Floor Statements

I move to adjourn.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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. 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. President, I am here to also talk about the DHS funding bill. I will say from the outset that I don't think the President did the right thing by taking this unilateral action. I think he has made it more difficult to pass immigration reform in this body.

Having said that, to attempt to use the spending bill in order to try to poke a finger in the President's eye, in my view, is not a good move. I believe that rather than poke the President in the eye, we ought to put legislation on his desk, and we ought to use this time--we have already used up 2 weeks trying to attach measures to a funding bill when we could have used this time to move actual immigration legislation.

Coming from the State of Arizona, we desperately need immigration reform. We desperately need to have more resources and better security on our border. We have needed that for a long time. We have had situations where part of the border gets better and then falls back. As soon as the economy ramps up again, we can expect a lot more flow across the border. We don't have sufficient border security in the State, and Arizonans pay the price in terms of the cost of health care, education, criminal justice. We bear the brunt of the Federal Government's failure to have a secure border and to provide for a secure border.

We need to pass that kind of legislation. There has been a bill that has been introduced in the House and the Senate. I happen to be a cosponsor of the bill in the Senate which would help us to get a more secure border. That is one piece of legislation we could be moving right now so it could be put on the President's desk.

Second, we all know we need better interior enforcement. We need to make sure employers who employ illegal aliens are not able to do so. We need to make sure employers have the tools to find out if those they are hiring are here legally. That has been needed for a long time. It has been provided in other pieces of legislation. We could do a bill just on interior enforcement. We could be doing that now rather than simply making a statement on a spending bill.

We also need legislation to expand the guest worker plans and programs we have now. There has been legislation introduced in this body already to deal with high-tech workers. We need to make sure those who are educated in our universities and receive graduate degrees in the STEM fields are encouraged to stay. They ought to be encouraged to stay to help create jobs in this country rather than returning to their home country and competing against us. That has been needed, and that is recognized on a bipartisan basis. We could move legislation right now with regard to high-tech visas.

We also need to expand other visa categories. We need an ag worker bill to make sure areas where we simply don't have enough labor to deal with the needs we have on our farms--we need to pass legislation to do that. Legislation has been introduced and could be moved through now. We could be doing that.

We also obviously need to move legislation to deal with those who are here illegally now--the so-called DREAMers. They are here through no fault of their own. They were brought to this country when they were 2, 10 or 12 years, and they are now as American as you or I. They ought to be given a path where they can stay and have some kind of certainty moving ahead, but that needs to be done by Congress. It cannot simply be done by the President in Executive action. That kind of legislation could move here now as well.

We obviously need to deal with legislation for the broader class of those here illegally. We dealt with it in S. 744, which was introduced and passed in the Senate in the last Congress. It provided a way for those who are here illegally to get right with the law and to deport those who are in a criminal class but also allow those who are here and want to adjust their status to find a way to do so and to be able to stay.

Legislation such as that could move as well but instead we are spending weeks trying to make a statement on a spending bill.

So I hope we will actually do what this Senate is prepared to do and is ready to do again, which is actually to legislate--to move legislation through the committee process to the floor and on to the President's desk. That is how we ought to respond to the action the President has taken. I hope we will do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to express sorrow--both mine and that of the people of Arizona--at the news that one of our own, Kayla Mueller of Prescott, has died at the hands of

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an Arizona original-- former Senator and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

Senator Goldwater was no stranger to this Senate floor, having served five terms in this body and having been his party's Presidential nominee in 1964. By the end of his time here, Goldwater was an elder statesman and the go-to guy on national security, having chaired the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence and having reorganized the Pentagon structure with the Goldwater- Nichols Act. He was also respected for his unapologetic fiscal conservatism. Goldwater was probably best known for his staunch defense of personal liberty and for reviving and redefining what it means to be conservative.

While he may have lost the election in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson, he laid the groundwork for the Republican Party's future and the eventual resurgence under Ronald Reagan.

As columnist George Will once noted, it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964, and Goldwater won.

For many of us, he was a role model. Before I came to Congress, I was honored to serve as the executive director of the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona organization that bears his name and his philosophy.

