Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs adopted Committee Rules of Procedure. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, it is my privilege to recommend to the Senate the Honorable Pamela Pepper to be a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Patty served with distinction and is the current chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Although not native to our State, she has set down deep roots in Wisconsin, first serving in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, followed by private practice in Milwaukee and finally serving 9 years as a bankruptcy court judge. Pam was born in the delta of Mississippi in a town called Leland. Her parents were both teachers and instilled in her an intellectual curiosity which has been apparent throughout her career. She migrated north for college and attended Northwestern University in Chicago, where she received a degree in theater. After helping a friend get through the LSAT review course, she realized she might want to explore other careers and ended up taking the LSAT herself. She obviously had prepared herself well because she performed well on the LSAT and was accepted into the Cornell University School of Law. After graduation, she clerked with distinction for Judge Frank Johnson on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and then moved on to become a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago. She is widely respected within her profession, evidenced by having held offices as the president of the Milwaukee Bar Association and the chairperson of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin. She is an instructor of national stature and speaks frequently on trial practice and evidence. She is currently an instructor at the Federal Judicial Center. I have had the opportunity to speak to practitioners who have appeared before her bankruptcy court. They have told me of her patience with attorneys, which is a virtue of hers they all value. Pam possesses a great sense of humor, which she often uses to put litigants at ease. She displays compassion in making tough decisions by explaining the rationale for those decisions clearly so her reasoning is understood by all. She has shown great dexterity in reacting to difficult situations in court with calm reasoning. Finally, Pam has been described as a practical judge who promptly resolves disputes while faithfully adhering to the rule of law. Pam's intellectual curiosity, her demonstrated ability to learn new areas of the law and efficiently administer her office, has convinced me she will continue to excel in her new role as a Federal district court judge. Judge Pepper has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on her confirmation. I conclude my remarks by thanking the hard-working members of our bipartisan nomination commission for their dedication and efforts. I also thank Senator Baldwin for her continued support of this successful nominating process that has once again resulted in the selection of a well-qualified jurist, Judge Pamela Pepper, who will serve the N and the Wisconsin Eastern District well.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I am pleased to recommend to the Senate James D. Peterson to be the U.S. district judge for the Western District of Wisconsin. Jim has deep roots in Wisconsin, having earned a bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison before his first career as an associate professor of film studies at Notre Dame University. After a number of productive and successful years of academic life, his restlessness for intellectual challenge was energized when his wife Sue Collins interested him in the law as she was teaching legal writing at Valparaiso University Law School. They both returned to Wisconsin, where they each obtained their law degrees from the university. Jim is currently the leader of the law firm Godfrey & Kahn's Intellectual Property Litigation Working Group and has handled a wide variety of commercial and constitutional disputes. He has served as a local counsel in two dozen patent disputes in the Western District of Wisconsin. In addition, he has appeared before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals of patent cases from district courts across the country. This experience is important for the Western District of Wisconsin, which oversees many complex intellectual property cases. Since 2007 the Western District of Wisconsin has ranked among the top 25 most popular for patent litigation, largely due to the court's speed--commonly referred to as the ``rocket docket.'' Jim is also the author of numerous academic publications, many of which I had an opportunity to review during his application process. Right after law school he saw firsthand the challenges and requirements associated with being a judge when he served as a law clerk to Hon. David G. Deininger of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. He has had a challenging and successful career as a legal practitioner. I have no doubt that he will, as a Federal district court judge, excel in yet another career for which he is well suited. Jim has my full support, and I am happy to recommend him to the Senate for swift confirmation. I would like to conclude by thanking my colleague Senator Baldwin for the bipartisan process that resulted in the selection of this well- qualified jurist who will serve Wisconsin's Western District well. The Western District is currently facing a judicial emergency. U.S. district judge Barbara Crabb has continued to serve on the bench despite retiring 4 years ago, and I sincerely appreciate her dedication in the State of Wisconsin during this vacancy. I have full confidence that with Jim's expertise and experience, he will now be able to fill this void. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, like the Senator from South Dakota, our office continues to get emails and phone calls and contacts from our constituents. Tonight I would like to read an email received from David and Shannon McKichan. They write: I am trying to contact you with very little left to do. My wife and I as of today received a notice that our health policy is going up from 389.00 per month to 1177.00 per month. That is a more than 200 percent increase. This is for the same level we have, which is an HSA policy, 5000.00 max out of pocket per year. This policy works for us as we are both self-employed small business owners. We have been hammered during the economic downturn and this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. We feel that our government is attacking us and we have nowhere to turn. We are both in our mid 50's and if things stay the same will be without health insurance. I have always provided for my own needs but this is making things impossible. Please advise what we are to do. Please fight for us and know we do not have a voice without you. I was a city council representative for 15 years and always fought for the working man but I now know that it is becoming a losing battle. This is just one example. Last week we were on the floor, and I read a number of emails saying the same things: You need to understand how cheated we feel. This is not right. I cannot afford this. Why are we being forced to change to a plan that has benefits we don't need? Please help. Sir, I'm begging for your help. I'm feeling very upset & stressed. This is unfair and hurting working families. This law is hurting us, be our voice. We need your help. I guess we are the collateral damage? Why are they trying to destroy us in the process? We are scared. We are hearing the voice of the American people. We are hearing the voice of Wisconsinites. The Senate must hear the voice of the American people and act. The sooner the better. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Cornelia Pillard to the DC Circuit. This nomination is a good example of the government overreach that has led to the ObamaCare debacle. The good Senator from Rhode Island was talking about how much we spend on health care in this Nation. The very unfortunate fact is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not address that cost. Let's face it. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is about as Orwellian a name as you could possibly come up with for a piece of legislation. We are watching millions of Americans lose their health care coverage. Those patients are not being protected by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We certainly are not watching the cost of health care decline. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not bend the cost curve down. It has dramatically increased or bent the cost curve up. Of course, anybody who even has the slightest knowledge of basic economics realizes that if you mandate expensive coverages on any insurance policy, the price is not going to go down, the price is going to go up. We are witnessing that. We are certainly witnessing that in my home State of Wisconsin, where a young man aged 27, on average, is seeing his premium increase by 124 percent, going from a little over $1,100 per year, to closer to $2,500 per year. A young woman of that same age, 27, is seeing her premium increase by 78 percent, going from about $1,400 per year to about $2,500 per year. That is not bending the cost curve down. That is not even talking about the added or the increased cost of their deductibles, the increases in their maximum out-of-pocket amounts they are going to be spending every year. So again the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does nothing that it promises. It is a disaster for our health care system. It is a disaster for our Federal budget. It is a disaster for people and their health and their lives. I am on the floor of the Senate tonight, normally not down here at this time. Normally, I would be sitting at home doing a little bit of homework. So I guess what I would like to do is spend a few minutes doing what I would be doing at home, reading letters from constituents from Wisconsin. When I introduced my piece of legislation, trying to protect as many Americans as possible from the damage of the health care law, trying to honor the promise President Obama and Members of this Chamber made repeatedly to the American public that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep it, I told a story about a couple in Wisconsin who contacted our office. Initially, this couple wanted to be identified. They wanted their story told. By the time I had gotten ahold of them on the phone, to make sure they were actually getting some help in securing some health care, the husband had second thoughts. He watched his government. He watched the Internal Revenue Service being used as a political weapon. So he feared for his privacy. He feared for his economic security. So he asked me: Please do not use my name. Tell my story, just don't use my name. That is a pretty sad fact. That is something we need to ponder. It is something we need to address. But that couple, their story is pretty simple and pretty sad. His wife was suffering from stage IV lung cancer. He was recovering from prostate cancer. They were participating in the high-risk pool in the State of Wisconsin, a risk-sharing pool that worked. It was expensive for them, but it was something they could afford. I knew it worked because in my 31 years of business, as I provided health care for the people who worked with me, every now and again, unfortunately, one of the people who worked for me would have a serious health condition. When we would go to renew our policy, frequently those individuals, if the condition was bad enough, would be lasered out. They would lose coverage under our plan. But that was OK because the State of Wisconsin, very responsibly, made a provision for those individuals, the high-risk sharing pool. So what would end up happening is because they were denied