor on Federal infrastructure projects. This is largely the result of disproportionate union participation in flawed wage surveys that skew Federal decisionmaking. Now, despite representing only 4 percent of the construction industry, unions are able to leverage their clout with Federal bureaucrats to inflate more than 60 percent of prevailing wages--talk about benefitting a few at the expense of the many. Here is some perspective on what it means in real dollars. In 2016, the Federal Government spent $23 billion on Federal construction projects, and 2.1 billion of these dollars was spent on above-rate labor costs. Again, $2.1 billion of the $23 billion spent was on above-market-rate labor costs. This means that nearly 10 percent of all Federal construction spending last year went to inflated contracts. Not only does this translate into less construction funding going to actual construction, but according to George Mason University, it results in roughly 30,000 lost construction jobs. So we lose both on the projects and the jobs that are created. More broadly, it discriminates against small businesses that don't have the resources to meet onerous Federal reporting and compliance requirements. Now, while it may be well-intentioned, Davis-Bacon ends up eliminating decent-paying construction jobs and hampering infrastructure spending. I have often talked to State and local officials who will say that if you have two bridges across the same river, even if they are just 100 yards or 200 yards or a mile apart with the same underlying costs--or what should be the same underlying costs--if there are Federal moneys involved in one and no Federal moneys involved in the other, the one with Federal moneys will cost significantly more, and a big portion of that is because of Davis-Bacon requirements. Now, in this body, we have to look for issues to bridge the partisan divide. It turns out that one of these issues is bridges, roads, dams, and other infrastructure projects. Fixing our Nation's crumbling infrastructure is a top priority for many in Congress, and the new administration has touted a large infrastructure package as one of its agenda items. However, despite the bipartisan consensus on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for infrastructure investment, visions for the road ahead actually diverge. With a projected pricetag north of $800 billion for highways and bridges alone, every Federal dollar needs to be spent as efficiently as possible. The TIRE Act will return wage determinations for Federal transportation projects where they belong, and that is the market.

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 would like to say a few words about this Friday's March for Life. This Friday, the National Mall and Capitol campus will again be filled with men and women from every corner of the country. Together, they will gather in celebration of the sanctity of life and in solidarity for its protection. For 43 straight years, the March for Life has given a powerful platform for average people to join in the political discourse to influence Federal policy in support of life. That emphasis on the ability of a single person to bring about historic change is the theme of this year's march. Now, this year's march is called the Power of One. The March for Life uses the following quote from the author J.R.R. Tolkien to encapsulate this theme: ``Even the smallest person can change the course of history.'' This is a powerful message that we should all embrace. It reminds us that from the young people marching on a cold January morning to the unborn children whose futures are filled with unlimited potential, any one of them has the power to be a positive force for good. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak of legislation I am introducing today--the Transportation Investment Recalibration to Equality Act, or the TIRE Act. The TIRE Act would suspend the Davis- Bacon prevailing wage requirement on all transportation-related infrastructure contracts. This would free up billions more in taxpayer dollars to be spent on jobs and on projects. For those who are not familiar, Davis-Bacon is a Depression-era law that requires contractors on Federal construction projects to pay workers no less than the so-called local prevailing wage. Now, since its enactment over 80 years ago, the Department of Labor has been unable to devise an effective system for determining prevailing wages. In fact, a 2004 Department of Labor inspector general report revealed that Federal wage reporting surveys, which are a key metric used to determine prevailing wages, are fundamentally flawed. Of all the wage report surveys reviewed by the IG, 100 percent contained flaws. Let me say that again: 100 percent of all the surveys were flawed. In addition, some of the wage surveys have not been updated since the 1980s. The bottom line is that every time Davis-Bacon applies to a Federal project, less money is going to construction and more money is going to meet onerous wage requirements. According to the Beacon Hill Institute, Davis-Bacon forces taxpayers to pay 22 percent above the market rate for labor on Federal infrastructure projects. This is largely the result of disproportionate union participation in flawed wage surveys that skew Federal decisionmaking. Now, despite representing only 4 percent of the construction industry, unions are able to leverage their clout with Federal bureaucrats to inflate more than 60 percent of prevailing wages--talk about