Born before Arizona was even a State, Goldwater, as did so many great men, honed his passionate interests in the nonpolitical world around him. He was an avid, published photographer. In fact, Goldwater's estate contained some 15,000 photographs, many of them of Arizona landscapes and the people he loved so much.

He also occasionally took his camera to social events, once even snapping President Kennedy at the White House. Kennedy inscribed the photo, ``For Barry Goldwater, whom I urge to follow the career for which he has shown such talent--photography.''

In addition to being a conservative warrior, Goldwater was an actual warrior, having flown supply missions over ``the hump'' in World War II and retiring as a major general in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He believed in peace through strength.

Barry Goldwater was plainspoken. He was stubborn. He was patriotic. He was independent. In short, Goldwater embodied the very spirit of Arizona.

Tomorrow--at long last--Barry Goldwater will be honored with a statue in the Capitol, representing his beloved Arizona. Goldwater may have once described himself as ``the most underdog underdog there is,'' but I can't think of a more deserving recipient nor of a more fitting representative of our State.

Well done, Barry Goldwater.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe we do need more certainty, and the certainty ought to be that it is time for this tax credit--particularly the wind PTC--to expire. This was enacted 23 years ago as a temporary tax measure. There has been a lot of wind that has blown since that time, and we have a mature industry. In fact, the other day the President said we are No. 1 in the world in wind power.

We ought to have more certainty, and the certainty that needs to be there is that the tax credit is going to end and that we stop picking winners and losers in the energy economy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office-- the CBO--released its budget and economic outlook showing the forecast through 2025. It should strike fear in the heart of anybody who is concerned about this country's financial future.

The very short-term news is good. The deficit is projected to fall-- but only for another 2 years. In 2017 the deficit is projected to start rising again to $1.1 trillion in 10 years. That is the annual deficit. By 2025 the deficit will be 4 percent of our overall economy.

Right now the country's debt in cumulative deficits over the years-- the cumulative debt--is $18 trillion. This year we will pay about $277 billion just servicing that debt. That amount might seem low, but it is because of artificially low interest rates. In 10 years we will pay about $827 billion a year just to service the debt. That is 3 percent of our economy just to pay interest on the debt. That is unsustainable.

Don't take my word for it, though. You can take CBO's. They said:

Such large and growing Federal debt would have serious

negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending

for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the

long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to

unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of

a financial crisis.

I have been working on these issues--this issue in particular--for a long time, and I have to admit that sometimes it is tough to get people to focus on this topic. But we shouldn't be fooled and patting ourselves on the back just because we have done things such as getting rid of earmarks. That is a good thing, but it is certainly insufficient to address our spending.

The culture in Washington is still the culture of runaway spending, not just in earmarks, as I said, not just in wasteful spending. For example, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will nearly double over the next decade alone. This is not a revenue problem that we are having. Projected revenues will exceed their 50-year historical average of 17 percent of GDP this year and will grow to over 18 percent of the economy in this decade.

The culture of spending in Washington is something that defies logic, defies math and an honest assessment of who we are as a country. As a result, the United States is fast becoming a once-prosperous nation. We don't want that designation. It is truly a frightening distinction. Yet too few in Washington are motivated to get this country's fiscal house in order. One has to wonder how bad it is going to have to get to prod those who are not yet motivated.

Some will argue that we need to take baby steps to address our fiscal crisis. I think we are well past that time, but whatever kinds of steps we take, we need to take them now. We need to turn this culture of spending in Washington to one that will fully repair our economy. That will give the private sector the stability and confidence to create jobs. We also need to reform our cumbersome Tax Code. Most of all, we need to relieve future generations of the burden of our financial mess.

In short, it is well past time to start climbing our way out of this fiscal hole we are in.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 103.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in its 2012 annual report on opportunities to reduce duplication and achieve savings, the GAO noted that in 2011 there were 94 Federal initiatives to foster green buildings in the non- Federal sector. This report highlighted many initiatives that provided similar types of assistance, grants, technical assistance, tax credits, and so forth. This obviously doesn't sound like a recipe for proper oversight if this is still going on 5 years later.

This amendment would help tackle the problem simply by requiring agencies to evaluate and eliminate duplicative green building programs consistent with GAO's recommendations.

We ask GAO to study these things, and we often don't follow through and make sure the agencies follow up on the recommendations. This is simply ensuring that happens.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.