coverage, they automatically qualified for the high-risk pool. I, of course, would pay for that coverage in the same way we would pay for coverage through our own health plan. What I found over the years, because this happened a number of times, is the coverage was very comparable. It was not a Cadillac plan but solid insurance coverage. So similar coverage and very comparable price. It was a plan that worked. It was a plan that covered those individuals with high risks. It was a plan that covered 22,000 Wisconsinites until this body, this Congress, passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which I describe here as neither of those two things. As a result of the passage of that bill, those high-risk pools are now obsolete. So this couple got the letter saying they would lose coverage as of January 1. Put yourself in the position of people suffering from cancer or recovering from it. You have a lot of worries in life. You do not need the additional worry of losing your health care plan. But that is what this couple faced, as millions of Americans are facing the exact same worry, the exact same harm, the exact same damage. It is unconscionable. They obviously went onto healthcare.gov, almost 40 times when I talked to them. They were never able to successfully log onto it at that point in time. So we helped this couple get in touch with the insurance carriers that would be operating within the exchange. They started getting quotes. They quickly learned their premiums were going to double. Their out-of-pocket maximums were also going to come close to doubling as well. So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not protect these two individuals, and it certainly did not offer them affordable care. As I went through letters from our constituents, we did make a few phone calls, knowing I was going to come down here, and asked if anybody would want to be identified. A few brave souls agreed to be identified. I will read their names as I read their letters. The first Wisconsinite, Michael Wagner, writes: I am self-employed and have a family of four. The President said we could keep our plan if we liked it and our doctors. Not true. We are being pushed off our plan for the exchange. He said the average family of four would save an average of $2,500. Not true. I think he just makes numbers up. My equivalent policy on the exchange will cost $7,500 more per year. That is almost a 100 percent increase. He said we can keep our doctors. Not true. Our current company and PPO network is not offered on the exchange. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that this needs to be stopped. If it is not, the American people will stand up and the landscape of Senators will be unrecognizable after the next midterm election. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have the gall to stand up for your constituents. Mr. Wagner, I definitely have the gall to stand up for my constituents. The reason I ran for the Senate was not because I wanted to be a Senator. The primary reason I ran for the Senate was to be the vote to repeal this monstrosity, to be the vote to protect Americans from the damage I full well knew this law would inflict on millions of our fellow citizens. The next constituent who wrote to me, Darren Schauf, wrote: We are a small manufacturer in Sparta, Wisconsin, who has been in operation since the mid 1960s. We currently employ 24 people and are a family-owned business, fabricating large fiberglass statues and water slides that are shipped all over the U.S. and Canada. We have been providing our employees health insurance for 15 years, paying for 100 percent of the premium. Pretty responsible employer. Those are the types of businesspeople I know. Those are the types of businesspeople who are very concerned about the people who work with them. Those are the types of businesspeople who this President demonizes in his class warfare. Let me go on: We have experienced the increases in health care cost over the years and weathered them fine. I received our renewal this week for next year. Because of the Affordable Care Act, our premium went from $3,887.77 per month to $7,103 per month. How does this happen? What definition of ``affordable'' is being used to describe this effect? We will not be able to pay 100 percent of our employee's premium at this rate. How can we get a plan that is at least close to the cost that we were paying last year? Mr. Schauf, I know how you can get a plan close to what you were buying last year. If this body would take up my bill, If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act, that is a true grandfather clause that actually would honor that promise for millions of Americans. We cannot save the policies that have already been lost. We cannot repair all the damage already done by this health care law. But we can still help millions of Americans if we act, if we are responsible, if we care. The next two constituents to write me are Brad and Dawn Nielsen. They write: My wife and I just received a notice that our monthly health care insurance cost will increase by 184 percent, increase by $1,330 per month starting in January 2015, and you need to understand how cheated we feel with this and what you have done. I am assuming he is referring to President Obama and Democratic Senators and Democratic Members of the House who voted for this monstrosity. Again, I ran to be the vote to repeal this law. We are both retired and have been paying our health care insurance for the past 3 years. We have what would be considered a good policy that falls in line with what would be considered a gold package as it relates to the ACA guidelines. We will be able to keep this policy with our insurance carrier through 2014 with a 7\1/2\ percent increase in the monthly premium that is to cover the new-- He puts in quotes-- ``the Affordable Care Act'' cost. Although we were not happy about the increase, we were told by our carrier that the monthly premiums will increase to $2,054.51 per month starting January 2015. This is not right. You as our representative need to understand what you have allowed to happen to us as well as others. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen, I wish--I wish we would have prevented this. I wish the Members of this body would hear your plea and do something to protect you, as the bill claims to do, to repair the damage. We have worked hard, made sacrifices to be able to retire, saved through our company's retirement plan, invested when we could and even put both our kids through college. Now to be forced to pay an outrageous amount for something we have had for the last 3 years isn't right. This increase is a game changer for us and will dramatically affect our standard of living moving forward. It is important that you understand what is happening and the need to change this unfair law. I hope the President, I hope Members are listening. The next constituent, Jeff Cubinski, writes: I am sending you this email about the 2014 ACA. I just received my letter from Humana stating my insurance is going to increase nearly 300% from $550/month to $1559/month. I cannot afford this--how is this Affordable Care? I have carried insurance all my life being self-employed--what is this plan trying to put the self-employed out of business???? I want to keep my plan the way it is--why are we being forced to change to a plan that has benefits we DON'T need?? Please help us citizens that have been carrying health care. Please make Government for the people by the people again! I wish to quickly answer that question. Why is this individual being forced to change to a plan that has benefits that he doesn't need? It is because there are people in Washington, in this alternate universe, who believe they are so smart, so clever, they know what is best for every American. They are so compassionate. They are trying to help. They are not helping much. This law is not helping much. It is doing real harm. President Obama and Senate, Members of the House, please listen to these constituent letters. Have a change of heart. Work with us to limit the damage before it gets greater. Those were the individuals we contacted who were willing to be identified. The rest of the individuals were either not contacted in time or decided, as the couple, that they had seen their government be used as a weapon against other citizens and decided to remain anonymous. The next Wisconsinite writes: I am writing you to inform you that as of January 1st 2014 my family of six and I will no longer have health care. This will be the first time in my life or the life of my children that we will be in this position. The reason for this is the Affordable Health Care Act, laughable name. On that day my premiums through work will go from $250/month to well over $1000/month. In looking through the Market place, my family's premium would also be well in excess of $1000/month. We are a typical middle class family, my wife and I both work full time, our combined income is in the $75,000 range. We are home owners with a mortgage, we drive 8 to 9 year old cars, our children go to public schools, we do not live an extravagant life style. I have been struggling to figure what to cut to be able to afford this new health care system the government stuck us in. No matter what we cut it will not add up to $1000. The other option is to put our house on the market and try to find something else outside of Madison. That is not what we want to do. Our kids are in high school, one with special needs and we feel that would be unfair to them. So do I. Continuing: Mr Johnson please explain to me how on earth is this affordable and fair. I can't. It is not affordable; it is not fair; it is utterly unfair. It is utterly unnecessary, but it is a fact. It is one I hope everyone who supported this bill can live with. I hope it is a fact that everyone who voted in support for this bill thinks about and is held fully accountable. Continuing: I find this Affordable Care Act to be divisive, unfair and an unjust tax on the middle class. I will not vote for anyone that supported this Act or continues to support this Act given the effect that it is having on my family. Sir, I am begging for your help. Please find a way to help my family and the rest of the Americans like us. Did we hear that, an American citizen begging for help from the harm that the Affordable Care Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, inflicted on his family. He is begging this Congress, this chamber, this President, for help. Please hear him. Another constituent writes: I'm feeling very upset and stressed over the new health care laws. I feel they are unfair and hurting working families. Our household income has shrunk and our health care cost is going up over $300 a month. According to healthcare.gov if insurance costs more than 9.5% of gross income it is considered unaffordable. When a single person applies only his/her income is taken into consideration. When a family applies total household income is used to figure out affordability of single-only coverage. Single only coverage for myself is about 8% of our family income; single only coverage for my husband is about the same. That means 16% of our income would be used for insurance (throughout employers) just for us. 16% of our income would be gone and our 4 children would be uninsured. Family coverage costs 12% of our family income still higher than 9.5%. Where is our tax credit? We don't qualify for tax credits because we have ``affordable insurance through our employers.'' If total household income is used why isn't family coverage affordability taken into consideration. Last year my family made about $55,000 (174% of the poverty level.) Next year we will make less due to reduced hours. Money is already tight, this new law will make things very uncomfortable for my family. I am turning to my representatives