benefitting a few at the expense of the many. Here is some perspective on what it means in real dollars. In 2016, the Federal Government spent $23 billion on Federal construction projects, and 2.1 billion of these dollars was spent on above-rate labor costs. Again, $2.1 billion of the $23 billion spent was on above-market-rate labor costs. This means that nearly 10 percent of all Federal construction spending last year went to inflated contracts. Not only does this translate into less construction funding going to actual construction, but according to George Mason University, it results in roughly 30,000 lost construction jobs. So we lose both on the projects and the jobs that are created. More broadly, it discriminates against small businesses that don't have the resources to meet onerous Federal reporting and compliance requirements. Now, while it may be well-intentioned, Davis-Bacon ends up eliminating decent-paying construction jobs and hampering infrastructure spending. I have often talked to State and local officials who will say that if you have two bridges across the same river, even if they are just 100 yards or 200 yards or a mile apart with the same underlying costs--or what should be the same underlying costs--if there are Federal moneys involved in one and no Federal moneys involved in the other, the one with Federal moneys will cost significantly more, and a big portion of that is because of Davis-Bacon requirements. Now, in this body, we have to look for issues to bridge the partisan divide. It turns out that one of these issues is bridges, roads, dams, and other infrastructure projects. Fixing our Nation's crumbling infrastructure is a top priority for many in Congress, and the new administration has touted a large infrastructure package as one of its agenda items. However, despite the bipartisan consensus on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for infrastructure investment, visions for the road ahead actually diverge. With a projected pricetag north of $800 billion for highways and bridges alone, every Federal dollar needs to be spent as efficiently as possible. The TIRE Act will return wage determinations for Federal transportation projects where they belong, and that is the market.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in favor of Flake amendment No. 176. We have had problems, obviously, with the VA. Phoenix, AZ, has been kind of ground zero for that. Part of the problem is that the VA has no strong prohibition against hiring felons, and we have had example after example around the country of their continuing to hire felons or those who have been disciplined by the profession. So this would simply require that they fire felons who are on their rolls. I urge support and yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 176, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise to speak on a subject that often goes overlooked in this body. The subject of wasteful spending on parochial pet projects is often treated as a trivial matter--simply the cost of doing business around here. Imagine if every Member of Congress were as obsessed with searching for government waste as the players of the mobile game Pokemon Go are obsessed with finding the elusive Pokemon, as the chart shows here. Just like the monsters in the popular game, government pork projects come in all shapes and sizes. They pop up just about everywhere. As individual expenses, these pet projects can seem rather harmless--cute, even. But taken together, their cost adds up to one very menacing boondoggle debt monster that continues to grow and threaten every taxpayer. In fact, within days, the U.S. national debt will top $20 trillion. As we debate the budget resolution, we need to get serious about controlling the debt like the true national security challenge it is. We start by eliminating unnecessary spending and catching government waste. My friend and former colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma created an annual report cataloging some of the most egregious ways Washington wastes our tax dollars. It is called the Wastebook. Today, I am releasing the latest installment, which profiles 50 new examples of questionable expenditures. This year's edition is entitled ``Wastebook: PORKemon Go.'' Like the Pokedex, which lists the various Pokemon for players to catch, Wastebook provides an index of questionable expenditures lurking throughout the Federal budget. These collectively cost taxpayers more than $5 billion, but instead of Pikachu, we are looking out for PORKachu. The top entry in this year's Wastebook is a spaceport--which is just a fancy word to say a rocket launch site--all the way over in Alaska. It has been derided as space pork, not because it is launching an elite unit of porcine astronauts into the big trough in the sky, it is because Congress used earmarks to force the Department of Defense to build the facility, over the objections of the military, as part of an illegal kickback scheme. A midlevel DOD employee, who was sentenced to prison for masterminding the plot, eventually confessed that building the launch facility ``doesn't make sense.'' He said the Pentagon ``just paid for meaningless work.'' Keep in mind, this was a contractor on that project. After sitting unused for several years, the Pentagon is now sinking another $80 million into the spaceport. This is despite the fact that it is not even equipped with the type of missiles that DOD plans to launch for the site. Another entry, the