Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my remarks before the vote begins.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of Kirstjen Nielsen in her nomination to be the sixth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The challenges facing the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are daunting. Our national debt exceeds $20 trillion, and there is, unfortunately, no serious effort to reduce the 30-year projected deficits, which exceed more than $100 trillion. In the last few months, we have experienced unprecedented destruction from natural disasters, stressing the budgets of both HHS and FEMA. Our borders are not secure, allowing illegal immigration to persist, illicit drugs to flow unabated, and making us vulnerable to external forces. Meanwhile, our enemies are emboldened. The threat of Islamist terrorism has evolved, metastasized, and spread throughout the world, even reaching our homeland. We see increased stress from cyber attacks, hacking, and social media-inspired acts of terrorism. We face perhaps the greatest danger from enemies within. In the past 5 years, 262 Americans have been killed and over 1,000 injured from acts of evil committed here at home. These are some of the challenges awaiting the next Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary oversees a department that is composed of 22 separate agencies, each with a diverse mission. It employs 240,000 people, with a budget of $66 billion. It faces challenges with unity of effort and habitually low morale. President Trump nominated Ms. Nielsen to lead DHS, and she is ready to answer this call of duty. She has been working in and around the Department since its creation. Ms. Nielsen brings valuable, practical experience to DHS. She is an expert in risk management, with a focus on cyber security, emergency management, and critical infrastructure. In the aftermath of 9/11, Ms. Nielsen served as the Director of the Office of Legislative Policy at TSA. She then moved to the White House Homeland Security Council as Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Senior Director for Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. Before rejoining DHS earlier this year, Ms. Nielsen founded a risk and security management consulting firm. Ms. Nielsen served as DHS Chief of Staff under then-Secretary Kelly, witnessing firsthand how the right leadership and support can quickly and dramatically improve agency morale. General Kelly calls Ms. Nielsen a superstar. In a letter supporting her swift confirmation, he wrote: ``What truly sets Kirstjen apart is her integrity, sense of service to our nation, and dedication to the men and women who risk their lives serving our great country every day.'' Former Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff have also voiced their support, as have more than 40 former senior homeland security and intelligence officials from both parties. Secretaries Ridge and Chertoff wrote of Ms. Nielsen: Ms. Nielsen is a homeland security leader for our times. More than any previous Secretary, she understands the 21st Century challenges of the borderless cyber domain and has worked in both the public and private sectors to address this deeply interconnected and consequential risk to America's national security and economic stability. Kirstjen Nielsen offers our nation the credentials required of the Secretary of Homeland Security in today's environment: expertise in homeland security policy and operations; national and international perspective; and public and private sector experience. I do want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for their support and cooperation in moving this nomination quickly through committee and to the floor vote that we are about to undertake. To my colleagues, I just want to say that we are fortunate to have a nominee with such experience and dedication to the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, and I urge all of you to support her confirmation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the disasters of ObamaCare and a possible solution. It is a powerful first step--not perfect but a step that would take us off the path toward a single- payer system and put us on a path toward federalism, with greater State control but, in many respects, greater freedom for the American public. During the last healthcare discussion and debate, I spoke with a couple, Sherry and Vern Colby from River Falls, WI. They had a real problem: They had preexisting conditions. They were quite pleased when ObamaCare passed because their preexisting conditions, they believed, would be covered. So they signed up for ObamaCare in 2014, paid the premiums, sent in their paycheck stubs to make sure their income levels qualified for the subsidies. Then a funny thing happened when they got their tax returns in March of 2015: They had to pay back more than $15,000 in subsidies because they made $59,000. They had to cash in pretty much all of their 401(k). They had to sell their house so they wouldn't lose it in foreclosure. I spoke with Sherry Colby today because, as we have debated the possibility of passage of Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson, we have heard a lot of demagoguery. We have heard a lot of false charges. I would like to refute a couple of those. One of the claims of ObamaCare is it guaranteed that if you have a preexisting condition, you are free from worry, you will be covered. Well, in Sherry and Vern Colby's case, that is simply not true. I spoke with Sherry just this afternoon. Again, they had to sell their house, and they had to cash in their 401(k). Their nightmare didn't end at that point in time because President Obama, as he left office, took short-term, limited-duration plans--that duration from 264 days down to 90 days. Now Sherry and Vern Colby are forced to buy these short-term, limited-duration plans that only last for 90 days. When I say ``forced,'' the problem they have is that they work. Vern drives milk trucks 60 hours a week. Sherry works in a florist's shop 30 hours a week. They make too much to be subsidized under ObamaCare. They don't make enough to be able to afford the premium of $14,000 per year with a $12,500 deductible. So right now they are paying $5,500 a year, and they have a $5,000 deductible per quarter and a 70/30 copay for a short-term, limited-duration plan that can and did exclude their preexisting conditions. Shortly after they signed up with IHC, Vern had a condition that required a hospital stay. The problem is, his preexisting condition wasn't covered under their insurance. The bill for that hospital stay was $45,000. To add insult to injury, because their short-term, limited-duration plan is not ObamaCare compliant, they are also paying the penalty. They are purchasing insurance, paying $5,500 per year, $20,000 in deductibles, a $45,000 hospital bill, and they are still penalized by the American Government under ObamaCare. Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson maintains the provision of the guaranteed issue, covering people with preexisting conditions. There are all kinds of charges that somehow ObamaCare has guaranteed coverage for those individuals and Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson would not. Personally, I believe Governors, State legislators, and the people in the State of Wisconsin will be far more concerned about Sherry and Vern Colby and will have innovative solutions, such as Wisconsin's high-risk pool or Maine's invisible high-risk pool, to actually bring down premiums so the Colbys can actually afford insurance without having to quit their jobs. But that is not the main reason I came to the floor today. While sitting in that chair or watching TV over the weekend, listening to people's speeches, I have heard repeatedly from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson that it is going to destroy Medicaid as we know it, that it will be slashing spending in Medicaid--massive, deep cuts. Let me go to a couple of charts. This first chart really has nothing to do with healthcare--except it has everything to do with healthcare. What this chart shows is the CBO projection of deficits over the next 30 years by decade. CBO made the projections as a percentage of the GDP. Nobody understands percentages--we don't buy hamburgers with percentages--so we converted those percentages of GDP into dollars. According to our best calculations, CBO projects almost a $10 trillion deficit over the next 10 years; the second decade, $37 trillion; the third decade, $82 trillion, for a whopping total of a $129 trillion deficit over the next 30 years. That would be added to our $20 trillion worth of debt. There are a number of ways of describing this deficit. I am putting up two right now. What is it composed of? Well, if you take a look at revenue versus outlays, the deficit is composed of about an $18 trillion deficit in Social Security alone. In other words, Social Security over the next 30 years will pay out $18 trillion more in benefits than it brings to the payroll tax; Medicare, $39 trillion. Interest on the debt over