for help. Please help families in the same situation to the best of your ability; we need your help! This law is hurting us; be our voice. Another Wisconsinite writes: I just called Physician's Plus to find out about the status of our Health Insurance policy. Our policy will not be renewed due to the Affordable Care Act. It seems these constituents decided to drop the patient protection because he obviously wasn't feeling particularly protected. Continuing: My husband and I are freelancers in the video production field. My husband works so hard to support and take care of me and our two children. We are not rich, by any means, just taking care of business. We have paid 100% of our premiums for 15 years. We have bought coverage that makes sense for our family at different times. Currently, we pay $513.60/ month with a $3000 deductible. When I called Physician's Plus yesterday, the person there said that my plan cannot be renewed. He said the new premium for a comparable plan will be $1743.00!!! Again, that compares to $513 and it will be $1,743. Continuing: We cannot afford this in any way. I guess we are the collateral damage? I have tried to get on the ACA to find out our options. I refuse to give them personal information so I can only go by the Kaiser Foundation estimate. There is only one plan that will keep our Pediatrician and it looks like we will be looking at a $12,000 deductible with close to a $1000/month premium. We are on the high end, so get a very minimal subsidy. We do not want to get any help from the government, we want to be independent, but the government is forcing their hand on us! Again, we live in the land of the free, the home of the brave, and yet these brave Wisconsinites are being forced. They are being coerced. This is the antithesis of freedom of choice. Continuing: Please understand we want people to have health care, but why are they destroying us in the process? I am in the process of scrambling to find a job that provides insurance. I was offered a Educational Assistant job that has been changed to 29 hours, no health insurance. I wonder what caused that change in employment. Continuing: Most opportunities I am finding have recently dropped insurance coverage has a benefit. We are scared about the future. This is what the Affordable Care Act has done. That is what the patient protection and Affordable Care Act has done to Americans, to Wisconsinites. It has made them fearful. They are afraid, they are scared for their futures. Good job, Congress. Good job, President Obama. My, aren't we a compassionate lot. Didn't we do a fine job. Aren't we smart. The next Wisconsinite writes: I'm extremely unhappy with the so called ``Affordable Care Act.'' Unfortunately, for my middle class family, the new law is creating un-affordable health insurance. I am a 35 year old project management consultant and my wife and I have 2 children. We currently purchase health insurance on the individual market and are very happy with our coverage. We currently pay $352 per month to cover our family of 4. The plan offers a copay of $35 when going to the doctor, and has a $7,500 deductible for our family. I have begun researching what our health insurance premiums will cost going forward under ObamaCare and I am outraged with what I've found. The cheapest policy I can find is $761.71-- Let me refer back to the fact that they are paying $352, so that is more than a 100-percent increase. Continuing: --$761.71 per month for a Bronze plan and a $12,600 deductible! Again, that compares to the $7,500 deductible under the plan that they are ``happy with.'' This is 116 percent more than what we currently pay, with a higher deductible. If I look at a comparable plan to what we have now, the new cost will be around $900 per month, which is a 156 percent increase. Also, our income is slightly above the threshold to get any subsidies. The new regulations in ObamaCare will not benefit our family, but they will more than double our cost. We need to repeal this terrible law and replace it with simple, market based incentives. Health insurance should be more like car insurance. You don't submit a claim to get your oil changed in your car. Same goes for health care. We should pay out of pocket for routine health care using a transparent price structure that allows consumers to shop for the care they want. Then have a cheap insurance policy for major illness coverage. Republicans need to communicate this alternative, and make it simple for people to understand. I could not agree with this individual more. He continues: I realize repeal and replace is not possible until after the 2016 elections, but I appreciate and support wholeheartedly your new ``If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act.'' For the millions of people out there like me, we should be able to keep our current plan indefinitely. Hold the President to his promise and pass this law to grandfather in all existing policies. Let me just stop a minute and talk a little about the bill I did introduce--If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act. It is a pretty simple act. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it and pass it as soon as possible. I wrote it a certain way. I wrote it using the exact same grandfather language that was in ObamaCare. The problem with the grandfather language within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that, yes, it grandfathered plans, as long as you totally changed them. We took the grandfather language and we just pulled out the you just have to totally change your plan. We made it a true grandfather provision: the same language, the true intent, the honest intent. So I urge my Democratic colleagues to support that bill. Again, let me emphasize we cannot at this late hour, unfortunately, salvage most of these plans that have already been lost to the individuals whose emails I am reading from tonight. But there are millions of Americans who will lose their coverage in the future. Let me tell you how it is going to happen. I bought health care for the people who worked for me for 31 years in my business. I always was going to do that. There was no way I was ever going to subject the people who worked with me to the financial ruin of not having a health care plan. That being said, as the previous writer was saying, I didn't pay for their auto insurance, I didn't pay for their homeowners or property insurance. I always kind of wondered: Why am I having to make these very personal decisions for the people who work with me? Why am I having to decide on their levels of deductible and having to decide is it a PPO or an HMO? I know the reason why. It was government interference in the marketplace back in the 1940s, with wage price controls. Unions very naturally said: You can't raise our wages, give us some other benefit tax free, and that began the destruction of our health care system in terms of patient involvement, in terms of a competitive marketplace. Back then, 68 cents of every health care dollar was actually paid by the patient. There was free-market competition to ensure cost restraint, to ensure high-quality and high levels of customer service. That is what the free market does. Today, only 12 cents of every $1 is paid by the patient. But getting back to the millions who are going to be losing their employer-sponsored care, most employers care deeply about the people who work with them. They also would not expose the people who work with them to financial risk. But under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the decision is totally different now. Now an employer is going to be facing double-digit premium increases when these plans they were able to quickly renew before January 1 come due in 2014. If the exchanges, as they should have been from day one, start operating properly, employers are going to be faced with a decision: Should I pay $15,000 per family for family coverage? By the way, that is up $2,500 per year, not down $2,500 per year as President Obama promised us. Do I pay $15,000 per family coverage and try to comply with the 20,000-plus pages of law and rules and regulation or do I pay the $2,000 or $3,000 fine, and I am not putting my employees at financial risk? I am potentially making them eligible for subsidies in the exchange. That is the decision employers are going to be facing. Here is the kicker. Even those who are saying: I am not going to do that; I am going to keep providing that coverage, just wait until the first competitor drops coverage and pays the $2,000 fine rather than a $15,000 fine. Marketplace competition is brutal. It is not fun. It is why businesses that succeed should be celebrated, not demonized. But that is a decision to be made by millions of employers. As a result, tens of millions of additional Americans will lose the health care coverage they get through their employers using pretax dollars and get forced into the exchanges. Maybe some will get subsidies paid for by the American taxpayer-- actually, paid for by a debt burden placed on the backs of our children and grandchildren because we can't afford the Affordable Care Act. That is what is going to happen. That is what this Chamber, this Congress, this President needs to consider. That is why I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to join with me to pass the If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act--so we can protect millions of Americans, so we can honor that promise that was made repeatedly by this President and Members of this Chamber who voted for and supported this bill. Accept responsibility, be held accountable, act responsibly, and join me in that effort to protect Americans. Another Wisconsinite writes: Please allow me to introduce myself and my family. We are an average, middle class Wisconsin family that is having a really bad year. My husband was diagnosed with cancer in May, I lost my job and our family health insurance in June. Because of preexisting conditions, our only insurance option was the high insurance risk sharing pool. Again, that is the plan in Wisconsin I certainly found worked for real Americans. It worked. It will now be obsolete because of the health care law. This individual continues: For our family of three (myself, husband and college student daughter) our monthly premiums are $783 per month, with a $7,500 individual deductible. With the high insurance risk sharing pool ending December 31, 2013, I am searching for insurance, as I have yet to find employment. I have tried over 20 times to get on the affordable health care Web site with no luck. I have been able to set up a log in and user name, and have entered some information, which is never saved when I have to log out due to a ``please wait'' message that never goes away. I am working with an insurance agent to secure quotes outside of the government Web site, as I am sure we are way too middle class to be afforded any type of subsidy. Although I am unable to determine this through the defective Web site. Our cheapest quote is $1,580 per month-- Again, that compares to $783 per month. Again, basically a 100- percent increase. --with a $12,500 deductible. Her previous deductible was $7,500. Therefore, the Affordable Care Act would cost my family over $9,500 more per year in premiums and our total deductibles to meet will increase to $37,500 from $22,500 for the family. The total effect is $24,500 additionally in 2014. Are we seriously supposed to be able to absorb this into our budget? What does our family do in this situation? We simply cannot afford $1,580 per month for insurance or $24,500 per year. What are our options? My husband will undergo chemotherapy and has a surgery scheduled for 2014. I am feverishly-- Do you hear that word--``feverishly'' --looking for employment with health insurance coverage. I am sure we are not the only family adversely affected by the