National Comedy Center in New York must be laughing all the way to the bank with $1.7 million from the Economic Development Administration, or EDA. This will be spent to bring Lucille Ball back to the stage as a hologram. The three-dimensional illusion of Lucy is formed with light beams from a laser, which will replicate standup routines using existing audio recordings. Holograms of other comedians who are no longer with us will also take the stage in the center's comedy club. Other features will include a boot camp on how to deliver jokes--maybe I need that one--as well as a heckle booth, which we can do without. This is likely to once again make Washington the punch line of jokes, but it is no laughing matter for taxpayers. Next up, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, has a program that allows taxpayer-funded farm loans to literally be paid back with peanuts. This program shelled out $74 million in the past year. In typical Washington fashion, the government pays more for the peanuts than the market price, which has turned the program into a cash cow, or pig--however you want to view it--and the pile of surplus peanuts the government has amassed is so large that government can't even give it away. Here we have a farm program where we are giving loans to farmers to grow peanuts. If they check at the end of the year and the market price for peanuts isn't very good, they can unload those peanuts on the government and keep the cost of the loan. Then, government has to store these peanuts, which we do in warehouses all over the country. Based on USDA's own numbers, the Congressional Research Service is warning that the storage costs alone could pile up to $1 billion a year. That is not just peanuts; that is enough to make anyone salty about our debt and deficit. Instead of filling potholes, $35,000 from the Department of Transportation literally went to pot. The money was paid for a giant glow-in-the-dark doobie displayed in Denver that was intended to remind motorists who smoke marijuana not to drive while they are stoned; $35,000 for a big poster or banner on a building of a giant joint. Even the Nation's most prestigious science agencies are spending taxpayer funds investigating subjects that most of us would consider obvious or rather offbeat. Studies on the habits of college students funded with $5 million of NIH grants counted more than 500 different drinking games that are popular on college campuses. According to researchers, ``All of these games have the same goal-- causing participants to become intoxicated.'' I think that is rather obvious. They observed that fraternity brothers drink, smoke, and generally party more than other students, and they also sleep in later. This led the researchers to speculate that ``one explanation for this finding is that Greek students recognize their sleep needs.'' A more likely reason is that they are sleeping off their partying lifestyle, but you are paying for it. NIH is also drilling down to determine why some people are afraid of the dentist as part of another $3.5 million research project. The researchers found that--surprise here--``fear of pain has been shown to be a critical component.'' The monkey business doesn't end there. NIH spent nearly $1 million to study the evolution of monkey drool and another $230,000 to determine if the color red makes female monkeys feel more romantic. In case you are wondering, it does. As part of an effort supported by both the National Science Foundation and DOD to teach computers how to understand computer behavior, the machines were programmed to watch television shows. After viewing over 600 hours of ``Desperate Housewives,'' ``The Office,'' and other shows, the computers were still unable to predict how humans would behave in most situations. Anybody who has watched those shows realizes that is rather obvious. A $1 million NASA project is preparing the world's religions for the possible discovery of extraterrestrial life forms--$1 million to prepare the world's religions for the possible discovery of extraterrestrial life forms. Do we need to spend that, really? A major sticking point for the participants was defining what life is: ``Much of the discussion centered on the question, `What is life?' It turns out that life is notoriously difficult to define,'' they concluded. The fishiest study of all tested how long a fish can run on a treadmill. This was part of a study paid for by a $565,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Everyone remembers the infamous shrimp on a treadmill funded by NSF. It turns out that last year's competitor had a leg, or several, up on the competition. With five pairs of walking legs and five pairs of swimming legs, the shrimp could run for hours. The latest NSF-funded treadmill study participant was literally a fish out of water. The experiment forced mudskippers to ``run'' for as long as 15 minutes at a time on a treadmill. These fish possess the unique ability to survive out of water for extended periods of time, using their fins like legs, although they didn't appear to enjoy running on the treadmill, as you can imagine. Certainly, we have bigger fish to fry with our Federal research dollars and, I might add, better puns to find as well. I could go on and on with examples of completely unnecessary spending identified by this year's Wastebook. There is waste in every department, every agency. All you have to do is look. Ferreting out every bit of wasteful spending, no matter how small, is the only way to reduce our debt and to rein in the cost of our Federal Government. It can be a daunting task because, much like Pokemon, these programs are good at hiding. Our mission is simple: You have to catch them all. Madam President, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Flake amendment, No. 52, to protect the elderly and vulnerable. I think the Senator speaking on the other side of the aisle talking about Republicans wanting to cut Medicare and Social Security has it a little backward. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under current law Social Security's disability insurance trust fund will be exhausted by 2022 and its retirement fund will be exhausted by 2030. Once exhausted, Social Security beneficiaries could be subject to a cut in their benefits as high as 31 percent if we do nothing, unless we fix these programs. The problem with the other side of the aisle right now is they don't want to fix these programs. If we adopt the Sanders amendment, it will make it difficult to actually go in and reform these programs in a manner that will make sure they survive for future generations. We all know we have to have entitlement reform. We want to do it in a way that protects future generations. Unless we reform these programs-- and they go in 2022 and 2030--if these benefits are exhausted, people might be subjected to a 31-percent cut. That is not what we want. That is why we have to go in and reform them, and that is why we need to adopt my amendment. With that, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of the Flake amendment, No. 52, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about legislation I am introducing, the Health Savings Account Expansion Act. Earlier this month, individuals across this country were once again faced with fewer choices and increased costs when purchasing health insurance coverage. Unfortunately, this has been a common occurrence since the Affordable Care Act's inception, but no State, I can tell you, is feeling the pinch more than my State of Arizona. Prior to the flawed rollout of the exchanges in 2013, Arizona had 24 health insurance companies offering plans in the individual market. Just last year, residents in Arizona's most populous county Maricopa, where I live, had only 8 private providers to choose from on the exchange--so from 24 to 8. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, a few months ago, individuals all across Arizona received notification that their insurance plans were no longer being offered, despite the current administration's hollow promise that they could keep their plans. Now nearly stripped of their preferred health insurance, residents in 14 of 15 Arizona counties--14 out of 15 counties--logged into the ObamaCare exchanges to shop for new plans only to discover that instead of the vibrant marketplace they used to have, they were left with only one insurer to choose from--so from 24 to 8, to 1 for 14 of Arizona's 15 counties. So today, when I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about preserving this wonderful program, I am saying ``What State of denial do you live in?'' because it is certainly not working in Arizona. In fact, Pinal County in Arizona briefly held the unfortunate distinction as the only county in America without a single insurer willing to offer plans on its exchange, not a single one. Fortunately, a few months later, one stepped in--just one. Of the plans that were ultimately made available to Arizonans on the exchange, the average policy came with a premium hike of nearly 50 percent--an average of nearly 50 percent. With only one game in town, there was no shopping around for a better deal. To help put this in perspective, I would like to compare the average cost of health care coverage in Arizona to one of the most important purchases a family will ever make, and that is a home. Throughout most counties in Arizona, it is now cheaper to put a roof over your family's head than it is to pay your monthly health insurance premium under ObamaCare. Let me say that again. Throughout most counties in Arizona, it is now cheaper to put a roof over your family's head than it is to pay your monthly health insurance premium under ObamaCare. This is for Maricopa County. It is the county in which I live and includes Phoenix. Homeowners can expect to pay nearly $500 more per month on their health insurance than they do on their house--$500 more on their health insurance than they do on their house. This is for the ObamaCare silver plan premium. This is a family--age 40 with two children. So that's about the median, and this is the median mortgage payment with respect to Maricopa County--$500 more. Let's see the visual for Pima County. Pima County is home to Tucson. Health care premiums ran an average family $100 more per month than their mortgage. So in Pima County you are still paying more--$100 more for your health insurance premium than you are for your mortgage. Then there is Pinal County, the third largest in Arizona. According to Arizona's Department of Insurance, the average premium for a silver plan in Pinal County for the average family of four is over $1700. That is double the median monthly mortgage payment for the same county. If you live in Pinal County, AZ, you are paying twice as much for your health insurance premium. Keep in mind, we are talking about the premium, to say nothing of what happens when you go to the hospital or to your doctor and you have to pay deductibles that are through the roof