that same 30 years will be $65 trillion for a whopping total of $122 trillion of deficits over the next 30 years. That explains 95 percent of the deficit. Another way of looking at that deficit is this: Over the next 30 years, our revenue will equal almost $200 trillion--$199 trillion. Outlays for Social Security will be $69 trillion; Medicare, $55 trillion; Medicaid and ObamaCare $32 trillion, for a subtotal of $156 trillion. If you add $65 trillion interest on the debt, we are already exceeding our revenue. You will notice that there is no money at all for any agencies, for national defense, for any other welfare programs. All the money is consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and interest on the debt. This is clearly unsustainable. Let's talk about cuts. What would a cut really look like? Well, this is the truth in terms of what we are projected to spend on Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and what we would spend under Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson. If you go back to the year 2009, we were spending slightly more than $200 billion for Medicaid alone. This last year, we were spending about $438 billion. We have basically doubled spending in just the last 9 years. According to projections, by the end of this time period, we will be spending over $700 billion per year on ObamaCare and Medicaid combined. Graham-Cassidy would spend a little less than that--not much less. Let me take a look at what a real cut would be. There are no cuts; you will notice spending never declines year over year--not once. It continues to grow year over year, not that far from the projections. This is what a real cut looks like. Many of my colleagues have talked about and campaigned on something they call the penny plan--a way to rein in out-of-control Federal spending by doing something that seems pretty reasonable, which is to take any government program and just reduce a dollar's worth of spending by just a penny. It would be a 1- percent cut per year. If we were to do that to ObamaCare and Medicaid, you would see what a real cut looks like--a pretty minor cut, the type of cut many people have suggested under the penny plan, but that is what a real cut looks like. What Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson does is not a cut; it is just a slight reduction in the rate of growth and spending. Again, oftentimes colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about drastic cuts. Well, let me detail what I would consider to be a possibly drastic cut. Let's say, rather than just 1 percent a year, we reduce spending by 5 percent a year or 10 percent a year. You know, I would agree with folks on the other side; if we were proposing those types of cuts, I would say that is slashing spending. I would say that would be a massive or draconian cut. But, again, that is not what we are doing. We are just slightly reducing spending over the next 10 years. Let's look at this a little bit differently. Let's take a look at cumulative spending. If you just take cumulative spending year over year and add it up--our current projection on ObamaCare and Medicaid-- we would spend $5,688 billion; that is, $5.67 trillion. The Graham- Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposed spending is the green line, $5.44 trillion or a reduction of $226 billion over 10 years, a 3.99 percent decrease--not draconian, not massive, not slashing. It is a small, slight reduction in the growth of spending. Let's take a look at what would happen if we just adhered to the penny plan in terms of cumulative spending. Again, this would be a real cut--1 percent per year. We would take the current law at $5.67 trillion. The penny plan would actually reduce that to $4.2 trillion, and you would save $1.5 trillion for about 26 percent in savings. That would be a real cut that would constrain the growth of entitlements so we can further reduce the mortgage of our children by just a little bit. Why is this important? Again, to put things in perspective, over the next 10 years--this is blown up from our first chart--the projected deficit, according to CBO is close to $10 trillion--$9.6 trillion. What we are proposing under Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson is a $226 billion reduction in the rate of growth of spending on Medicare or on Medicaid and ObamaCare--a 2.4-percent reduction in relationship to the $9.6 trillion projected deficit. Is that massive? Is that draconian? I don't believe so. The types of controls we need to start enacting, if we are ever going to stop mortgaging our children's future, would be more like the penny plan, but even there, you can see how inadequate that is, based on the problem. The penny plan would reduce spending by $1.48 trillion--about a 15.4-percent reduction to our $9.6 trillion deficit. Let me conclude by talking about the fact that here in Washington, DC, here in Congress, we are not very good at solving problems, partly because not very many Members or their staffs have ever served in the private sector. They don't really understand people like Vern or Sherry Colby, who, as President Bill Clinton said, ``are out there busting it,'' working 60 to 70 hours a week. Their premiums have doubled and, in many cases, tripled. Their coverage is cut in half. They can't afford ObamaCare. They don't understand how businesses are struggling to pay the premiums when they provide healthcare. They don't understand it, and what they certainly don't understand is the problem-solving process: admitting you have a problem, defining that problem, gathering the information, doing the root cause analysis, and then, based on that careful analysis, based on the information, setting achievable goals and designing legislation, then designing the solution. We haven't been honest with ourselves in this body. We haven't come to grips with why premiums have doubled and, in many cases, tripled. It was because of the faulty design of ObamaCare--the fact that we are asking 5 to 6 percent of the American population to shoulder the full burden of covering people with preexisting, high-cost conditions. There is a way of addressing this, but we have to be honest. We have to set aside the rhetoric. We have to set aside the demagoguery. We have to take that first step of loosening the ties of this one- size-fits-all model here in Washington, DC, letting the States innovate--like Wisconsin, like Maine's invisible high-risk pool--to actually bring down premiums. In Maine, when they enacted invisible high-risk pools, premiums for young people were cut to one-third of what they had been under guaranteed issue. For older folks, they were cut in half. It is possible to do this if we are honest and if we are courageous. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of H.R. 2810, the instructions to the clerk in amendments Nos. 1065 and 1086 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in about 5 minutes, I am going to be asking for consent to pass the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Belina Right to Try Act of 2017. I wish to take a few moments, though, to tell the story of how that right-to-try bill, which has been passed by 37 States, obtained that name. I believe it was probably March of 2014 that I met Trickett Wendler, a young mom with three children, who came to Washington, DC, with a group of other individuals advocating for those patients and their families with people suffering from ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease--an incurable and devastating disease. A week before meeting Trickett, I met with the Goldwater Institute, which was talking about its right-to-try legislation. They were beginning to pass through State legislatures. Just mentioning the fact that I supported the right to try brought tears streaming down Trickett Wendler's face. Unfortunately, Trickett Wendler lost her battle to ALS on March 18, 2015. She has inspired something that I think is going to give so many thousands--maybe tens of thousands, maybe millions--of Americans hope when they face a similar type of disease, where there is no hope, where there are no further options, other than potentially an experimental drug that has been proven safe, according to the FDA. In our press conference announcing the introduction of this bill, we had met Matthew Belina, a naval aviator and lieutenant commander--one of the finest among us--also stricken with ALS. We had little Jordan McLinn, a little boy with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and his mother Laura was speaking at that press conference. Remarkably, a man also stricken with ALS, Frank Mongiello, his wife Marilyn, and their children asked to speak. He made such an impression on our gathering, which encapsulated that press conference, particularly his speech in a video that I showed to my colleagues, which resulted in so many cosponsorships of this bill. These are real people facing their mortality with no hope. This right-to-try piece of legislation will give those individuals and their families hope. I want to truly thank my lead cosponsor from across the aisle, Senator