Floor Statements

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. 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. 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.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

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

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. 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.

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 14, 2017, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management 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 Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management.

There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in

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' Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management 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 Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney and ask my colleagues to vote to confirm him as the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

It may not surprise folks that I have a markedly different viewpoint than the Senator from New Hampshire. Congressman Mulvaney wants to save Social Security and Medicare. Congressman Mulvaney wants to prevent, stop the mortgaging of our children's future, the bankrupting of America.

One thing on which I do agree with the good Senator from New Hampshire is that we need to concentrate on economic growth. It is the primary component of the solution. But this Nation faces many, many challenges. From the standpoint of foreign policy, take a look at what is happening around the world, the turmoil in so much of the world. We are in a generational struggle against Islamic terror, against ISIS, al-Qaida. Iran--that nuclear agreement was horrible. It modified the behavior for the worse. We have just witnessed North Korea test-fire another missile. Combined with their nuclear capability at some point in time--probably not in the too distant future--they will threaten America. China has been emboldened. Russia has become more aggressive. Why? Because in so many instances, these nations perceive America as weaker than we once were, lacking the strength and resolve to provide the leadership, project our values around the world.

With all these threats that America faces, at the same time our military is being hollowed out. We won't have the resources militarily to fight back if they strike first.

Domestically, we also face many perils, many challenges. ObamaCare didn't work. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not protect the patients. It is not affordable. In my State, Wisconsin, premiums on the individual market have doubled and tripled. A young mother working a part-time job so she could stay home with her children had to quit that job to take full-time work to pay her $8,000 per year increase in premiums. Wages have stagnated for years. Our infrastructure is old and in many cases, crumbling. Our borders are porous. We are not winning the War on Drugs because of porous borders in many respects. Unfortunately, the War on Poverty has also not been won. In many cases, it has created perverse incentives that have trapped generations in a cycle of poverty and dependency and despair. It has resulted in the national debt rapidly approaching $20 trillion. Again, that is that mortgaging our children's future that Congressman Mulvaney wants to prevent.

As the chart nearby shows, we are on a completely unsustainable path that Congressman Mulvaney also understands must be stopped. If you take a look at this chart, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 30 years, our projected deficit will total $103 trillion. That would be put on top of that $20 trillion in debt. It will be $10 trillion over the next 10 years, $28 trillion in the second decade, $66 trillion in the third decade. That is completely unsustainable.

By the way, the components of that $103 trillion deficit--$14 trillion in Social Security. In other words, Social Security will pay out $14 trillion more in benefits than it takes in from the payroll tax over the next 30 years; Medicare, $34 trillion. The remainder of that $103 trillion is interest on the debt. If we want to avoid paying creditors more than $50 trillion in interest on our debt over the next 30 years, we need to address Social Security and Medicare. Congressman Mulvaney wants to do that. He wants to save Social Security and Medicare--not demagogue it; save it.

As the Senator from New Hampshire was pointing out, we need economic growth. That is the No. 1 component of the solution. I don't care what problem I just mentioned above, economic growth is the primary component of the solution.

What is hampering our economy from growing? The fact is, since the Great Depression, our economy has averaged 3.2 percent annual real growth. Since the great recession, we have only been growing about 2 percent. I would argue that there are a number factors causing that tepid growth: overregulation, an uncompetitive tax system. We are not fully utilizing our energy resources. The Presiding Officer certainly understands that from his State. We are not utilizing our abundant energy resources. And of course there is this: our unsustained fiscal path, our $20 trillion in debt.

I oftentimes make the analogy between our national debt and a family in debt over their head. It is just a nation-state; it is just many, many, many

orders of magnitude larger. But the fact is, if you are a family in debt over your head, how can you grow your personal economy? All your disposable income is spent on the basics and servicing the debt. The same thing is true of a nation-state. Again, our enemies perceive that weakness caused by our indebtedness.

So when you take a look at the role of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, what we need to do to grow our economy comes under his jurisdiction basically. He has to address this deficit. He has to put forward a budget that is sustainable. Mick Mulvaney is dedicated to doing that.

Then, of course, the other thing the Office of Management and Budget is really designed to combat is overregulation. They are all about taking a look at cost-benefit and making sure the regulations that are implemented by this Federal Government are reasonable from a cost- benefit relationship. That has not been the case recently.