law. Please provide answers for all of us. I look forward to hearing from you. Again, my plea is to please provide true protection. Please provide security. Please accept the responsibility of what this law, what your support for this law did and is doing to millions of Wisconsinites, to millions of Americans. It is simply immoral what this law is doing to people, to their lives. It is not going to be pretty what this law is going to do to our health care system. It will lower quality and it will produce rationing because the only way the government can afford to provide all of this access is actually by limiting access. Of course, we are already seeing a very limited number of doctors who are actually accepting these contracts from the networks that are provided in the exchange, primarily because of all of the mandated coverages that are dramatically increasing the price of health care, as I have demonstrated this evening in these emails and these letters we are receiving from real people, from people who are suffering because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, last night I read a number of emails we received of the hundreds we received from constituents in Wisconsin specifically talking about the problems they have had in losing their coverage and certainly finding this law not being affordable. They use words like ``scared,'' ``begging for help,'' feeling they were just collateral damage in this scheme that simply is not protecting patients or offering affordable care. They cannot fathom that this is actually happening to them because they knew it was not supposed to. Today I rise to read an email received from Steve Walrath from Beloit. Steve writes: I am 54 years old, in good health and no prior conditions. I just received my health insurance renewal bill. I used to have affordable and user-friendly health care that cost about $290 a month with no copay. According to my renewal letter from Dean health care, my choices are now $854 a month with a 10-percent copay, up to $1,315 a month with a zero-percent copay. Let me put that in perspective. He was paying $290 a month with no copay, so if he wants a similar plan he will now experience a 440- percent increase, up to $1,315. If he wants to pay a 10-percent copay, it will be a 285-percent increase. This was not supposed to happen. This is not what President Obama promised the American people, the citizens of Wisconsin. Steve goes on to write: Where is the promise of reduced insurance rates under the Affordable Care Act? What choices do you want me to make after January 1? Dental care or health insurance? An occasional night out or health care? Helping my kids get settled into home ownership or health care? What choice do you want me to make? This increase of over 300 percent is a betrayal of the laws you passed and promises you made. ``Can't be denied coverage'' doesn't mean we can afford it. Not when it's more than my mortgage payment. Which of the above choices do you want me to make after January 1? That is just the sad fact. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not protecting patients, it is not providing affordable care, and it is not about choice. It is about coercion, and I am asking the President of the United States and I am asking our Democratic colleagues here in the Senate and the House to work with Republicans to start limiting the damage, to start repairing the harm that is being caused to citizens of Wisconsin and America. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, Gina Sell is a 29-year-old registered nurse, a wife, a mother of two girls, and a lifelong Wisconsin native. She and her husband Joe, a heating and air- conditioning technician, currently purchase health insurance on the individual market. Their best option under ObamaCare increases their monthly premium by $700 and their deductible by $12,000 per year. This is after an annual ObamaCare subsidy of $48. Because they both work, Gina and Joe make too much money to obtain an adequate subsidy but not enough to afford health insurance. So what can they do? Gina has looked for a full-time job that provides health benefits, but those jobs are pretty scarce. Her only option may be to quit working altogether so they qualify for a larger subsidy. Because of ObamaCare, Gina might lose a career she loves and America might lose a much needed nurse. In Gina's words: ``This scenario is life altering . . . My husband and I are at a loss for what we can do.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce a piece of legislation which is timely and very much needed. One of the reasons I decided to run for the Senate was the passage of the health care law. The reason I thought it was pretty important is because I said at the time that passage of the health care law represented the greatest assault on our freedoms in my lifetime. I believe that is true, and I believe that is being borne out today. We are witnessing it today. The passage of the health care law resonated with me. It made such an impact on me because my wife and I are beneficiaries of the freedom that we had with our current health care system. Our first child, our daughter Carey was born with a very serious congenital heart defect. Her aorta and pulmonary arteries were reversed. Her first day of life, our daughter Carey was rushed down to Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, where a wonderful man, Dr. John Thomas, came in at 1:30 in the morning and did a procedure and saved her life. Eight months later, when her heart was the size of a small plum, another incredibly dedicated team of medical professionals in 7 hours of open-heart surgery totally reconstructed the upper chamber of her heart. Her heart operates backwards today. She is 30 years old and a nurse practitioner practicing at that same hospital in which her life was saved. She married about 3 weeks ago. Our story has a happy ending because my wife Jane and I had that freedom. I was able to call Boston Children's and Chicago children's hospitals and talk to the preeminent surgeons in the world--which means in America--and find out what is the most advanced medical treatment, the most advanced surgical technique at the time. We were able to avail ourselves of that, and now I have a beautiful daughter who is 30 years old. She is also taking care of those little babies in a neonatal intensive care unit. I decided to file this piece of legislation today because as a Senator from the State of Wisconsin we have been getting a number of phone calls in our office from Wisconsinites who are getting letters of cancellation from their insurance companies. In particular, one couple touched my heart and gave me a great cause for concern. This couple--who do not want to be identified because they fear IRS retribution, which is a little different story and a little off topic, but I think it is worth pointing out--both have cancer. The wife has stage IV lung cancer. The husband is recovering from prostate cancer. It is in remission. This couple had availed themselves and are currently covered under the Wisconsin high-risk insurance pool. It is a high-risk pool that works. I know in my business, when we had individuals who were lasered off of our insurance policy, those individuals were able to avail themselves of this sharing-of-the-risk pool in the high-risk pool. It works and it is affordable. This couple received their notice of cancellation from the high-risk pool, and they panicked. They were in a panic. When one has stage IV lung cancer, the last thing one needs is stress. ObamaCare caused them a great deal of stress. It is causing them a great deal of stress. They tried to get on healthcare.gov almost 40 times without success. They contacted our office. We have done everything we can to help them. They have been in touch with some of the insurance carriers that will be part of the exchange participating in Wisconsin. They have received quotes. This was preliminary. This isn't final, but under the high-risk pool their maximum out-of-pocket exposure, including the cost of their premiums, is about $20,000 per year. He is working and has a good job. They can barely afford that. Preliminary indications show that exposure will double to $40,000. The only reason they might remain whole is they may qualify for a subsidy. Nobody can calculate it yet. They have received three different answers. It is like taking a tax return to 100 different preparers and getting 100 different results of what tax is owed. But based on those preliminary estimates it is looking as though their total exposure won't be $20,000, it will be more like $40,000, and their subsidy might cover half of that. So their health care expense didn't decline, as President Obama promised, by $2,500 per year. It is going to virtually double. And if it doesn't double, it is because the American taxpayer will be picking up that other half. So one of the primary promises made by President Obama--that if we passed a health care law, the cost to a family health care plan would decline by $2,500 a year by the end of his first term--has been broken. That was not true. Of course, the other very famous promise the President made repeatedly was: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. I would like to go through a number of times President Obama actually made that statement. He looked the American people in the eye, trying to sell his health care plan, and guaranteed them if they liked their health care plan they would be able to keep it. On March 6, 2009, he said: If somebody has insurance they like, they should be able to keep that insurance. If they have a doctor they like, they should be able to keep their doctor. On May 11, 2009: Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have. On June 2, 2009: If they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it. That was from a letter to Senate Democratic leaders. On June 11, 2009, President Obama said: Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have. On June 15, 2009--and this is probably the most famous one I remember--in an address to the American Medical Association, President Obama said: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. I think I have made my point, but I have another 13 quotes I can continue reading that basically make the same point with the same promise and the same guarantee. As recently as the beginning of this month, on the White House Web site it says: We've got some good news for you. If you currently have private health insurance, you should be able to keep it, and that's exactly what the health care law says. Unfortunately, today over 2 million Americans have received cancellation notices of their insurance policies--the policies they chose, and that for just a little more time they will have the freedom to choose. They won't have that freedom come January 1. So one of two possibilities is true. Either President Obama was being entirely dishonest with the American public when he made those repeated promises, those repeated guarantees or he was totally disengaged from the process, did not have a clue what was in his own health care plan or did not understand the incredibly negative consequences of that health care plan. That brings me to my bill. The reason President Obama can claim if you like your health care plan you can keep it is that within the health care bill there actually is a grandfather clause. The first two paragraphs of that grandfather clause actually would work. The problem is those first two paragraphs or sections are followed by an evisceration of the grandfather clause. So basically what we have is a phony grandfather clause contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My piece of legislation--the If You Like Your Health Plan You Can Keep it Act--actually is a real grandfather clause and it uses President Obama's exact language. All my bill does is it simply strikes the