Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today asking the Senate to confirm the nomination of Mr. Peter Gaynor to be the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The FEMA Administrator serves as the principal adviser to the President, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Homeland Security for all matters related to emergency management.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to ask the Senate to confirm the nomination of Paul Ray to be the Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA, as this office is commonly called, is the Federal Government's principal authority for reviewing executive branch regulations, approving government information collections, and overseeing the implementation of government-wide policies related to information policy, privacy, and statistical practices. The OIRA Administrator is responsible for reviewing and approving both rules and then final rules to ensure agencies conduct appropriate cost-benefit analyses. Under President Trump, OIRA has conducted between 200 and 400 rule reviews each year, and it has made it an administrative priority to reduce the regulations and to control regulatory costs. That includes the important work of reviewing existing regulations to identify those that are outdated, harmful, or counterproductive and achieving this administration's initial goal of eliminating at least two regulations for every significant new one added. The good news for our economy is that the administration far exceeded this initial goal by eliminating 22 outdated or harmful regulations for every new one added in 2017, and it has achieved a rate of 7\1/2\ regulations removed for each new regulation over the course of the administration. This has saved American families and businesses billions of dollars in compliance costs and has allowed businesses to spend that money and concentrate their efforts on growing their businesses and creating new products, services, and good-paying jobs. I continue to believe this administration's dedication to regulatory reform and reduction is the single most important factor in the success of our economy, record low levels of unemployment, and growing wage levels, with wage growth being at its strongest at the lower end of our income spectrum. It is important to note that Mr. Ray has already played a key role in this regulatory rationalization and its resulting economic success. In his having previously led OIRA as its Acting Administrator and as its Associate Administrator, Mr. Ray has demonstrated the ability to carry out the office's multifaceted mission. In addition to his direct leadership experience at OIRA, he currently serves as the Senior Adviser to the Director of Regulatory Affairs, where he advises on regulations and the regulatory process. He also served as counselor to the Secretary of Labor, where he had a similar role. Prior to these public service roles, Mr. Ray was an associate at Sidley Austin LLP, and he served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, as well as to Judge Debra Livingston of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mr. Ray graduated magna cum laude from Hillsdale College and Harvard Law School. Because of his background and demonstrated enthusiasm for dealing with regulatory matters, Mr. Ray is uniquely qualified to serve as the next OIRA Administrator. I am grateful to Mr. Ray for his willingness to serve, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote yes on his confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to confirm Mr. Chad Wolf to be the Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security. The Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans leads an office of over 150 employees with an annual budget of over $37 million to develop and implement DHS policy, long-term goals, and strategic plans. Chad Wolf has extensive experience in homeland security policy, starting in 2002 working as the chief of staff helping to stand up the new Transportation Security Administration after 9/11 and then as the Assistant Administrator for that agency. He left government and spent over a decade working on homeland security policy issues as a consultant in the private sector. Mr. Wolf returned to public service and the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, serving as chief of staff at TSA, chief of staff to the Secretary, and now as the Assistant Secretary of Strategy, Plans, Analysis & Risk. Since February of this year, he has been the senior official performing the duties of the Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, the office for which we are now considering his nomination. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved his nomination on a bipartisan basis on July 24. As we all know, the Department has a number of Senate-confirmed leadership positions vacant. Currently, 7 of the 18 DHS offices requiring Senate confirmation are vacant. Three of those vacant positions have nominees that have been languishing on the Senate floor for months after being approved by my committee with bipartisan support. Mr. Wolf's nomination has been pending in the Senate for almost 9 months. Troy Edgar, the nominee to be the Department's Chief Financial Officer, has been pending in the Senate for 8 months, and William Bryan, the nominee to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, has been pending for over 4 months. All three nominees were approved by my committee with bipartisan support. We are holding a hearing to consider Mr. Peter Gaynor as the President's nominee to head FEMA this week. Dedicated Americans serving at DHS in acting positions are doing admirable jobs under oftentimes difficult circumstances. I trust that Chad Wolf will do the same if he is asked to step aside from his role as Under Secretary to serve temporarily as Acting Secretary upon Kevin McAleenan's departure. I fully expect and I call upon the President to nominate a permanent Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. When he does, my committee will consider the nominee expeditiously. We need confirmed leadership at DHS to help direct the Department as it works to keep Americans safe. We need confirmed leadership at DHS to help direct the Department as it works to keep Americans safe. I am grateful to Chad Wolf for his willingness to serve in this position, and I encourage my colleagues to support his confirmation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of North Macedonia's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. North