Joe Donnelly, who is in the Chamber here today, and also Senator King and Senator Manchin, who decided not to play any politics whatsoever and also were willing to cosponsor a bill offered by somebody who was in a tough reelection fight. I want to thank my 43 Republican cosponsors, particularly Senator McConnell. As leader, he was one of the first cosponsors who helped me to get those other 42 cosponsors. I want to particularly thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, who have worked so cooperatively with me and my staff to make this moment possible. I would like to thank Vice President Pence, who also met Frank Mongiello and became a real advocate for this, and President Trump, who after meeting these types of victims--these individuals--also supported this piece of legislation. I wish to thank the Goldwater Institute and Darcy Olson for their tireless efforts at promoting the right to try and the 37 States and the 97.7 percent of the legislators who, when given a chance to vote to give people the right to try and the right to hope, voted yes. I would also like to thank a very special person, Dr. Delpassand, who really demonstrated why this is such an important piece of legislation. Dr. Delpassand is an oncologist from Houston, TX. He was engaged in an FDA trial on an aggressive form of endocrine cancer with 150 patients. It was working. The drug was working. He petitioned the FDA to allow another 78 patients to participate in the trial. The FDA said no, but Dr. Delpassand said yes, putting his career at risk. It is that kind of courage that we want to reward today by passing this right-to-try bill. In conclusion, I want to thank the thousands of patients and their families who have taken their wheelchairs and gone to their State capitals and have come here to Washington, DC, to advocate for their personal freedom, their personal liberty, for their right to try, for their right to hope, and for the right to hope of millions of other Americans faced with these incurable diseases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 204 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson- Donnelly amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a true original, the Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company, on 150 years of brewing great beer in Wisconsin's North Woods. The Leinenkugels were fairly typical Wisconsinites in the mid-1800s--German, immigrants, and lovers of beer. Jacob Leinenkugel started in the business in 1867 after he and three brothers learned the craft from their father, a brewer and distiller. Together, the Leinenkugel family started four breweries, including the Spring Brewery, which eventually became Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing. While the Leinenkugel family was typical, the brewery they started became far from ordinary. For a century and a half, the Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company has put Chippewa Falls, WI, on the map and excellent beer in the hands of people throughout Wisconsin and the country. Walk into most any bar in the State and there will be ``Leinie's'' on tap. Go to a backyard cookout or a Milwaukee Brewers tailgate on a hot summer's day and there will Summer Shandy in the cooler. Stop by a Wisconsin supper club for dinner and odds are you or someone at the table next to you will be enjoying their fish fry with a Honey Weiss. Leinenkugel Brewing is the seventh oldest continuously operating brewery in the country. This lengthy heritage did endure trying moments. Leinenkugel's survived Prohibition by producing soda, ginger ale, and a nonalcoholic cereal beverage to stay in business. Afterward, the brewer eventually grew into the fourth largest craft brewer in the United States. The original brewery is still operating, and its Leinie Lodge visitor center in Chippewa Falls welcomes 125,000 visitors annually, making it a top tourist destination in northern Wisconsin. Along with its original lager, Leinenkugel's now brews 24 other beers, with offerings for every taste and season, including a special German Marzen-style lager to celebrate the family's roots and the brewery's 150th anniversary. Leinenkugel Brewing is more than beer. Leinenkugel's is a Wisconsin institution that touches the lives of people across the State--even those who have never lifted a pint. The brewery's Canoes for a Cause outreach program has provided education and resources to help improve and protect Wisconsin springs and waterways. Generations of the Leinenkugel family have served our country in the military and other civic capacities. That tradition continues today as former Marine Corps captain and Leinenkugel Brewing president Jake Leinenkugel serves as a senior White House adviser for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Six generations have taken a family from the North Woods of Wisconsin to the refrigerators of beer lovers in all 50 States while maintaining its Wisconsin roots and cherishing its German heritage. I join my fellow Wisconsinites in raising a glass in appreciation for the last 150 years and hoping for many more to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak to three amendments that I have either submitted or plan to submit on the matter before the Senate here today, the repeal and hopefully complete replacement of ObamaCare. There are two issues that concern me the most and that I have fought for and debated. In this process, how can we bring down gross premium levels that have skyrocketed under ObamaCare? According to HHS, on a national average, premiums have increased 105 percent. They have more than doubled. And of course it is far worse than that in many places. Janice Fenniman was a 62-year-old woman when I met her a couple of years ago. Prior to ObamaCare, she was paying $276 per month. In 2016, just 2 years into the implementation of ObamaCare, she was paying $786 per month. Last time I talked to her, she would be paying over $900 a month, but the problem is, she can't afford it, so she is just taking a risk and going uninsured until she reaches the age of 65 and is qualified for Medicare. The other issue I want to speak about is literally the unsustainable nature of Medicaid. The other thing I fought for is reducing the disparity between States that have expanded Medicaid and those that haven't, like Wisconsin, that have done a great job managing Medicaid. My concern is that Medicaid expansion, which is directed toward able- bodied, working-age, childless adults, is funded by the Federal Government 90 to 100 percent, depending on which year you are looking at, versus traditional Medicaid targeted toward--40 percent of Medicaid spending is targeted toward children, the disabled, and the elderly. Medicaid expansion is putting at risk the sustainability of traditional Medicaid. So my three amendments deal with those issues, and let me first take up the first two amendments dealing with premiums. I have a few charts. Unfortunately, in Washington, DC, there is not a whole lot of people who understand the problem-solving process. Let me describe it briefly. It starts with information. It starts with defining the problem, doing a root cause analysis, having the courage to recognize and acknowledge the truth in reality. Based on that reality, you try to set achievable goals. From my standpoint, the achievable goals should be to bring down gross premium levels back to a reasonable level where they were prior to the implementation of this completely faulty architecture of ObamaCare and preserving and sustaining traditional Medicaid. This chart, I realize, is a little busy, but let me walk you through it. This shows the trend line of ObamaCare, in terms of what we have experienced from 2010 to 2017, plus the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office as it relates to the Senate bill we voted on yesterday. Let's take a look at this. Back in 2010 to 2013, you see the trend line here. In 2013, on the national average, an individual is paying about $232 per month for healthcare. Now had that trend line just continued, had we not passed this faulty architecture of ObamaCare, we could reasonably expect that in about 10 years, premiums for an individual being about $303 per month. What has happened--again, according to HHS--those premiums have gone from $232 per month to this year $476 per month on a nationwide average. That is a 105-percent increase. One of the problems with CBO scoring is it is difficult to interpret. What I tried to do for my colleagues is put in chart form exactly what CBO is saying. In their scoring of the Senate bill, they said next year premiums would be 20 percent above the current baseline. Of course, they don't give you the baseline, and they don't really give you the premiums so I had to try to cobble those together. This is pretty accurate. That would put premiums next year at about $546 versus $232 about 4 years ago. The following year it would be 10 percent above the baseline. So it would start decreasing with the Senate bill, and the third year would be 30 percent below baseline. You would see a dramatic drop. You would be at $441 per month. Then the trend over the next 7 or 8 years would be 20 percent below the baseline, $574. Take a look at this. Had we never passed ObamaCare, premiums should be in the $300-a-month level versus $574. This is the damage done by ObamaCare, and this, I am very sad to report, is not what we are adequately addressing because we do not have the courage to do the root cause analysis and be honest with the American public about what is happening. Let me read you a dictation from the family I just heard from yesterday. Sheri and Vern Kolby, whom we heard about from one of our State legislators who contacted one of my regional directors. He sent me an email telling me their story. I called Sheri last night. She didn't have time. She was just off her shift. Her husband is working way more than 40 hours a week--basically, that is 60 hours a week. The people whom President Clinton was talking about, people busting it, working 60 hours a week, their premiums have doubled and their coverage has been cut in half. So my staff reached out, and we basically dictated her story, her and her husband Vern's story. This is not her letter to me but her voice based on what was told to me by my staff. This is Sheri Kolby from River Falls, WI. My husband and I have preexisting conditions. We need affordable healthcare through ObamaCare or whatever works. Vern is a milkman now, driving a tank to farms to pick up milk, and there are only seven employees at his company which doesn't provide coverage. I am a florist. Now, I am the only full-time employee so they don't have health coverage at my work either. We signed up for ObamaCare in 2014 for the entire 12-month period. We went on healthcare.gov, but the site crashed, so we had to call a phone number which was jammed. Finally, I got hold of someone and got through an hour and a half of questionnaires. Then you get information in the mail about what your premium will be and your subsidy, and you make your monthly payment. We were getting monthly letters telling us we had to fax in our pay stubs to make sure we were still qualifying for the subsidized premiums. We did that every month, but then next March, when we filed our taxes, that is when my tax preparer said, ``You better sit down. Not only did you pay your premium, but they want your subsidy back.'' That was about $15,000. We were earning too much to qualify for the subsidies, even though we held blue-collar jobs. If we stayed on ObamaCare, we would have to pay the entire premium unsubsidized. In 2015, we made $59,000 and ended paying almost $30,000 for premiums and deductibles. That was 51 percent of our income. In covering our deductibles and our out-of-pocket costs, we used up almost all of our 401(k)s. It just multiplied and multiplied. When a huge amount of money was due the IRS, we decided we had to sell our house. Sheri and Vern Kolby had to sell their house so it wouldn't be taken away in foreclosure because of Obama's skyrocketing premiums. Now we can only get a 3-month plan. That is all that is available. Private catastrophic plans are few and far between. And I will add, parenthetically, also way overpriced because of the faulty architecture of ObamaCare. There aren't a lot of companies that offer plans in Pierce County. We are kind of in a funnel and that funnel keeps narrowing. In May, I went back to healthcare.gov, but coverage would have cost $1,200 per month, about $14,400 per year in premiums for a policy with a $14,000 deductible. If you made $200,000, you could pay that, but we are not even close to that. We usually fluctuate between $50,000 and $60,000. We are blue collar. We pay our bills on time, we respect people, and we want to live a good life, and we have just been dumped on. It has got to stop. It may come to a point where we might not have insurance, but we will just end up owing the hospital if something else happens. My husband works 60 to 70 hours a week, and I work 30. We drive a `98 Wrangler. We are not running around in a Ferrari. We don't spend money beyond our means. We don't take trips to Tahiti, and we are not trying to swindle the system, but it has been a very stressful experience. We have been married 28 years, and we have stayed together through so much, but we are not old enough to even think about retirement for a long time so I don't know what we will do. These are the forgotten men and women of this healthcare debate--the people who are busting it, who don't get subsidized, who can't afford insurance coverage because of the faulty architecture of ObamaCare, and we are not courageous or honest enough to really address it. We did get from HHS a study that they commissioned and they had the results in May. I would like to put up my next chart here. Basically, what they did is they studied the cause, and I have the study right here. Basically this is the question they are asking: What portion of the increase in premiums is attributable to the effects of guaranteed issue and community rating? Now I realize those are very popular elements of ObamaCare. The problem is, they cause premiums to skyrocket. That last graph--way above what they would have been without that architecture--pricing people out of the market, forcing American taxpayers to pay far more in subsidies than we otherwise would have to do or would be necessary had we never passed ObamaCare. Well, here is the result of their study. They studied four States: Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and I can't remember the last one, but I am going to focus on Tennessee. What this graph shows--I realize it is kind of hard to see--but in Tennessee, between 2013 and 2017, premiums increased $327 per month, from $104 per month to $431 a month for a 41-year-old male. That is a threefold increase, 314 percent. What caused it, 73 to 76 percent was increased risk. Again, increased risk is basically defined as the guaranteed issue covering preexisting conditions and community rating-- things that are popular but again that cause premiums to double and in Janice Fenniman's case, more than tripled. One thing I want to point out about that, when you hear that talking point, premiums that double and triple, look at the inverse of that. If we could roll back the clock, go back 4 years, premiums would be one- half to one-third of what they are today. People would be able to afford coverage, and the American taxpayer would be supporting those whom we want to support with a whole lot less dollars. Now, the good news, if we were honest, if we were courageous, and if we actually addressed the root cause analysis, which has been done, which we have largely ignored, the good news is, you can actually cover people with high costs and preexisting conditions without collapsing insurance markets. They are called high-risk pools or, in the case of Maine, invisible high-risk pools. The people in it don't even realize they are in it, but it has worked phenomenally well. Maine passed guaranteed issues, and just like they did under ObamaCare, guaranteed issues caused premiums to skyrocket. You can see the premium rate from their old Anthem HealthChoice plan back in 2011. Once they supplanted--they didn't even repeal the guaranteed issue, but they just supplanted this with an invisible high-risk pool--their premiums were cut in half. This is doable. It is possible, but it is only possible if we take a look at best practice, if we are willing to have the courage to admit exactly what is causing the problem. I have two amendments designed to address the increase in premiums. First--and I realize this will probably not even be voted on--would be a simple one-sentence amendment that would repeal all of ObamaCare, not partial repeal, not just two-thirds repeal but repeal that would concentrate on removing all of those market reforms. I would call them market distortions that cause premiums to skyrocket, that cause people like Sheri and Vern Kolby to lose their house. That is my first amendment. The second amendment really relates to exactly what ObamaCare was originally designed to do, which was put Members of Congress in the exact same position of people like Sheri and Vern Kolby. Back in July of 2009, November 18, as this was being debated in the HELP and the Finance Committee, Senators Coburn and Grassley introduced language to those bills that would make Members of Congress have to purchase their health insurance plans on any kind of program or the State-based exchanges, whatever was passed under the Democrats' healthcare plan. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an Orwellian-named bill that did neither, that had Senator Coburn's basic language from the HELP Committee that was going to require Members of Congress to purchase their coverage through the exchanges. What was interesting is, it did not include an employer contribution. Those were barred. On March 24, after the House had passed their version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Healthcare Education Reconciliation Act, Senator Grassley again offered an amendment to allow an employer contribution to Members of Congress and their staffs' healthcare plans. That amendment was defeated with 56 Democratic Senators defeating it. Three Democratic Senators voted for it, and every Republican Senator voted for it, allowing the Federal contribution. So Congress specifically said in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Members of Congress and their staffs must purchase their healthcare through the State exchanges, and they cannot obtain an employer contribution for those plans. Let's fast forward to October 2, 2013. Members of Congress and their staff panicked. They went running to the Obama White House and said: You have to fix this. We know what we passed. We know what the law says, but we have to weasel our way around this--and they did. So the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule, first of all, that Congress was a small business that could purchase their insurance on a shop exchange which required a small business, which is defined in the law as less than 100 employees--I just want you to know that Congress has about 11,000 employees. There is no way this Congress is a small employer, but that was the technique that they were able to work their way around this law. So right now Members of Congress and staffs are the only Americans who get the special treatment of being able to purchase insurance on ObamaCare exchanges and get an employer contribution. Millions of Americans did lose their insurance because of ObamaCare. They had to purchase the overpriced insurance policies out of the exchanges, but they have no access to employer contributions. So my second amendment would put only Members of Congress--I don't think we should penalize our staff--but I want to put Members of Congress in the exact same position as Sheri and Vern and thousands and maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans who are making too much, busting it, working 60 hours a week. Their premiums have doubled, sometimes tripled. Coverage is cut in half, and they can't afford it. They are taking a risk. Congress is still advantaged because we are making more than $59,000. We are making $174,000. The reason I am offering this amendment--I know it will not be popular--is that the only way Congress will have the courage to act is if they are affected every bit as much as the American public. I urge all of my colleagues to be honest, to be courageous, and to make sure they do not exempt themselves from the pain, from the harm, from the damage of ObamaCare, so that they will commit themselves to actually fixing this problem. Those are my first two amendments that have to do with premiums. I urge my colleagues to support them. I think that they are good amendments and are worthy of support. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, let me move on to my second point. Again, I come from a State whose Governor showed real courage in recognizing that traditional Medicaid was unsustainable and was in trouble. The last thing we really should be doing to an unsustainable entitlement program is to throw more promises on top of that and make it even more unsustainable. I think it is extremely important that we recognize that Medicaid expansion is directed toward able-bodied, childless, working-age adults. That is, again, funded at a much higher level by the Federal Government, at 90 to 100 percent, versus traditional Medicaid, which is really targeted to those we want to help--children. Forty percent of traditional Medicaid goes toward children, the disabled, and the elderly. My next amendment is designed to try and make traditional Medicaid more sustainable, not by pulling the rug out from anyone but simply by limiting further enrollment and allowing Medicaid expansion to phase out based on attrition. Let me show you a couple of facts, because we hear an awful lot of demagoguery. We hear an awful lot of scaremongering. I hear it in Wisconsin, as people who are on traditional Medicaid and who are largely unaffected by this bill other than in the out years are scared that their traditional Medicaid is going to be taken away from them. Here are the facts. Back in 2008, the Federal Government spent about $200 billion on traditional Medicaid. With the implementation of ObamaCare, we began increasing that pretty dramatically with Medicaid expansion. Over the next decade or so, we will spend close to $90 billion per year, on average, on Medicaid expansion--again, targeted toward able-bodied, working-age, childless adults. This was the former trend line, and this is the current trend line for traditional Medicaid. Now, you hear about all of this slashing of Medicaid. Here is the current baseline. This is what the Senate bill would have done to traditional Medicaid and to Medicaid expansion. Yes, you can see some relatively significant cuts to Medicaid expansion, but to traditional Medicaid, you see, really, not all that much--about $164 billion over 10 years. My amendment would say, without pulling the rug out from anyone: Let's end further enrollment in Medicaid expansion, and as that program phases out through attrition, let's devote the money that we save to traditional Medicaid--supporting and sustaining the elderly, children, and the disabled. This is what happens to traditional Medicaid under my amendment. First of all, this is what happens under the Senate bill. You do not see any year in which Medicaid is actually cut. It is always rising. We boost it a little bit further and do not increase the deficit by any more, under the Senate bill, by doing that. My last point is this, and then I will move on and yield the floor. This is what I am talking about in terms of dollars. Under current law, traditional Medicaid will spend $4 trillion over the next decade and Medicaid expansion almost $1 trillion, for a total of $5 trillion spending. Under the Senate bill that was originally proposed, original Medicaid would have been cut by about $164 billion, which is still close to $4 trillion, and Medicaid expansion, obviously, would have been reduced by a fair amount. Under what I call my sustainability amendment, traditional Medicaid would actually increase in spending slightly and not harm anybody--not children, not the disabled, not the elderly. Obviously, with Medicaid expansion, just by allowing it to phase out through attrition--not pulling the rug out from anyone--in the end, you would be spending the same amount on the Senate bill. From my standpoint, I think that we preserve and sustain Medicaid. Again, I urge my colleagues to support all three of my amendments. I hope to get a vote. If not a vote, I hope that they are considered if this thing goes to a House-Senate conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an epidemic that is sweeping our Nation. From big cities to small towns, communities across our country have been ravaged by drug addiction and the multiple problems caused by it. Opioid overdoses have quadrupled since 1999 and were responsible for over 33,000 deaths in 2015 alone. We have all seen the dangers posed by the overprescription of highly addictive prescription opioids. According to the CDC, addiction to prescription opioid painkillers is the primary gateway to heroin abuse. In fact, Michael Botticelli, President Obama's drug czar, testified in my committee last year that people who are addicted and abuse prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to abuse heroin. Almost all of the heroin sold on the streets of the United States today enters the country illegally from Mexico. It is trafficked by drug cartels into our communities through our porous southwest border. It is a problem that continues to grow. Even as heroin has increased, it has remained available and affordable because increased production in Mexico has ensured a reliable supply of low-cost heroin. As long as there is a demand, the enormous profit potential of the drug trade will ensure that there is a sufficient supply. A kilogram of heroin can be produced in Mexico for around $5,000. It can be sold to dealers for as much as $80,000--a 1,500 percent profit. At another committee hearing, we learned that heroin has significantly dropped in price. In 1981, the nationwide average price was $3,260 per gram of pure heroin. Today, it is between $100 and $150 per gram. That translates into as little as $10 for one hit, making heroin a very affordable and very destructive addiction. While prices have dropped, the potency has increased. Heroin sold in Wisconsin has increased from 5 percent purity in the 1980s to somewhere between 20 percent and 80 percent purity today. As awful as that reality is, imported heroin is only one front in our fight against opioids. Another equally dangerous front is synthetic or man-made opioids--particularly fentanyl and its analogs--which are now commonly mixed into the heroin sold in our communities. Since fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, it only takes a minuscule amount of fentanyl--just 2 milligrams, less than one one-thousandth of the weight of a penny--to be potentially lethal. Even more alarming, we are now beginning to see carfentanil, often used to sedate elephants, also being blended into heroin and fentanyl on the streets. Carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. A dose of carfentanil the size of a grain of salt can lead to a deadly overdose. Just as we are seeing an increase in drugs coming across our southwest border, man-made opioids are on the rise as well. The profit potential of fentanyl is even more staggering than heroin's. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 25 grams of fentanyl costs approximately $810 to produce and has a market value of $800,000. In 2013, 3,097 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids. Just 1 year later, we lost 5,544 people to that same drug--a 79-percent increase in just 1 year. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit by the introduction of fentanyl and its analogs. In April, 2016, I met Lauri Badura. Lauri is from Oconomowoc, WI, a suburb in Milwaukee. She lost her son Archie to a heroin overdose. Here is a picture of Archie. He doesn't exactly look like a heroin addict, does he? Archie was just 19 years old when he died. He began using marijuana during his freshman year in high school and discovered opioids the summer after his high school graduation. After overdosing multiple times and trying to quit, Archie had stayed sober for 77 days before he relapsed again and finally overdosed on May 15, 2014. In Archie's memory, Lauri started a foundation called Saving Others For Archie, or SOFA. Her organization raises awareness throughout Wisconsin of the dangers of drug abuse. It offers support for families battling addiction. Lauri is constantly being contacted by and providing comfort to other parents coping with similar tragedies. Lauri's story is moving, and I applaud her for being such a strong advocate for those struggling with addiction. Unfortunately, her tragedy is not unique. The scourge of addiction and overdose deaths has devastated thousands of families, including my own. In January, 2016, I lost a nephew to a fentanyl overdose. The legislation I am introducing this afternoon is in memory of my nephew, of Archie, and of all of the families in Wisconsin and throughout America who have lost loved ones in this epidemic. Today I am proud to introduce the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, or SOFA Act. Sharing an acronym with Lauri Badura's organization, the SOFA Act will give law enforcement a set of enhanced tools to combat the opioid epidemic by closing a loophole that criminal drug manufacturers are exploiting. Fentanyl is a synthetic, or man-made, opioid--the result of complex chemistry that brings together multiple building blocks. Criminal chemists need change only one small piece of the chemical bond to be one step ahead of the law. The fentanyl analogs on the street today serve no known medical purpose and are contributing to the alarming overdose rates throughout the country. My legislation would classify these analogs under schedule I and give the DEA tools to quickly schedule additional fentanyl analogs as they are identified in our communities. This body took a step forward last Congress when we passed the CARA legislation to improve addiction treatment programs throughout the United States. We can now take another important step forward by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to get these dangerous synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and carfentanil, off the streets. In addition to Lauri Badura, I also want to thank Dr. Tim Westlake for working with me to craft this legislation. Tim has testified at a committee field hearing in Pewaukee, and he participated in an opioid roundtable in Milwaukee I convened in September. His leadership in Wisconsin and on this issue has been invaluable. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and additional opportunities to combat this serious problem that has plagued our Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an epidemic that is sweeping our Nation. From big cities to small towns, communities across our country have been ravaged by drug addiction and the multiple problems caused by it. Opioid overdoses have quadrupled since 1999 and were responsible for over 33,000 deaths in 2015 alone. We have all seen the dangers posed by the overprescription of highly addictive prescription opioids. According to the CDC, addiction to prescription opioid painkillers is the primary gateway to heroin abuse. In fact, Michael Botticelli, President Obama's drug czar, testified in my committee last year that people who are addicted and abuse prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to abuse heroin. Almost all of the heroin sold on the streets of the United States today enters the country illegally from Mexico. It is trafficked by drug cartels into our communities through our porous southwest border. It is a problem that continues to grow. Even as heroin has increased, it has remained available and affordable because increased production in Mexico has ensured a reliable supply of low-cost heroin. As long as there is a demand, the enormous profit potential of the drug trade will ensure that there is a sufficient supply. A kilogram of heroin can be produced in Mexico for around $5,000. It can be sold to dealers for as much as $80,000--a 1,500 percent profit. At another committee hearing, we learned that heroin has significantly dropped in price. In 1981, the nationwide average price was $3,260 per gram of pure heroin. Today, it is between $100 and $150 per gram. That translates into as little as $10 for one hit, making heroin a very affordable and very destructive addiction. While prices have dropped, the potency has increased. Heroin sold in Wisconsin has increased from 5 percent purity in the 1980s to somewhere between 20 percent and 80 percent purity today. As awful as that reality is, imported heroin is only one front in our fight against opioids. Another equally dangerous front is synthetic or man-made opioids--particularly fentanyl and its analogs--which are now commonly mixed into the heroin sold in our communities. Since fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, it only takes a minuscule amount of fentanyl--just 2 milligrams, less than one one-thousandth of the weight of a penny--to be potentially lethal. Even more alarming, we are now beginning to see carfentanil, often used to sedate elephants, also being blended into heroin and fentanyl on the streets. Carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. A dose of carfentanil the size of a grain of salt can lead to a deadly overdose. Just as we are seeing an increase in drugs coming across our southwest border, man-made opioids are on the rise as well. The profit potential of fentanyl is even more staggering than heroin's. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 25 grams of fentanyl costs approximately $810 to produce and has a market value of $800,000. In 2013, 3,097 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids. Just 1 year later, we lost 5,544 people to that same drug--a 79-percent increase in just 1 year. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit by the introduction of fentanyl and its analogs. In April, 2016, I met Lauri Badura. Lauri is from Oconomowoc, WI, a suburb in Milwaukee. She lost her son Archie to a heroin overdose. Here is a picture of Archie. He doesn't exactly look like a heroin addict, does he? Archie was just 19 years old when he died. He began using marijuana during his freshman year in high school and discovered opioids the summer after his high school graduation. After overdosing multiple times and trying to quit, Archie had stayed sober for 77 days before he relapsed again and finally overdosed on May 15, 2014. In Archie's memory, Lauri started a foundation called Saving Others For Archie, or SOFA. Her organization raises awareness throughout Wisconsin of the dangers of drug abuse. It offers support for families battling addiction. Lauri is constantly being contacted by and providing comfort to other parents coping with similar tragedies. Lauri's story is moving, and I applaud her for being such a strong advocate for those struggling with addiction. Unfortunately, her tragedy is not unique. The scourge of addiction and overdose deaths has devastated thousands of families, including my own. In January, 2016, I lost a nephew to a fentanyl overdose. The legislation I am introducing this afternoon is in memory of my nephew, of Archie, and of all of the families in Wisconsin and throughout America who have lost loved ones in this epidemic. Today I am proud to introduce the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, or SOFA Act. Sharing an acronym with Lauri Badura's organization, the SOFA Act will give law enforcement a set of enhanced tools to combat the opioid epidemic by closing a loophole that criminal drug manufacturers are exploiting. Fentanyl is a synthetic, or man-made, opioid--the result of complex chemistry that brings together multiple building blocks. Criminal chemists need change only one small piece of the chemical bond to be one step ahead of the law. The fentanyl analogs on the street today serve no known medical purpose and are contributing to the alarming overdose rates throughout the country. My legislation would classify these analogs under schedule I and give the DEA tools to quickly schedule additional fentanyl analogs as they are identified in our communities. This body took a step forward last Congress when we passed the CARA legislation to improve addiction treatment programs throughout the United States. We can now take another important step forward by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to get these dangerous synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and carfentanil, off the streets. In addition to Lauri Badura, I also want to thank Dr. Tim Westlake for working with me to craft this legislation. Tim has testified at a committee field hearing in Pewaukee, and he participated in an opioid roundtable in Milwaukee I convened in September. His leadership in Wisconsin and on this issue has been invaluable. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and additional opportunities to combat this serious problem that has plagued our Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Elaine Duke's nomination to be the seventh Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary serves as the chief operating officer of the Federal Government's third largest agency. The Deputy Secretary manages 240,000 men and women responsible for securing our borders and aviation system, enforcing immigration laws, defending cyberspace, preparing for disasters, assisting in counterterrorism efforts, and preventing terrorist attacks. In short, the Deputy Secretary is critically important to our homeland security. On March 15, Ms. Duke was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs by a voice vote. She has overwhelming bipartisan support. I want to remind everyone of Ms. Duke's qualifications and, particularly, of her dedication to public service through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Ms. Duke is no stranger to this body. In 2008, she was confirmed by a voice vote to be the Department's Under Secretary for Management. As a testament to her character and dedication, she was asked by President Obama to stay on when he came into office. She served in the Obama administration for a year and a half before retiring from Federal service. In total, Ms. Duke has been a public servant for 28 years. It is also noteworthy that Ms. Duke has been endorsed by at least the last five Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretaries, from both Democratic and Republican administrations. This is what they had to say about her: For this job, the Nation needs someone with impeccable integrity, strong management and leadership skills and experience in protecting the safety, security, and resilience of our Nation. This person must be able to collaborate routinely . . . and ensure that every Congressionally- appropriated dollar is well and wisely spent. Together, we respectfully attest that Elaine is extraordinarily well qualified to serve in the position for which she has now been nominated. Elaine knows DHS. She has been a senior leader at DHS under two presidents. She sets an unwavering standard of excellence for all who consider themselves committed to public service. As chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I worked hard to move 30 of President Obama's nominees through the committee on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased that we will be sending to DHS a career public servant whose experience and management skills will immediately assist Secretary Kelly and the mission of the Department to defend our homeland. For the sake of our national and homeland security, I encourage my colleagues to support Ms. Duke's nomination to be the next Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to use my remaining time to voice my strong support of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. Let me stress that Judge Gorsuch won my vote when I first heard his definition of the role of a judge. Let me quote: It is the role of a judge to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands. That is the quintessential definition of the role of a judge. I met with Judge Gorsuch last Tuesday morning, and in that meeting he further reinforced my support. I asked Judge Gorsuch and voiced my concern that far too often we have seen judges evolve into superlegislators-- judicial activists on the court. I asked the judge: How can I be assured that won't happen with you? To paraphrase his response to me, he said: Senator, I am going to follow the law; you will not like some of my decisions. That was music to my ears. I realize there is a lot of bad law, and we have a judge who follows the law and applies it. Sometimes I am not going to like those decisions, but that is OK. That is the role of a judge. He went on to say: I am not itching to be anything other than a good judge. He further said that legislative power cannot be delegated. Judge Gorsuch gave me a great deal of confidence that he is well qualified and that he deserves to fill some pretty big shoes--Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. It is not just I who considers Judge Gorsuch well qualified. The ABA has given Judge Gorsuch their ``well qualified'' rating, which is the highest possible rating. Of course, Democratic Leader Schumer, in a Washington Post article from March 18, 2001, said: ``The ABA'S evaluation is the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'' Vice President Biden, back in 1994, talking about the ABA rating system said: I look at no other recommendation more closely. I value no recommendation more highly. So the ABA says Judge Gorsuch is highly qualified, and I agree. Judge Gorsuch also has bipartisan support. I am heartened by the fact that three of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have already voiced their support for Judge Gorsuch. Of course, President Obama's Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, also said: Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our Nation over the last century. As a judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve the rule of law. To boot, as those of us who have worked with him can attest, he is a wonderfully decent and humane person. I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court. Again, that is a quote from President Obama's Solicitor General. My final comment has to do with the fact that this is the will of the American people. In my lifetime, I really cannot remember when a Presidential election elevated the issue of Supreme Court nominations to as high a level as it was elevated in this election. As a matter of fact, this election, point blank, elevated this particular vacancy. So many of my Republican colleagues said exactly what I said: It is so close to the election; so why don't we let the American people decide not only the direction of this country but the composition of the Supreme Court. The American people spoke. The voters in my State of Wisconsin spoke. They voted for the 10 electoral votes in support of President Trump, and they voted to elect me to confirm President Trump's nominee to this Supreme Court vacancy. I believe it is our duty to listen to the voices of the voters, the American people, the voters of Wisconsin. I am hoping that my junior Senator colleague from Wisconsin will listen to the voices of Wisconsin voters and vote at least for cloture. Maybe you don't have to vote for confirmation, but let's vote for cloture so this good, fine, decent, humane, high-integrity, well-qualified judge--Judge Neil Gorsuch--will be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, I rise today to support Montenegro's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance founded in 1949 to provide collective security against the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Although the world had hoped that the threat had subsided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, under the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia has become an ever-growing menace to its neighbors and to world peace and security. As a result, NATO remains as relevant today as it was in the year of its founding. As Defense Secretary GEN James Mattis stated in his January confirmation hearing, ``If we did not have NATO today, we would need to create it.'' NATO has evoked article 5 of its charter--which states that an attack against one member shall be considered an attack against all--only once in its history, in response to the 9/11 attacks against America. Since then, our NATO allies have sent their sons and daughters to fight and die alongside our own in the generational war against radical Islamist terrorism. The accession of Montenegro to NATO is important for a number of reasons. Montenegro has shown that it is committed to NATO and to making the internal reforms required to remain a member in good standing. Because of that commitment, Montenegro's membership in NATO will enhance stability in Europe. Finally, Russia's alleged support of an attempted coup in Montenegro must not be rewarded by NATO turning its back on a country that