or co-pays that people have never experienced before. So when they utilize that coverage they paid for with their premium, they realize they can't afford that either. The situation isn't unique to these counties, the three most populous counties in Arizona. In all 15 of Arizona's counties, premiums for a family of 4 dramatically exceed the median monthly mortgage. It is unacceptable for the Federal Government to force families to spend upwards of $1,700 per month of their hard-earned income on a substandard product without options or choices, only to then slap them with a draconian penalty that they simply can't afford to pay for an untenable law. Arizona is, without a doubt, ground zero for the structural failures that are plaguing insurance markets around the country. Insurance exchanges are on the verge of collapsing; premiums, deductibles, out- of-pocket expenses are skyrocketing; and our health care system is in desperate need of reform. That is why I stand here today to introduce the Health Savings Account Expansion Act. The Health Savings Account Expansion Act goes a long way toward reforming our health care system by putting consumers back in charge of their own health care. The bill provides individuals and families with freedom to choose the health care that best meets their needs and allows them to use their health savings accounts on medical products and services they value most. HSAs give consumers greater control over their health care dollars by providing them with a tax-advantaged savings option for their medical expenses. This means that the dollars they work so hard to save can grow over time, tax free, and can be withdrawn tax free for qualified medical expenses. The HSA Expansion Act strengthens this important tool by nearly tripling the arbitrarily low contribution limits, thus allowing for greater tax equity and more universal participation in HSAs. The bill would then allow individuals to use these expanded HSAs to help cover the costs of their monthly health insurance premiums. This is a critically important feature, particularly for middle-class families whose incomes fall slightly above the qualified threshold for subsidies but whose health insurance has become unaffordable. In Arizona, I like to go to the gym in the morning, and I like to get on an exercise bike. By that bike is kind of a hallway where people will walk by. Inevitably, in the morning, I will have a lineup of people who will stand to tell me their ObamaCare horror stories--how much their premiums have gone up or that they no longer have any options or that they have had to pay the penalty or that when they go to utilize their care, they simply can't afford the co-pays and deductibles. I can tell you, it is sobering to hear these stories again and again and again. In addition to further incentivizing prudent savings for health expenses, this legislation repeals existing restrictions put in place by ObamaCare on over-the-counter medications while also reducing the penalty for withdrawing HSA funds for nonqualified purchases. These reforms will help streamline HSAs while also making them more user- friendly for consumers. Arizonans are struggling. They are struggling under the weight of bureaucracy that is complicating their health care decisions that are some of the most personal and important decisions individuals make for themselves and their families. If we hope to lift that burden off the backs of our constituents, we have to recognize that the key to reforming our health care system is not more government intervention; rather, it is allowing individuals the freedom to take back control of their health care and incentivizing prudent decisionmaking. As the Senate looks to repeal this disastrous law and replace it with real reforms that would successfully lower health care costs and improve choice, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is included in those negotiations.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about legislation I am introducing, the Health Savings Account Expansion Act. Earlier this month, individuals across this country were once again faced with fewer choices and increased costs when purchasing health insurance coverage. Unfortunately, this has been a common occurrence since the Affordable Care Act's inception, but no State, I can tell you, is feeling the pinch more than my State of Arizona. Prior to the flawed rollout of the exchanges in 2013, Arizona had 24 health insurance companies offering plans in the individual market. Just last year, residents in Arizona's most populous county Maricopa, where I live, had only 8 private providers to choose from on the exchange--so from 24 to 8. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, a few months ago, individuals all across Arizona received notification that their insurance plans were no longer being offered, despite the current administration's hollow promise that they could keep their plans. Now nearly stripped of their preferred health insurance, residents in 14 of 15 Arizona counties--14 out of 15 counties--logged into the ObamaCare exchanges to shop for new plans only to discover that instead of the vibrant marketplace they used to have, they were left with only one insurer to choose from--so from 24 to 8, to 1 for 14 of Arizona's 15 counties. So today, when I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about preserving this wonderful program, I am saying ``What State of denial do you live in?'' because it is certainly not working in