Macedonia's path to NATO accession has been a long one. Despite being regarded early on as a leading candidate for NATO membership, Macedonia's name dispute with Greece became a huge roadblock. A disagreement over a country's name may not seem like a big deal to those looking in from the outside, but getting over this hurdle required significant political courage. In 2017, Greece's Prime Minister Tsipras and Macedonia's Prime Minister Zaev displayed that level of political courage when they committed to settle the nearly three decades-long dispute. Because of their leadership, these two nations signed the Prespa agreement last year. Greece agreed to remove its objection and approve Macedonia's accession to NATO in exchange for Macedonia agreeing to change its name to North Macedonia. This dispute resolution between Greece and North Macedonia demonstrates that NATO is not only an effective defensive alliance, but it has been a tremendous force for stability in Europe. North Macedonia is poised to soon become NATO's 30th member because it worked to resolve a longstanding bilateral disagreement. I support NATO's longstanding open-door policy, and I hope that the goal of NATO membership will continue to guide other aspirants to solve longstanding disputes, fight corruption, and make difficult necessary domestic reforms. Beyond North Macedonia's accession, I would like to speak more broadly on how important the NATO alliance is to the United States. NATO is based on the principle of collective defense. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack against one member is an attack against us all. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg detailed NATO's value when he addressed a joint meeting of Congress earlier this year and both started and ended his speech by saying: ``It is good to have friends.'' I couldn't agree more. In the wake of the attacks of 9/11, our friends, our NATO allies, invoked article 5 for the first and only time in the alliance's history. Our NATO allies and many of the aspirants stood shoulder to shoulder with us in Afghanistan. They lost 1,000 of their sons and daughters in honoring their commitment by fighting alongside us. The United States should never forget our NATO allies' contribution and sacrifice. A strong NATO alliance is just as important and relevant today as it was at its founding in 1949. I am pleased that the full Senate is taking up this measure to approve North Macedonia's accession to NATO, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor with a resounding yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

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

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 25, 2019, 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 that a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management be printed in the Record.

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 25, 2019, 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 that a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be printed in the Record.

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, 2019, 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 that a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. On rollcall vote No. 18, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, as it does not affect the outcome.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Is the minority leader on the floor?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yesterday, Chaplain Black opened the Senate by quoting the Gospel according to Luke. He said: ``Those who work deserve their pay.'' I could not agree more. First of all, I want to thank the finest among us--the members of the Coast Guard, TSA, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, all the men and women whom, because of Federal law, we require to work who are caught up in the shutdown politics, which I don't agree with, and they are not getting paid. It is a basic principle that we should pay these individuals. Earlier today, my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, with other Republican colleagues, came to the floor asking a simple question-- proposing a bill to pay the men and women of the Coast Guard, and for some reason, the minority leader and Democrats objected to this very fair proposal. Today, I come to the floor to offer an amendment to the bill I introduced 10 days ago. It has been talked about in the press. We have 24 Republican cosponsors of the Shutdown Fairness Act, which does a pretty simple thing: It simply pays those individuals who are doing the work trying to keep this Nation safe. Mr. President, I see the minority leader here. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 6, H.J. Res. 1. I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do object because we basically just voted on that in the Senate, and it was voted down. The President would not sign that. That would not become law. And the minority leader is holding 400-some thousand individuals who are actually working who should get paid--he is the one holding them hostage. I would yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to turn it over to the Senator from Tennessee for 2 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks and Senator Tester be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, before I begin addressing my opposition to the CRA, I want to spend a brief moment agreeing with all of the tributes and all of the accolades of Senator Hatch. I wasn't able to get down here on the floor because I couldn't get down here in time--he started a little bit early--but I watched the entire speech from my office. It just showed the integrity, the patriotism, and the goodwill of this good man. Like so many of my other colleagues, I don't know another Senator who offers more encouragement and more kind words to all of us than Senator Hatch. Again, I wish him and Elaine well in their retirement. I wish them the best. God bless Senator Hatch for all of his faithful service. Congressional Review Act Madam President, I rise to discuss the Congressional Review Act challenge put forward by the senior Senators from Oregon and Montana. The CRA has been proposed in response to guidance on a revenue procedure recently announced by the Internal Revenue Service. As chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have written to the IRS twice asking them to take the very actions this CRA seeks to overturn. Let me begin by