exhibits such courage in resisting Russia's persistent aggression. Just a few days ago, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister and the Ambassador to the United States. They expressed their sincere gratitude that the Senate will be voting this week on their accession and that Montenegro would be one step closer to aligning itself with the freedom-loving nations of NATO. Montenegro is a small country, but it has already demonstrated its commitment to the international community in implementing internal reforms. Montenegro has sent members of its military to Afghanistan in support of the International Security Assistance Force and as a member of the coalition to counter ISIS. In the years leading up to its formal invitation to join the alliance, Montenegro has partnered with NATO members to make a wide range of changes to strengthen its military, its intelligence operations, and its rule of law. While it currently falls short of the goals stated in the 2014 NATO Wales Summit to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense, Montenegro has committed to meeting this target by 2024. Expanding NATO to include nations that desire to join the alliance and commit to meeting membership requirements contributes to a strong and stable Europe. It wasn't all that long ago that the Balkans region was unstable and war-torn, but because Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania have joined NATO, the Balkans is a far more stable region. Montenegro's accession will further enhance the stability of the Balkans and greater Europe. Finally, I support Montenegro and NATO because it sends a clear message to Moscow that it cannot deter NATO from expanding the alliance and it cannot bully countries to prevent them from joining. Russia has warned Montenegro that it will face consequences if it continues to pursue NATO membership. As Russia continues its destabilizing actions throughout Eastern Europe and the world, it is imperative that we send an unwavering message of strength and resolve by approving Montenegro's accession to NATO. In an era defined by polarization, Montenegro's accession to NATO has been thoroughly bipartisan. I thank my ranking members on the European subcommittee, Senator Murphy for the current Congress and Senator Shaheen during the 114th Congress, for their strong support on this issue. I also thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for their continued efforts to move this legislation forward, Senator McCain for being an outspoken supporter of Montenegro's accession, and Leader McConnell for his willingness to bring the protocol on the accession of Montenegro to the Senate floor. It is time for the United States to approve Montenegro's accession to NATO. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has twice unanimously approved this measure, and Secretary of State Tillerson has communicated this administration's full support for Senate passage. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Montenegro's accession and hope President Trump will soon sign the protocol on the accession of Montenegro. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 37, a resolution disapproving of the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As is the case in so many of these rules and regulations, it has a really nice name. It sounds really good--the fair pay and safe workplaces rule--but the bottom line is, because of the substance of this rule, it has become commonly known as ``the blacklisting rule.'' Had it been up to me, I would have called it ``the blackmailing rule.'' Let me explain why. It requires contractors and subcontractors submitting bids on Federal Government contracts to disclose any proven or alleged violations within the last 3 years of 14 different labor laws, plus ``equivalent State laws.'' Now, that may sound reasonable, but it is not. And it is entirely unnecessary. Any competent purchasing manager--again, I come from the private sector, and there are a lot of competent purchasing managers-- could readily obtain the information required by this regulation. And, of course, any competent purchasing manager should also always be evaluating the qualifications, integrity, and the past performance record of any kind of potential suppliers. This rule also has the very real potential of subjecting perfectly innocent contractors to blackmail and extortion tactics during union contract negotiations. In case anyone thinks I am overstating this threat, listen carefully to the following quote from one union describing an ``ideal message'' their union president should convey to a general manager of a business negotiating a union contract: Putting it plainly: unless you settle this strike within the next few days, and the union withdraws its charges-- Those would be those allegations; unless the union withdraws those charges-- you are likely to be marked as a ``repeat labor law offender,'' one of the highest categories of wrongdoing under the President's Order. Check this out with your hotshot legal team. This union message goes on: Counting all of its divisions, this corporation has federal contracts in the hundreds of millions. Do you really want to jeopardize this pot of gold to save a few hundred thousand dollars to the union contract? This is the kind of negotiating tactic that illustrates exactly how this regulation would be used as a form of federally sanctioned blackmail. There would be no due process for contractors wrongly accused. There would be no way for them to defend themselves or avoid being blacklisted. As if the blackmail potential of the rule isn't bad enough, the Obama administration admitted that the final rule would cost at least $398 million to comply with every single year. And except for the benefit that extortion leverage provides to unions, I can think of no financial benefit to taxpayers or our economy--and neither could the Obama administration, as they were unable to quantify any financial benefit for this rule in their regulatory filings. In addition to the $398 million annual regulatory cost, the agencies themselves detailed the following regulatory burdens: The rule will affect over 24,000 contractors. Industry estimates are even higher. The rule imposes costly reporting requirements on small businesses that many simply cannot bear. And it also reduces the availability and increases the price of much needed supplies and services, including to our military. Others have pointed out even more problems with the rule. For example, it does not define what the ``equivalent State laws'' are that have been included in the disclosure requirement. Also, the definition of a violation that is reportable is incredibly broad. It is not limited to government contracts and includes pending and other nonfinal disputes--in other words, mere allegations of wrongdoing. This, in particular, is a slippery slope. For example, in fiscal year 2016, the National Labor Relations Board received over 21,000 unfair labor practice charges, but more than half of those were withdrawn or dismissed, and less than 6 percent resulted in a formal complaint by the NLRB. Also in fiscal year 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received over 91,000 complaints but issued a ``determination of reasonable cause'' in only 3,113--about 3.4 percent of those--and filed enforcement suits in only 114--about 0.1 percent of the 91,000 complaints that were filed. Various studies report that it costs $2 trillion per year to comply with Federal Government regulations. That is $14,800 per family per year. Of course, no one writes a check for $14,800. Instead, those costs are realized in reduced opportunities, higher prices to consumers, and stagnated wages and benefits for hard-working Americans. Economic growth is the primary component of a solution for many of our country's problems, yet Washington continues to stifle growth by adding layer upon layer of regulation. The blacklisting rule is just one harmful example. Fortunately, last October, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction the day before this rule was set to go into effect. The judge issuing the order noted there was merit to the claims that this rule violates statute, exceeds Executive authority, and is unconstitutional. The court found that letting this rule go into effect would cause ``irreparable harm.'' But the case is still pending. Until we act to decisively repeal this rule, a significant burden hangs over our country's contractors and suppliers. Through the use of the Congressional Review Act, we have the opportunity to reduce that regulatory burden and repair a small portion of the damage done by President Obama's regulatory overreach. We owe it to the American people and American businesses to start providing them with regulatory relief. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to disapprove and repeal this very harmful, very costly, and completely unnecessary rule. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI 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. On February 27, 2017, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.