Arizona. In fact, Pinal County in Arizona briefly held the unfortunate distinction as the only county in America without a single insurer willing to offer plans on its exchange, not a single one. Fortunately, a few months later, one stepped in--just one. Of the plans that were ultimately made available to Arizonans on the exchange, the average policy came with a premium hike of nearly 50 percent--an average of nearly 50 percent. With only one game in town, there was no shopping around for a better deal. To help put this in perspective, I would like to compare the average cost of health care coverage in Arizona to one of the most important purchases a family will ever make, and that is a home. Throughout most counties in Arizona, it is now cheaper to put a roof over your family's head than it is to pay your monthly health insurance premium under ObamaCare. Let me say that again. Throughout most counties in Arizona, it is now cheaper to put a roof over your family's head than it is to pay your monthly health insurance premium under ObamaCare. This is for Maricopa County. It is the county in which I live and includes Phoenix. Homeowners can expect to pay nearly $500 more per month on their health insurance than they do on their house--$500 more on their health insurance than they do on their house. This is for the ObamaCare silver plan premium. This is a family--age 40 with two children. So that's about the median, and this is the median mortgage payment with respect to Maricopa County--$500 more. Let's see the visual for Pima County. Pima County is home to Tucson. Health care premiums ran an average family $100 more per month than their mortgage. So in Pima County you are still paying more--$100 more for your health insurance premium than you are for your mortgage. Then there is Pinal County, the third largest in Arizona. According to Arizona's Department of Insurance, the average premium for a silver plan in Pinal County for the average family of four is over $1700. That is double the median monthly mortgage payment for the same county. If you live in Pinal County, AZ, you are paying twice as much for your health insurance premium. Keep in mind, we are talking about the premium, to say nothing of what happens when you go to the hospital or to your doctor and you have to pay deductibles that are through the roof or co-pays that people have never experienced before. So when they utilize that coverage they paid for with their premium, they realize they can't afford that either. The situation isn't unique to these counties, the three most populous counties in Arizona. In all 15 of Arizona's counties, premiums for a family of 4 dramatically exceed the median monthly mortgage. It is unacceptable for the Federal Government to force families to spend upwards of $1,700 per month of their hard-earned income on a substandard product without options or choices, only to then slap them with a draconian penalty that they simply can't afford to pay for an untenable law. Arizona is, without a doubt, ground zero for the structural failures that are plaguing insurance markets around the country. Insurance exchanges are on the verge of collapsing; premiums, deductibles, out- of-pocket expenses are skyrocketing; and our health care system is in desperate need of reform. That is why I stand here today to introduce the Health Savings Account Expansion Act. The Health Savings Account Expansion Act goes a long way toward reforming our health care system by putting consumers back in charge of their own health care. The bill provides individuals and families with freedom to choose the health care that best meets their needs and allows them to use their health savings accounts on medical products and services they value most. HSAs give consumers greater control over their health care dollars by providing them with a tax-advantaged savings option for their medical expenses. This means that the dollars they work so hard to save can grow over time, tax free, and can be withdrawn tax free for qualified medical expenses. The HSA Expansion Act strengthens this important tool by nearly tripling the arbitrarily low contribution limits, thus allowing for greater tax equity and more universal participation in HSAs. The bill would then allow individuals to use these expanded HSAs to help cover the costs of their monthly health insurance premiums. This is a critically important feature, particularly for middle-class families whose incomes fall slightly above the qualified threshold for subsidies but whose health insurance has become unaffordable. In Arizona, I like to go to the gym in the morning, and I like to get on an exercise bike. By that bike is kind of a hallway where people will walk by. Inevitably, in the morning, I will have a lineup of people who will stand to tell me their ObamaCare horror stories--how much their premiums have gone up or that they no longer have any options or that they have had to pay the penalty or that when they go to utilize their care, they simply can't afford the co-pays and deductibles. I can tell you, it is sobering to hear these stories again and again and again. In addition to further incentivizing prudent savings for health expenses, this legislation repeals existing restrictions put in place by ObamaCare on over-the-counter medications while also reducing the penalty for withdrawing HSA funds for nonqualified purchases. These reforms will help streamline HSAs while also making them more user- friendly for consumers. Arizonans are struggling. They are struggling under the weight of bureaucracy that is complicating their health care decisions that are some of the most personal and important decisions individuals make for themselves and their families. If we hope to lift that burden off the backs of our constituents, we have to recognize that the key to reforming our health care system is not more government intervention; rather, it is allowing individuals the freedom to take back control of their health care and incentivizing prudent decisionmaking. As the Senate looks to repeal this disastrous law and replace it with real reforms that would successfully lower health care costs and improve choice, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is included in those negotiations.