Just a couple of examples of how economic growth really is going to help solve this problem. If you go from 2 to 3 percent annual growth, that is $14 trillion in added economic benefit in just over a decade. If you go from 2 to 4 percent, that is $29 trillion. And even with the meager economic growth we have had since 2009, revenue to the Federal Government has increased by more than $1.1 trillion per year with meager economic growth. Just think of what would happen if we could reduce the regulatory burden, have a competitive tax system, and put our Federal Government on a sustainable fiscal path. Revenue would be flowing to the Federal Government, we could stop hollowing out our military, and we could start addressing these threats.

As to the regulatory burden, when we held hearings on this in my committee, the numbers showed that regulatory burden at $2 trillion per year. Just put that into perspective because I know we are getting immune to these massive numbers: $2 trillion is larger than all but 10 economies in the entire world. That is a self-imposed, self-inflicted wound on our economy. If you take that $2 trillion and divide it by the number of households in America, it is $14,800 per household. No American writes a check to the Federal Government to pay their share of the regulatory burden; instead, they realize that burden in reduced opportunities.

Why are wages stagnated? That is a good part of it--increased prices, and of course, again, those lower wages. It is a massive problem. One Wisconsin paper manufacturer I was talking to--and by the way, I can't tell you who because he fears retaliation by the government, which is a different subject--did a cost calculation of just four recently issued regulations and came up with a total cost of $12,000 per year per employee. There you go. That is money that could have been available for increasing wages or for investing in business to create better opportunities and better paying jobs. The regulatory burden is massive.

I had the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison come into my office during the last 2 years with the primary complaint--the primary ask--being to reduce that regulatory burden. Last year, she came in armed with a study commissioned by research universities that said that 42 percent of researcher time on Federal grants was spent complying with Federal regulations. Think of the opportunity cost of that overregulation. Those Federal grants are meant to pay for studies and doing research on curing diseases, not filling out Federal paperwork. So again, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will take a look at those regulations, particularly now under this President, who has issued an Executive order to make sure that for every one regulation issued by a new agency, they have to remove two. That is a very good start. I would have gone with one-in, ten-out, but I will settle for one-in, two-out. I will certainly be supportive of an Office of Management and Budget that understands the incredible burden of overregulation on our economy.

During our committee markup--I heard earlier the Senator from Arkansas, who knows Congressman Mulvaney, served with him in the House, and understands how dedicated and serious Congressman Mulvaney is to stopping this mortgage of our children's future. Senator Lankford also had the opportunity to serve 4 years in the House with Representative Mulvaney. This is what Senator Lankford had to say about his friend and colleague at the nomination hearing:

You were a serious student. You looked hard at difficult

issues. You understood that there were difficult decisions

that needed to be made and made proposals to do that.

In testimony before our committee, Congressman Mulvaney told my committee:

When President-elect Trump announced my nomination, he

noted that our nation was nearly $20 trillion in debt and

stated that I have the skills and convictions to responsibly

manage our nation's finances. I believe that is why he

nominated me for this position.

He went on to state:

For the first time in America's history, the next

generation could be less prosperous than the generation that

preceded it.

That is a very sad possibility. We need to prevent that.

He went on to say:

To me and to the people in this room, that is simply

unacceptable. We CAN turn this economy, and this country

around . . . but it will take tough decisions today in order

to avoid impossible ones tomorrow.

Congressman Mulvaney went on:

I believe, as a matter of principle, that the debt is a

problem that must be addressed sooner, rather than later. I

also know that fundamental changes are needed in the way

Washington spends and taxes if we truly want a healthy

economy.

Again, he fully understands the connection between our unsustainable fiscal path, our deficit, our debt, and economic growth. He said we ``must include changing our government's long-term fiscal path--which is unsustainable.''

Finally, he said:

I recognize that good public service--whether in a state

legislature, Congress, or OMB--takes both courage and wisdom.

The courage to lead, and the wisdom to listen. I have learned

that I do not have a monopoly on good ideas. Facts--and the

cogent arguments of others--matter. I will be loyal to the

facts and to the American people whom I serve.

My commitment to you today is to take a fact-based approach

to get our financial house in order.

This is exactly the type of person--Congressman Mick Mulvaney-- somebody who is dedicated to solving these problems, who has the courage and the wisdom to stop mortgaging our children's future, to put America's budget on a sustainable fiscal path, to grow our economy, to make sure that future generations inherit a stronger, more prosperous America.

I am proud to support and I urge all my colleagues to support and vote for the confirmation of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to be the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 Record.