reviewing some basic facts about the guidance--facts that are irrefutable, but facts that are apparently being ignored by those supporting this measure. First, I want to make it clear that the guidance in question mirrors a proposal that was crafted under the Obama administration. While that proposal was never fully implemented, the fact that it was first proposed by the Obama administration proves its bipartisan nature. Essentially, the guidance makes clear that personal identifying information of donors for certain tax-exempt organizations does not need to be filed on a form with the IRS. However, these organizations will still be required to keep that donor information on file. Simply put, the guidance is merely a change in where the information is warehoused. In the past, it was kept on a form at the IRS, as well as in the records of each organization. Now, it will only be kept in the records of each organization. It is important to note that the officials in the Obama administration said that the reporting of such information is no longer necessary for the efficient administration of the internal revenue laws. I am not actually sure it ever was required. The one change being implemented that differs from the Obama proposal is that the IRS also included in its new guidance needed privacy protections in response to recent government leaks and breaches. In order to protect taxpayer privacy, under this new guidance, the donor information in question is prohibited from being made public by the government no matter where it is warehoused. So let me summarize. The donor information in question is not used by the IRS for the efficient administration of the internal revenue laws, as was noted by the previous administration. The information is required to be kept on file and on the books of the organization and to be available to the IRS or law enforcement, if needed, which was also as proposed by the previous administration. Finally, the information, no matter where it is housed, shall not be made public by the government. These are clear and concise reasons for a simple change that was made--and let me reemphasize this point--in order to protect taxpayer privacy. Unfortunately, such protection is necessary because, when the IRS required that donor information be reported on a form to the IRS, there had been numerous times during which the returns of tax-exempt organizations were inappropriately and possibly illegally disclosed, whether through administrative sloppiness, carelessness, breaches, or other potentially nefarious or partisan reasons. The reason tax-exempt organizations' donors may wish to remain anonymous is best illustrated in the 1958 Supreme Court case of the NAACP v. Alabama. The State of Alabama was attempting to force the disclosure of the members of the NAACP. The concern those members had in having their names revealed should be obvious. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided unanimously to protect the identities of the NAACP's members. Today, tax-exempt organizations that span the political spectrum and the supporters of those organizations deserve the same consideration and protection as the NAACP had. They deserve to remain anonymous so that they cannot be targeted by their political opponents. A similar threat does exist today from the compelled disclosure of donor information that is held by tax-exempt organizations, including 501(c)(4) social welfare groups. If information about donors to these groups becomes publicly available, the information could be used in a way that would chill future speech and association--a basic First Amendment right. Donor information is also susceptible to abuse by the Federal Government itself. In one egregious example in 2010, the IRS sent 1.1 million pages of tax-exempt return information, including donor information in some cases, to the Justice Department for potential prosecutions relating to political speech. More recently, some States have sought to compel the disclosure of donor information from schedule B. The disclosure of donor information has led to the harassment of donors in some very well-documented cases. In a court brief that was filed in January of 2017 in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, the NAACP warned against States' compelling the disclosure of donor information: Forcing an organization to release [organizational membership and/or donor lists] to the State not only divulges the First Amendment activities of individual members and donors, but may also deter such activities in the first place. Specifically, individuals may legitimately fear of any number of negative consequences from disclosure, including harassment by the public, adverse government action, and reprisals by a union or employer. This potential harm exists across the political spectrum regardless of donors' ideological beliefs. Needless to say, the Congressional Review Act challenge to the recent IRS guidance on where to house private donor information is troubling, and its motivation is highly suspect. For anyone who truly cares about privacy and ensuring that the Federal Government does not use the tax system as a political targeting machine, a vote against the Congressional Review Act challenge is the obvious choice. I urge my colleagues to vote no I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am here today to ask my colleagues to approve a bill to reform and reauthorize the Chemical Facility Anti- Terrorism Standards Program, commonly known as CFATS. This CFATS Program regulates chemical facilities to help prevent terrorists from carrying out an attack with dangerous chemicals--a worthy goal. However, since 2006, watchdogs have identified significant problems with the program. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that CFATS had a 7- to 9-year backlog to review more than 3,000 security plans and a flawed methodology to assess security. The inspector general and Congress have questioned whether the program successfully reduces risk, enhances security, and warned of serious management problems. That is why each time Congress has reauthorized the program, it has done so only for a limited duration. Coming from a manufacturing background, I agree with that approach. That is exactly how you help ensure continuous improvement. In 2014, when the program was last set to expire, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--under the chairmanship of Senator Carper--and Congress did their job. They did oversight. They made reforms and extended the program for another 4 years, until January 2019. Under my chairmanship, our committee also took its oversight and reauthorization responsibilities seriously. Over the last 2 years, we have conducted extensive oversight on CFATS to evaluate the program's effectiveness and develop a plan to make it better. We enlisted the help of GAO to conduct a nonpartisan review of the CFATS Program to help inform our work. We held a roundtable with DHS, GAO, a CFATS chemical inspector, and multiple companies and industry groups. We had an important, frank discussion about the program's strengths and weaknesses. The committee also held numerous briefings with chemical facility owners, trade groups, DHS, and other relevant agencies. After gathering information and talking directly with stakeholders, here is what we have learned: DHS has made significant progress under the 2014 reforms by eliminating the backlog and improving management of the program, but more work is necessary. It is still far from clear that CFATS actually reduces the risk of terrorist attack, and DHS does not measure whether it actually does so. The program forces some explosive material companies to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars complying with CFATS regulations that are duplicative of Justice Department regulations and subject companies to frequent, unnecessary site inspections. These practices are extremely costly and neither reduce risk nor enhance security. The program fails to give credit to companies that already comply with other private sector-specific programs that require high standards of care. Recognizing these exceptional programs would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on companies without reducing security. DHS needs to do more to make this expedited approval process available to reduce unnecessary costs on both the companies and the American taxpayers, and it needs to be more transparent about how it classifies facilities to help companies understand what rules to even follow. After conducting this oversight, I introduced a bill to address these issues and reauthorize the program for 5 years. Representatives Katko, Moolenaar, and Cuellar introduced a similar, bipartisan bill in the House. Our legislation brings much needed regulatory relief to U.S. businesses by exempting explosive materials that are also regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, reducing the frequency of audits and inspections, and reducing the burden of compliance for companies that participate in CFATS' recognition program, all while ensuring safety and security. It improves transparency by requiring DHS to provide information to companies on why their regulatory tier changed. It requires more DHS and independent assessments of how successful the program is at reducing risk and enhancing security. It also reauthorizes the program for 5 years. After going through a thorough process of discussion and compromise, our committee approved the bill unanimously by voice vote in September. The bill is supported by a wide range of private sector stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemical Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, and numerous others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Having gone through all this work, all this oversight, taking that responsibility seriously, I recently have been asked to support a 1-year reauthorization of the program without any reforms. Without any consultation, Secretary Nielsen just sent me a letter completely ignoring the work our committee has done and informing of her support for a ``short-term'' extension. Today, I was told the House plans to pass not a 1-year but a 2-year extension with no reforms. The House is claiming they cannot possibly consider reforms because there is simply not enough time, because they haven't done any oversight, because they didn't mark up a bill in this Congress. Yet the House Committee on Homeland Security has had years to act. My committee did the work. We did act. Now I am being threatened with a false choice: Either reauthorize the program as is, without much needed reforms, or let it die. In fact, there is a much better third choice: Pass S. 3405, the bill our committee passed unanimously, the bill that provides unanimous reforms that strike the right balance between security and efficiency. Again, our committee did the work. We did act. And I have to tell all my colleagues here, this is the only option I will support.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 670, S. 3405. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Johnson substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to respond. The Senator from Delaware is well aware that we have been working. We have already agreed on three improvements from your standpoint. We increase the frequency of inspections for companies participating in CFATS recognition programs. We have added a third-party study to look at how workers can be made more aware of the fact that their facilities are covered by CFATS. We had a future GAO study to look back at how our provision exempting explosive materials covered by both CFATS and ATF is affecting the program. We are already making movement. If you want to discuss this for a few more days, fine. Time is, obviously, running out. I do want to make everybody aware of the fact that because we have done this work, because we have passed this out of our committee unanimously, I am not in any way, shape or form, accepting some of the typifications in terms of the fact that we have not communicated. We have been trying for months to work with the House. There has just been no yield whatsoever. There has been no give whatsoever. There has been very little desire on its part to do anything other than to have a ``take it or leave it,'' a ``let's extend this,'' a ``no reforms.'' That is, simply, unacceptable to me. I have great respect for President Ronald Reagan. I don't want to prove him wrong. I, actually, want to reauthorize this thing. Yet if we can't come to an agreement with a reformed, reauthorized CFATS Program, I am more than willing to prove Ronald Reagan wrong when he said, to paraphrase, that the closest thing to eternal life on this Earth is a government program. I will let the program expire because I really do not think it really enhances the security of our Nation. It, certainly, has not been proven in that way, and without reforms, I am happy to let this program go by the way of the dinosaur. I yield the floor.