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about drought legislation that is critical to the State of Arizona. As everyone knows, water is a controversial issue in the West. Arizona and California have long been at odds on a number of water- related issues, particularly the Colorado River. Since the beginning of this Congress, I have worked to advance Arizona's water priorities. That included working with our neighbors across the Colorado River to get a Flake-Feinstein amendment included in the Energy bill. This amendment, which was adopted on the floor, would allow dams to be more efficient and enhance water storage. In addition to this amendment, I have introduced the Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I have worked with many of my colleagues on the committee to move this western drought bill through regular order, work that included attempting to find a way to reconcile this bill with the California drought bill in order to advance all of our priorities. I am disappointed that instead of continuing with the committee process, a California-only deal was airdropped into an unrelated WRDA conference report. This was done at the last minute, circumventing regular order, and leaving Arizona and other western State priorities out to dry. Not only does the WRDA conference report disregard the good work the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has carried out over these past 2 years, but it also fails to address western water matters in a holistic way. Let me be clear, important Arizona water issues still need to be addressed by Congress, and I will continue to fight for these priorities. For example, the Colorado River Basin States are very close to reaching a groundbreaking agreement to deal with the prolonged drought on the river. We will seek legislation to implement this deal early in the next Congress. Our watersheds are also under great threat from catastrophic wildfires. I will continue to push Congress and the Forest Service to move ahead to reduce fire risks in Arizona. I look forward to continuing my work on these issues and to fighting for other water needs in Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in a driveby lawsuit, an attorney will drive by a place of business and look for technical ADA violations. These are usually minor violations that are easily correctable, like the width of a parking space or the height of a van accessible sign. Oftentimes, if a technical violation exists, the attorney will either send a demand letter or threaten the business with a lawsuit. Oftentimes, the demand letter will request a settlement that is just under what it would cost the business to litigate, so the business owner picks the lesser of the two evils and pays the settlement. The scope of the problem is only growing. From the first 6 months of 2015 to the first 6 months of 2016, there was a 63-percent increase in the number of suits filed under title III of the ADA. This year is on pace to see almost 7,000 of these cases brought forward--7,000. Compare 7,000 to the 4,800 lawsuits filed in 2015 and 2,700 in 2013, and we can see what a boon this has been for trial lawyers. In fact, this past Sunday, ``60 Minutes'' did a special report on driveby lawsuits and the toll they are taking on small businesses throughout the country. I would encourage anyone to watch that piece. It explains the problem very well. While California, Florida, and New York have the highest incidents of these driveby lawsuits, my home State of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in these suits over the last 3 years. In 2013, there were three ADA title III suits brought in Arizona--three. By 2015, that number was up to 207. As of September of this year, Arizona has already seen 284. It is clear that the problem is only getting worse. My legislation would go a long way to solve it. If enacted, property owners must first be given notice of their alleged ADA violation, at which point they would have 120 days to cure the violation before a lawsuit could be brought. If the property owner fails to address the violation in a timely manner, then they can be sued. The bill also instructs the Department of Justice to promote further ADA compliance through education so small business owners know what is expected of them. I think these reforms will help business owners and persons with disabilities achieve their mutual goal of ADA compliance. The ADA has been a great success in its 25-year history. It is essential that business owners continue to see it as a tool to ensure fairness for people with disabilities and not as a weapon to line the pockets of unscrupulous lawyers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, for debate only, until 2:30 p.m. this afternoon.