phony grandfather clause and inserts basically the exact same language that was there, although we remove those exceptions, those mandates. In other words, we eviscerate the evisceration of the grandfather clause. I am here today to announce I have filed that bill. We have at least 35 Republican cosponsors of the bill. I know the House is moving a similar piece of legislation. I know there is talk, and hopefully we will be joined by our Democratic colleagues. It is a simple proposition. I am asking every Senator to join me in passing this bill, the true grandfather clause, to help President Obama keep his promise to the American people. I have to say that, unfortunately, this bill won't help the Wisconsin couple I would so like to help, so like to guarantee they can keep their health care coverage. The only way we can help that couple is if we repeal the entire law, because the guaranteed issue, high-risk pools are extinct. They do not exist. That coverage is gone. But if my Democratic Senate colleagues will join me in passing this bill--the If You Like Your Health Plan You Can Keep it Act--we can keep President Obama's promise to millions of Americans. I think it is worth it, and I ask all my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I come before you today to introduce a piece of legislation which is timely and very much needed. One of the reasons I decided to run for the Senate was the passage of the health care law. The reason I thought it was pretty important is because I said at the time that passage of the health care law represented the greatest assault on our freedoms in my lifetime. I believe that is true, and I believe that is being borne out today. We are witnessing it today. The passage of the health care law resonated with me. It made such an impact on me because my wife and I are beneficiaries of the freedom that we had with our current health care system. Our first child, our daughter Carey was born with a very serious congenital heart defect. Her aorta and pulmonary arteries were reversed. Her first day of life, our daughter Carey was rushed down to Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, where a wonderful man, Dr. John Thomas, came in at 1:30 in the morning and did a procedure and saved her life. Eight months later, when her heart was the size of a small plum, another incredibly dedicated team of medical professionals in 7 hours of open-heart surgery totally reconstructed the upper chamber of her heart. Her heart operates backwards today. She is 30 years old and a nurse practitioner practicing at that same hospital in which her life was saved. She married about 3 weeks ago. Our story has a happy ending because my wife Jane and I had that freedom. I was able to call Boston Children's and Chicago children's hospitals and talk to the preeminent surgeons in the world--which means in America--and find out what is the most advanced medical treatment, the most advanced surgical technique at the time. We were able to avail ourselves of that, and now I have a beautiful daughter who is 30 years old. She is also taking care of those little babies in a neonatal intensive care unit. I decided to file this piece of legislation today because as a Senator from the State of Wisconsin we have been getting a number of phone calls in our office from Wisconsinites who are getting letters of cancellation from their insurance companies. In particular, one couple touched my heart and gave me a great cause for concern. This couple--who do not want to be identified because they fear IRS retribution, which is a little different story and a little off topic, but I think it is worth pointing out--both have cancer. The wife has stage IV lung cancer. The husband is recovering from prostate cancer. It is in remission. This couple had availed themselves and are currently covered under the Wisconsin high-risk insurance pool. It is a high-risk pool that works. I know in my business, when we had individuals who were lasered off of our insurance policy, those individuals were able to avail themselves of this sharing-of-the-risk pool in the high-risk pool. It works and it is affordable. This couple received their notice of cancellation from the high-risk pool, and they panicked. They were in a panic. When one has stage IV lung cancer, the last thing one needs is stress. ObamaCare caused them a great deal of stress. It is causing them a great deal of stress. They tried to get on healthcare.gov almost 40 times without success. They contacted our office. We have done everything we can to help them. They have been in touch with some of the insurance carriers that will be part of the exchange participating in Wisconsin. They have received quotes. This was preliminary. This isn't final, but under the high-risk pool their maximum out-of-pocket exposure, including the cost of their premiums, is about $20,000 per year. He is working and has a good job. They can barely afford that. Preliminary indications show that exposure will double to $40,000. The only reason they might remain whole is they may qualify for a subsidy. Nobody can calculate it yet. They have received three different answers. It is like taking a tax return to 100 different preparers and getting 100 different results of what tax is owed. But based on those preliminary estimates it is looking as though their total exposure won't be $20,000, it will be more like $40,000, and their subsidy might cover half of that. So their health care expense didn't decline, as President Obama promised, by $2,500 per year. It is going to virtually double. And if it doesn't double, it is because the American taxpayer will be picking up that other half. So one of the primary promises made by President Obama--that if we passed a health care law, the cost to a family health care plan would decline by $2,500 a year by the end of his first term--has been broken. That was not true. Of course, the other very famous promise the President made repeatedly was: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. I would like to go through a number of times President Obama actually made that statement. He looked the American people in the eye, trying to sell his health care plan, and guaranteed them if they liked their health care plan they would be able to keep it. On March 6, 2009, he said: If somebody has insurance they like, they should be able to keep that insurance. If they have a doctor they like, they should be able to keep their doctor. On May 11, 2009: Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have. On June 2, 2009: If they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it. That was from a letter to Senate Democratic leaders. On June 11, 2009, President Obama said: Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have. On June 15, 2009--and this is probably the most famous one I remember--in an address to the American Medical Association, President Obama said: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. I think I have made my point, but I have another 13 quotes I can continue reading that basically make the same point with the same promise and the same guarantee. As recently as the beginning of this month, on the White House Web site it says: We've got some good news for you. If you currently have private health insurance, you should be able to keep it, and that's exactly what the health care law says. Unfortunately, today over 2 million Americans have received cancellation notices of their insurance policies--the policies they chose, and that for just a little more time they will have the freedom to choose. They won't have that freedom come January 1. So one of two possibilities is true. Either President Obama was being entirely dishonest with the American public when he made those repeated promises, those repeated guarantees or he was totally disengaged from the process, did not have a clue what was in his own health care plan or did not understand the incredibly negative consequences of that health care plan. That brings me to my bill. The reason President Obama can claim if you like your health care plan you can keep it is that within the health care bill there actually is a grandfather clause. The first two paragraphs of that grandfather clause actually would work. The problem is those first two paragraphs or sections are followed by an evisceration of the grandfather clause. So basically what we have is a phony grandfather clause contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My piece of legislation--the If You Like Your Health Plan You Can Keep it Act--actually is a real grandfather clause and it uses President Obama's exact language. All my bill does is it simply strikes the phony grandfather clause and inserts basically the exact same language that was there, although we remove those exceptions, those mandates. In other words, we eviscerate the evisceration of the grandfather clause. I am here today to announce I have filed that bill. We have at least 35 Republican cosponsors of the bill. I know the House is moving a similar piece of legislation. I know there is talk, and hopefully we will be joined by our Democratic colleagues. It is a simple proposition. I am asking every Senator to join me in passing this bill, the true grandfather clause, to help President Obama keep his promise to the American people. I have to say that, unfortunately, this bill won't help the Wisconsin couple I would so like to help, so like to guarantee they can keep their health care coverage. The only way we can help that couple is if we repeal the entire law, because the guaranteed issue, high-risk pools are extinct. They do not exist. That coverage is gone. But if my Democratic Senate colleagues will join me in passing this bill--the If You Like Your Health Plan You Can Keep it Act--we can keep President Obama's promise to millions of Americans. I think it is worth it, and I ask all my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Congressman Mel Watt to serve as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. It has been over 5 years since the FHFA's inception, and it still has never had a confirmed Director. First, Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's original nominee for the post, Joe Smith, who was a technocrat. Today they are trying to block Congressman Watt because they say he is a politician and not a technocrat. But they forget that Congressman Watt has over 40 years of experience in housing, real estate, and other financial services issues. Before coming to Congress, he practiced business and economic development law and personally walked hundreds of families through real estate closings. In Congress, he has served on the House Financial Services Committee for the past 21 years. In that capacity, he was one of the first Members to recognize the need for action on predatory lending. With great foresight, he introduced the Prohibit Predatory Lending Act in 2004 and introduced it every Congress until it became the foundation for the qualified mortgage provision of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. If we had all listened to Congressman Watt before the housing crisis, then thousands of consumers might have avoided being scammed into unsafe mortgages that ultimately led to foreclosure. Congressman Watt has also shown a commitment to housing finance reform. In 2007, he partnered with Congressman Frank and introduced a bill to reform Freddie and Fannie. This bill eventually led to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which established the FHFA. Industry groups, consumer advocates, and fellow Members of Congress have recognized Congressman Watt's impressive track record and support him for this position. One of his home State Senators, and the Republican Senator who probably knows him best, has supported his nomination from the beginning. Shortly after Congressman Watt's nomination was announced, Senator Burr stated: Having served with Mel, I know of his commitment to sustainable federal housing programs and am confident he will work hard to protect taxpayers from future exposure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I look forward to working with Representative Watt in his new role to find new ways to facilitate more private sector involvement in the housing and mortgage markets. Recently, the National Association of Home Builders sent a letter in support of Congressman Watt's nomination, stating: During Representative Watt's tenure on the House Financial Services Committee, he has proven to be a thoughtful leader on housing policy. The FHFA needs a permanent director with his leadership capabilities. The National Association of Realtors has also sent a letter of support praising Congressman Watt by stating: The Director of the FHFA must weigh the costs of action and inaction with the benefits of protecting the taxpayer, and ensuring that the housing sector can stabilize and grow. Mr. Watt has the experience and skill necessary to ensure that both are handled in a manner that will benefit our nation. It is time we finally confirm a Director for the FHFA, to ensure stability and confidence in the housing market. Congressman Watt has the experience, intellect, and temperament to succeed as Director, and there is no legitimate reason why Congressman Watt should not be confirmed. At a minimum, as a sitting Member of Congress, he deserves the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to invoke cloture so we can proceed to an up-or-down vote on Congressman Watt's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment I filed on H.J. Res. 59, the continuing resolution. It is a pretty simple amendment. It simply prohibits that funds be used for a government contribution for the health insurance of Members of Congress and their staffs under ObamaCare. Now, you might ask, well, why would I, as a former employer, want to prevent an employer from contributing to health plans for Members of Congress and their staffs? Well, the simple reason is, because of the passage of ObamaCare, it expressly prohibited funds from being contributed by the Federal Government to Members of Congress and their staff's health care plans. I do not believe the President has any legal authority and I certainly do not believe the Office of Personnel Management has the authority to circumvent the Affordable Care Act. I am exactly on board with Senator Moran in certainly wishing that we could repeal the health care law in its entirety, that we could defund it, that we could do anything we could to limit the damage. But the fact is, it is the law of the land, and we need to respect the law of the land. I have looked through the legislative history of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems very clear what the intent of Congress was. Back on September 29, 2009, as this was being debated by the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that was adopted without objection that would require Members of Congress and their staff to ``use their employer contribution . . . to purchase coverage through a state-based exchange, rather than using the traditional selection of plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.'' Again, that amendment was adopted without objection. Apparently, Members of Congress at that point in time thought that the State-based exchanges were going to offer such fabulous health care that they wanted to make sure that Members of Congress and their staff could avail themselves of that opportunity. So on October 19, 2009, that Grassley provision was incorporated into the Finance Committee's America's Healthy Future Act. But there was an addition to that amendment made that basically provided for an employer contribution. Section (B)(ii) says: the employer contributions may be made directly to an exchange for payment to an offerer. So at that point in time it was the express will of Congress that the employer--the Federal Government--could actually contribute to the health care plan purchased through the exchange. The problem arises, however, that when Senator Reid actually offered the language for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on November 18, 2009, it specifically said: the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are one-- (l) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (ll) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act). There was absolutely no provision made whatsoever for an employer contribution to those health care plans. On December 24, 2009, Christmas Eve, the Senate passed that bill making no provision for an employer contribution to those plans purchased through an exchange. It was passed on pure party lines, 60 to 40. On March 21, 2010, the House passed the exact same legislation. But then there was a debate in terms of reconciliation, and Senator Grassley once again offered an amendment that would have provided an employer contribution to those plans purchased through the exchange. It was explicitly stated that employer contribution could be made. But that amendment was voted down. It was voted down. The vote was 43 to 56. All but three Democratic Senators voted no. In the end, the health care law was passed. That reconciliation was passed on March 25, 2010. Now, it happened recently--on July 31, 2013--that President Obama came over here to the Hill and met with Democratic Senators because, as Nancy Pelosi famously stated, we have to pass this health care law before we can figure out what is in it, before we know what is in it. Well, once Senators found out what was in it--that they were going to have to purchase their health care through an exchange and the Federal Government could not make any payment for those health care plans--they panicked and they asked President Obama to please correct that. So President Obama heard their plea and directed his Office of Personnel Management to propose a rule that would allow the Federal Government to pay or make a contribution to those State-based exchange plans. Now, I would argue that the OPM--President Obama--has no legal authority whatsoever to make those contributions, which is the purpose of my amendment. There will be millions of Americans who will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance for various reasons but because of the passage of the health care law. Once they have lost that coverage, they--every other American--will have to purchase insurance either in the open market or through a State-based or Federal exchange. Their employers will be barred. They will not have the opportunity to make an employer-contribution to help pay for those health care plans. The only way a normal American gets to have any subsidy in those exchanges is if their income qualifies them for a subsidy under the Affordable Care Act. The only Americans who now--because of this OPM ruling--will actually have their employer be able to make a contribution are Members of Congress and their staffs. That is simply wrong. That is special treatment. It really should not stand. So my amendment basically acknowledges that this is the law of land; that President Obama--the Office of Personnel Management--has no legal authority to have that contribution take place. So it simply prohibits funds to be used for a government contribution for the health insurance of Members of Congress and their staffs under ObamaCare. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Fred Hochberg to be the President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Despite taking the helm of the Bank in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Mr. Hochberg's leadership expanded financing for American exporters when private financing was nearly impossible to acquire. In 2012, the Export-Import Bank helped to support an estimated 255,000 American jobs at 3,400 companies, and 85 percent of Export-Import Bank transactions directly benefited small businesses. The Export-Import Bank is self-sustaining, charging fees to cover its expenses and creating no cost to U.S. taxpayers. Furthermore, since 2008, the Bank has been able to send nearly $1.6 billion in profits to the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Hochberg was first nominated to be President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank on April 20, 2009, and he was confirmed unanimously by this body on May 14, 2009. Mr. Hochberg was renominated by President Obama on March 21, 2013, and he was approved 20-2 in the Senate Banking Committee on June 6, 2013. I urge my colleagues to once again confirm Mr. Hochberg without delay. If we fail to confirm Mr. Hochberg before July 20, we run the risk of leaving the Bank without a quorum to act on many of the transactions before it--creating an uneven playing field for American workers and exporters. Mr. Hochberg's nomination is supported by both labor and business groups. These two groups understand the importance of the United States not unilaterally disarming against our global competitors. The Bank plays a very important part in this country's efforts to expand exports and create good, high-paying jobs in America. Mr. Hochberg has been instrumental in this effort and should be confirmed. I urge all my colleagues to support President Hochberg's nomination today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the Senator from Alabama yielding the floor. I came down first of all to express my gratitude to Senator Grassley for fighting for amendments, and I wish to comment on and really affirm what Senator Vitter was talking about--the Senator from Louisiana-- about how these amendments were chosen by the other side. I have not been an abuser of the amendment process in my time in the Senate. I try to pick the amendments and I try to write the amendments I think really have a positive impact on any piece of legislation. In this case, on the immigration bill, I want to solve the problem. I was looking for a reason to vote for the bill. What prevents me from voting for this bill is the huge cost we are having to pay for it. Listen, I don't want to divide families. I don't want to deport children's fathers. I don't want to deport husbands and wives. But I also agree with the American people that we cannot--we are already bankrupt in this country. We cannot provide benefits to those people coming here whom we want to welcome into our country, to contribute to our country, but we can't be paying benefits. So I offered two amendments--first of all, to not allow the Secretary to extend the registration period another 18 months, so we can get this behind us. My other amendment, which I think is more significant and would help me vote for the bill, would be to prevent immigrants from obtaining the earned-income tax credit. The American people by a 77- percent margin do not believe we should be paying benefits, as we are bankrupting this nation, to people who are not citizens. The amendment, the one I really asked for, if it was going to be narrowed down from two to one, I asked for a vote on the amendment to prevent the earned-income tax credit--a welfare benefit paid through the Tax Code--from being offered to immigrants. That is the one I wanted, but in this package, negotiated apparently by the majority leader, they were going to offer the other amendment. Why? Because I don't believe they want to expose their Members to that vote, basically providing benefits to non-U.S. citizens that they know full well the American people do not support. So, once again, I appreciate Senator Grassley's efforts. I also fully support Senator Portman's amendment as well. He is exactly right. The way we stop illegal immigration is by reducing the demand for illegal border crossings. We do that by shutting down the demand for that labor. Again, we want to welcome legal immigrants through a legal process, but we cannot tolerate this lawlessness and this illegal immigration, and we simply cannot afford to pay noncitizens that benefit level. The cost of the bill is $262 billion, which just makes it very difficult for me to support it. I yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I would call up my amendment No. 213.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, this is a very simple amendment. It recognizes I think what most of us recognize; that is, the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, are the primary drivers of our debt and deficit. So it is a very simple amendment. It establishes a budget point of order that any budget resolution that is brought forward that does not count or does not prepare for a 75-year solvency for both Medicare and Social Security would be considered out of order. We in the next 20 years will be paying out $5.1 trillion in benefits in excess of what we are bringing in in terms of dedicated revenue through the payroll tax. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security alone are $20.5 trillion. For Medicare the unfunded liability is $42.8 trillion. Those programs must be reformed so they are saved for future generations. Again, I would hope everybody would support a budget point of order for any budget that does not have a 75-year solvency for Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I was allocated 15 to 20 minutes. I will try to keep it to 15 minutes to yield at the top of the hour.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I ask that my time be used against our allocation on the resolution. I wish to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is absolutely right. I supplied the medical industry for over 31 years, and the medical device tax will do great harm to medical innovation. I also wish to commend both the Senators from Florida and Pennsylvania about their great points on the importance of economic growth and how important it is that we concentrate all of our efforts here in Washington on economic growth. I truly believe that every Member of this body, people serving in Congress, share the same goals, or the same goal: We want a prosperous America. We want every American to have the opportunity to build a good life for themselves and their family. But often folks on the other side of the aisle accuse Republicans--conservatives--of conducting a war on women or a war on the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will tell my colleagues what is the truth. It is that with all of our deficit spending here in Washington, we are conducting a war on our children. Fortunately, I do not know of a parent or parents who would willingly drive up their own personal debt, who would max out their credit cards with absolutely no intention of ever paying those debts off, but fully intending to pass those debts on to their children and grandchildren and great- grandchildren. Again, fortunately, I don't know anybody who would do that. Yet, collectively as a Nation, that is exactly what we are doing. We are mortgaging our children's futures. I ask all Americans to please consider what we are doing in terms of robbing future generations of the prosperity and the heritage and the type of opportunity that we should be handing over to them. An awful lot of people don't quite understand the connection between our high levels of debt and economic growth. By the way, it is economic growth that actually strengthens middle-income Americans. But if we think about our own personal situations, if we in our own family budget have driven our debt levels up to the point where creditors are calling us all the time, how are we going to grow our own personal economy? In other words, how can we increase consumption when all of our extra dollars are going to pay off our debt, pay our creditors? We are under a great deal of pressure. The answer to the question is a person can't grow their personal economy, they can't grow their own personal consumption. That same economic fact applies to a nation as well. That is why these high levels of debt are harming economic growth and harming the very people all this government spending is purporting to try and help. One way to take a look at this in terms of the harmful effect of all of the regulation, all the government debt, is economic growth. The fact of the matter is, on average, after 14 quarters, the American economy has grown, after post-World War II recessions, by 19.9 percent. Under Ronald Reagan, our economy grew 20.1 percent in the first 14 quarters. Under this President, our economy has grown by only 7.5 percent. Again, I would argue an awful lot of that has to do with regulations, but an awful lot of it has to do with the fact that we have increased our debt to unsustainable levels. It is scaring consumers. It is scaring business people away from investing in capital and growing their businesses. As Republicans, as conservatives, we want every American to pay their fair share. We actually want a balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction. We want more revenue flowing into the Federal Government, but we want to increase revenue the old-fashioned way: by growing our economy. Just a couple of quick little facts. Even with the meager economic growth we have experienced from 2009 to 2012, revenue has increased to the Federal Government by a total of $344 billion per year. If we returned to an economy such as we had in 2007, when revenue to the Federal government was 18.5 percent of our economy--it was pretty close to the 50-year average--that would add another $435 billion per year of revenue. The tax deal, the ``punishing success'' tax increase that was part of the fiscal cliff, supposedly will raise $41 billion in the year 2014. So $41 billion versus $435 billion is a tenth as effective. The problem with that ``punishing success'' scheme is it puts at risk the very growth that is far more effective at raising revenue. So how do we get our fiscal house in order? Well, we actually have to put our Nation on a glide path toward a balanced budget. We have to return that level of certainty. Global creditors have to be able to look at the United States and say, I think they are getting this situation under control. The only way we can do that is by passing a budget in this body that actually shows a glide path to balance. Of course, that is not what the Democratic Senate budget resolution will do. It never balances. As Senator Toomey was speaking about, we have to take a look at that first year. In comparison to the CBO estimate, it actually increases spending by $100 billion. It would increase our deficit by $75 billion. That is the primary thing we have to take a look at because these budget resolutions are only about as good as the paper they are written on, so we have to look at that first year. The other point I want to make in terms of this budget resolution is the claims in terms of deficit reduction are patently dishonest. The claim to reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion in comparison to the CBO baseline is not true. The only way we get that is by comparing apples to oranges. If we adjust the CBO baseline--for example, the $1 trillion--it counts in more spending, or the $300 billion of Hurricane Sandy extended spending, or the additional $200 billion of interest. If we compare apples to apples, this budget at most will reduce the deficit by $300 billion to $400 billion. Again, what we have to take a look at is what it does in that first year, which is actually increases the deficit and increases spending. This is basically not an honest budget. So my first amendment that I will be offering is a simple amendment. It would establish a point of order subject to a 60-vote waiver or appeal that simply requires a balanced budget in the year 2023. Pretty reasonable. I think the American public actually expects us to live within our means far before that date, but this would be a responsible glide path. I think it is an eminently reasonable amendment, and I certainly hope my colleagues here in the Senate will support a very commonsense approach to providing some level of fiscal discipline to our Federal situation. The second amendment I wish to offer has to do with the financial situation of States and local governments. Far too many cities are already going bankrupt. We have a chart here that shows a number of cities that have already declared bankruptcy and are going through that process. I think it is extremely important that we here in Congress put States and local governments on notice that they cannot come to the Federal Government looking for a bailout. They need to get their own fiscal house in order. We are not picking on anybody, but it is amazing when we take a look at the unfunded liability that some of these State and local governments are facing right now. The city of Chicago, for example, has an unfunded liability per household of close to $42,000. I said $42,000 per person. New York City is about $39,000, and San Francisco is about $35,000. The point of this amendment is to put State and local governments on notice that the Federal Government will not be here to bail them out. They need to get their own fiscal house in order. The third amendment I intend to offer has to do with recognizing the truth of the situation with our entitlement programs. At the current level, at the current path, neither Social Security nor Medicare is sustainable. So this amendment is also a very simple amendment. It establishes a point of order that requires in any budget resolution that we reform both Social Security and Medicare to create a 75-year solvency. Again, I think that is pretty reasonable. Let me describe why I think it is so important. I frequently hear all kinds of people claim Social Security is solvent to the year 2035 or the year 2038. It is a moving target. Let's take a look at the true picture in terms of the Social Security financial balance sheet. This comes right from the Social Security Administration. This is looking ahead to the year 2032, a mere 20 years' worth of deficits. It is true that Social Security actually was running surpluses for decades. It built up a trust fund of--we will talk about that later-- about $2.5 trillion, $2.6 trillion. But in 2010, that situation turned around. Now Social Security is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, in terms of dedicated revenue to the payroll tax. Over the next 20 years, that total cash deficit will equal $5.1 trillion. How could anybody, looking at these facts and figures, possibly claim Social Security is solvent? Well, it is because of the fiction--and it is fiction--of the Social Security trust fund. I have a couple of quotes here from the Office of Management and Budget. Talking about the Social Security trust fund, they say: These balances are available for future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense. The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury. In other words, they are claims against the Federal Government. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the government's ability to pay benefits. Put differently, these trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury. In other words, we have assets worth $2.6 trillion, we have liabilities of $2.6 trillion, netting to zero. One of the analogies I use to describe the trust fund is very similar to this: If a person has $20 and spends it--by the way, this money is spent; it is gone--and then that person writes him- or herself a note for $20 and stuffs it in their pocket and says, Hey, I have 20 bucks, they really don't. They have a promissory note they will have to give somebody else to purchase so they can have the real $20 to spend. That is basically what we have in the Social Security trust fund. It does exist. It is just worth zero. But here, ladies and gentlemen of America, as shown in this picture, is the Social Security trust fund. It is a file cabinet. It is locked. That is kind of funny because they are actually nonmarketable securities, but there you go. That is $2.6 trillion worth of value that supposedly makes Social Security solvent to the year 2035. It is a fiction. It is false. And until everybody here in Washington starts truthfully describing the extent of our problem with not only Social Security but also Medicare--I was part of that group of Senators who had the privilege of having dinner with the President a couple weeks ago. I found it very interesting that President Obama accurately described the problem in reforming Medicare. He said the problem is that Americans pay in $1 but they get $3 worth of benefits. He also went on to say we have a problem because most Americans do not understand that. Well, today I am asking the President, I am asking Members on the other side of the aisle to join with Republicans to honestly describe the problem to the American public. You do not solve a problem until you first define it and then secondly admit you have the problem. We have severe problems with Social Security, with Medicare, with other mandatory spending, with our budget. Until we come to terms with that, until we are honest with the American people--stop pulling the wool over their eyes--we have no chance whatsoever of solving these very severe problems. So with that, I yield back my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his comments. I came to the floor to voice my support for the Cruz amendment. I want to concentrate on the cost of the health care law, which is why we are asking in this amendment to defund that bill because we simply can't afford it. So much of our budget already is not considered. Frequently, during negotiations on how we stabilize our deficit and our debt situation, there are many items off the table, things such as Medicare and Social Security. As unsustainable as those programs are, they are off the table in terms of negotiation. But if you want to take a look at the problem with the health care law--ObamaCare--it is the fact that it is simply not affordable. I know the name of the bill is the Affordable Care Act, but we simply can't afford it. Basic economics 101 describes the problem, because ObamaCare will dramatically increase the demand for health care. Thirty million more Americans--and let's face it, we all want those Americans to have access to affordable health care--will be accessing health care or trying to, demanding health care through some kind of program, such as Medicaid, while at the same time the supply will be dramatically reduced. That is going to be an economic disaster. What I wish to do is put up a couple of charts and graphs showing the true cost. We don't talk about the true budget window when ObamaCare fully kicks in in the year 2016. This is based on the CBO estimate, and all we have had to do is extrapolate the final 3 years. Basically, it shows that ObamaCare won't cost the $1 trillion it was originally estimated to cost when it is fully implemented between 2016 and 2025. It will actually cost $2.4 trillion, at a minimum. And, of course, it will be paid for by these taxes, fees, and penalties, which I guess now are taxes, equaling about $1.4 trillion. So given the $2.4 trillion worth of cost, we have $1 trillion worth of taxes--and, by the way, the majority of those or a great portion of those taxes will be indirect on middle-income Americans--that leaves about a $1 trillion hole in the current budget window. That is the $716 billion that will apparently be taken out of Medicare providers. We are not sure what will be happening in the full budget window, but that is a $1 trillion deficit risk. Again, these are all estimates, and I would argue in general that the Federal Government is not particularly good at estimating anything. Back when they first passed Medicare in the mid 1960s, they projected out 25 years and said Medicare would cost $12 trillion in 1990. In fact, it cost $110 trillion--over nine times the original estimate. I don't believe the Federal Government has gotten better at estimating in that intervening time period. As a matter of fact, President Obama famously repeatedly said that if we passed a health care law, by the end of his first term the cost of a family plan would actually decline by $2,500. Unfortunately, that guarantee has not come true. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a family plan was a little over $12,000. If his promise had come true, we would be looking at a family cost of $10,000. In fact, the cost of a family plan today is now $15,000. Again, that is somewhat of a broken promise. But let's take a look at what I think is the greatest risk in terms of cost projections by the CBO in that estimate of the total cost of ObamaCare--the $2.4 trillion we are talking about in the true budget window. The CBO estimated only 1 million people net would lose their employer-sponsored care and get dumped in the exchanges with the subsidies. But it is going to be far worse than that, because 160 to 180 million Americans access their health care through their employers. I was one of those employers. I purchased health care for more than 31 years. The decision employers are going to be making in terms of whether to carry health care has dramatically changed under the health care law. Now the decision is going to be: Do I pay $15,000 for a family plan and then try to comply with the now 20,000 pages of law-- rules and regulations? Leader McConnell printed out those 20,000 pages. You can see it in the hallway. It is an enormous burden for anybody trying to comply with that. Anyway, the decision is: Do I pay $15,000 trying to comply with 20,000 pages of rules and regulations or do I pay the $2,000 to $3,000 fine--the penalty--and in so doing I am not exposing my employees to financial ruin, I am making them eligible for huge subsidies in the exchange? If an individual has a median household income of $64,000, they will be eligible for $10,000 in those exchanges--$10,000 worth of subsidies. Who isn't going to take that deal? And that is my point. As employers, we will drop coverage. Employers are incentivized to do so. So rather than 1 million Americans losing their employer-sponsored health care and enjoying those subsidies, there will be tens of millions. One of the amendments I will be offering in this budget process will be asking the CBO to provide the worst-case scenario: What happens if the McKinsey study is true, 30 percent of employers will drop coverage or 50 or 100 percent? It will be a simple amendment to get the worst- case scenario. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Yes, I came to the floor today to support the Cruz amendment. Does the Senator from Oklahoma still wish to speak?

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Yes. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 to 7 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, all of us have come down here to support a very legitimate request to have a legitimate question answered. I think the Senator deserves those answers. If not an answer from the White House, he at least deserves a vote. I started watching here this morning. The Senator started about 11:57. It is now past midnight. I think my primary action is one of just being puzzled. I have been here for 2 years. I have never served in any kind of legislative body. I certainly came to the Senate thinking this was the world's greatest deliberative body. What I found is a body that is utterly dysfunctional. Even though this is actually one of the best examples of how this body ought to work, it is also an example of that dysfunction. I cannot believe this issue has not been resolved within a half hour, within an hour. Just take a vote. We have a number of our colleagues from the House coming here in support of the Senator from Kentucky. The House is operating, I believe, as our Founders intended. They are passing budgets. They are debating issues. They are passing real pieces of legislation that, unfortunately, are being dropped over here in the Senate, where those good pieces of legislation die. That is a real shame. For example, I serve on the Budget Committee of the Senate. I have been on that Budget Committee for 2 years. We have not yet voted on a budget in the Budget Committee. This is, by the way, when this Nation is facing a fiscal crisis unlike anything we have ever faced in our history. We have racked up 4 years now where our debt exceeds $1 trillion. There is no end of that in sight. We have not passed or even brought to the floor an appropriations bill all year long. How can we function as a body if this is how it operates? A number of Republican Senators joined the President at his gracious invitation for dinner tonight. It was an excellent dinner. It was a genuine, sincere, open discussion of the fiscal problems facing this Nation. I was part of a group of 44 Senators a year and a half ago, almost 2 years now, who also joined the President prior to the final debate on the first debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. The President of the United States leaving that meeting should have come away with a very strong understanding that those 44 Republican Senators were incredibly sincere in their desire to work with the President, to work with our colleagues across the aisle, to solve these problems. I will tell you, I am one Senator who ran for office not to become a Senator but because we are losing this country. We are bankrupting it. One of the things I do when I talk around the country, I make it a point that fortunately I do not know of any parent who would willingly max out their credit cards, get in debt way over their heads never intending ever to pay it off, but fully intending to pass it off to the children and the grandchildren. I do not know any parent that way, fortunately. But as a society that is exactly what we are doing. Frequently in this political town, Republicans are accused of waging a war on women, waging a war on immigrants. None of that is true. What Washington is doing is we are waging a war on our children. We are mortgaging their future. It is absolutely immoral. Americans have got to stop and consider what it is we are actually doing to future generations. So I felt good at the dinner with the President tonight--I think all of my colleagues did. I hope the President did--with a pretty strong sense, once again, that there is a great deal of sincerity, a great deal of desire to roll up our shirt sleeves, put down partisan bickering, put down partisan differences, work together to solve this problem. I think there has got to be a realization that neither side is going away. If we are going to start solving these problems, we have got to start working together. We have got to return the Senate into that deliberative body that our Founders intended it to be. We have got to be willing to be held accountable. We have got to take votes. It should not be that hard. We should not be afraid. I would ask the Senator from Kentucky--as I understand it, this is puzzling that we are here now after midnight. I applaud the Senator for his resolve here. That is why he sees every Member coming down here and providing the support. But I think all he wanted was either unanimous consent or possibly a vote on this simple question: Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that: No. 1, the use of drones to execute or to target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due process right of citizens. That seems like a pretty simple question, seems like one most Senators would want to express their opinion by taking a vote, or allowing this resolution to pass by unanimous consent. So I guess my only question is, is that all the Senator is looking for, either an answer from the White House or a simple unanimous consent agreement or a simple vote?