Ron Johnson

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 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. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2017, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' 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. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. 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. 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 Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for letting me speak to a very important issue. I also thank him for his leadership. Long before I came to the Senate, I know the Senator from Iowa was working tirelessly to make sure government was more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. He has done an awful lot of work to ensure that. Certainly he has relied on inspectors general to bolster his efforts. So I am completely in support of S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015. When I took over the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Senator from Iowa had been working long and hard on this act. I was happy--I was pleased to utilize our committee to move this bill through our committee unanimously. The bill has 18 bipartisan cosponsors. It is just incredibly important. The Senator from Iowa will certainly fill us in on the details of what has happened and what has made this bill so important. I just want to spend a little bit of time on how important inspector generals are. We, working together with the Senator from Iowa, asked the inspectors general, for example, to report back to us how many of their recommendations--off of their tireless work--have gone unimplemented. We just received that report. Over 15,000 recommendations from inspectors general have not been implemented. The total aggregate savings could be as high as $87 billion. Even in this massive Federal Government, $87 billion is real money. Of course, inspectors general need access to the records from their agencies, from their departments, so they can determine what is happening so they can make these kind of recommendations. We also have had and witnessed a real tragedy, for example, at the Tomah VA Medical Center. We had an inspector general who had inspected and investigated over 140 different instances, then issued reports on those inspections, investigations, and then buried those reports--did not make those reports public. One of those had to do with the Tomah VA Center in terms of the overprescription of opioids. Because that report was not made public, we were unaware of the problems there, and the problems persisted. For over a decade, opioids were being overprescribed. The result was that veterans--the finest among us--some of them died because of overprescription. It is not an overstatement to say that the work of the inspector general is crucial and that work--those reports, those inspections, those investigations--literally is the difference between life and death. Again, I am here supporting the Senator from Iowa in his tireless efforts to get this bill passed, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015. I urge all of my colleagues to allow this to pass by unanimous consent so we can get this put on the President's desk and it can be signed into law as quickly as possible. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to honor the life of Trickett Wendler, pictured here, who was a young mother of three who fought and lost her battle with ALS disease, and the lives of so many others who want the right to try to save their lives by passing the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2016. Now, like so many of my colleagues, we are often visited by our constituents, people who are battling their own diseases, whether it is ALS or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or different forms of cancer. This is a very simple bill. What it is trying to do is very simple. It is trying to restore freedom. It is trying to give patients and their families hope--the freedom and hope that is being denied them right now by our Federal bureaucracy. This is a bill about people. Coming from my own standpoint, I think all of us recognize ALS as--initially, in its original name--Lou Gehrig's disease. I certainly understood a little bit more about ALS when I heard about Tom Watson's caddy. Then in Oshkosh, WI, a family member of our Lourdes High School family was stricken with ALS--Doug Potarske. He courageously battled the disease and lost his fight as well. I met Trickett Wendler on May 23, 2014, when she came to Washington, DC, with a group of other advocates for ALS cures. Simply talking about my meeting with the Goldwater Institute and the bill they were promoting through the States--the Right to Try--and indicating to her my support for it, tears began streaming down her cheeks. She wanted that hope. But along this path, as I have advocated for the Right to Try bill, I have met other individuals--people like Matt Bellina, a former Navy pilot who testified before our committee just yesterday. He is a father of two, with his wife expecting their third child. He is also fighting ALS. He wants hope. During our press conference, when I introduced this piece of legislation, a man from Pennsylvania, Frank Mongiello, asked to say a few words. Already pretty far advanced in his ALS, it was difficult to understand Frank, but he quoted Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln said: ``If you get shot, you die once. If you dream, you die over and over again.'' He made the point that not having access to some of these treatments for ALS is like dying over and over again. He wants some hope to be able to stay alive for his wife and six children. This bill isn't only about ALS, though. It is about other incurable diseases. It is about other terminal patients who have no further treatment options--little boys like Jordan McLinn, who also testified before our committee with his mother, Laura, a volunteer firefighter, and who is suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a disease that is also terminal. This disease in particular indicates the problem we have with the FDA. There were more than 50 patients and advocates for an effective treatment, something that is being proven to be effective to extend the muscle function of these little boys. The FDA had an advisory committee meeting and listened to the testimony of over 50 Americans begging the FDA to allow and approve that treatment. The FDA advisory committee voted 7 to 3 and said no, we are not going to give you that right; we are not going to give you that hope. Now, fortunately, I was overjoyed a couple of Mondays ago when the FDA overruled that advisory committee and actually approved those drugs and provided some hope. If we want to understand how broken the process is, let me give a couple of metrics. In the decade of the 1990s, it took about 10 years from discovery to approval of a new drug. Today that time period stands at about 14 years. In today's dollars, in 2004, it cost about $1 billion for a successful drug to go through that approval process. Today, it costs about $2.6 billion to have a drug approved. That indicates there is something wrong with the system. The Right to Try bill addresses what is wrong. It is not a panacea, but it is a good first step. The last person I wish to speak about is someone I consider a hero, someone I consider as a whistleblower, a courageous oncologist from Houston, TX, whose name is Dr. Ebrahim Delpassand. Dr. Delpassand was part of a clinical trial treating neuroendocrine cancer with a therapeutic agent called LU-177 octreotate. He was, in his opinion, successfully treating these cancer patients. He was extending their lives, but he butted up against a limit in terms of a clinical trial of 150 patients. So he requested from the FDA to expand that to include another 78 of his patients who were terminal, who were dying from this aggressive form of cancer. The FDA said no. Now, fortunately, for that doctor and those 78 patients, Texas had passed a Right to Try bill. The problem is the FDA has not weighed in. We don't know whether the FDA will challenge these Right to Try bills. I could not get an answer from the FDA bureaucrats as to whether or not they are going to challenge it. So Dr. Delpassand took it upon himself and, on behalf of his patients, courageously began treating those additional 78 patients. They are alive today because of his courage, with no help from the FDA. Thirty-two States now have enacted their own individual Right to Try legislation. In those States, 4,186 legislators--both Democrat and Republican--have voted on those bills. Only 108 have voted no, and 4,078 legislators--97.4 percent of legislators in 32 States--have voted yes to Right to Try. There is nothing partisan about this. This is a completely bipartisan effort--again, trying to restore freedom, trying to restore hope. The latest State was California. Governor Brown just signed that bill into law. We had in front of our committee last week State assembly majority leader Ian Calderon--a Democrat, I might add--who is a sponsor of that Right to Try bill. So all I am asking--we have 42 cosponsors of this bill in the Senate. I have asked my other colleagues to join us as cosponsors. I realize that some of them don't want to go that far. All I am asking is that no Senator stand up and object to providing a little bit of freedom, a little bit of hope to patients who simply have no other avenue. Now, to be respectful of people's time, let me move to my request. I see Senator Barrasso is here, and if he would also like to speak to this bill, I would like to give him that opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2912 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this is beyond disappointing that the minority leader would refer to this as potentially a partisan bill. Let me reiterate. In 32 States, where 4,186 State legislators have voted on this, 4,078 have voted yes, Republicans and Democrats alike--97.4 percent. This is a bipartisan effort. It provides freedom, it provides hope, and it is beyond disappointing that the minority leader would object. I would ask my colleague Mr. Barrasso, the Senator from Wyoming, who has been a real leader on the issue, for example, with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, what has he heard from patients and his constituents in terms of the hope that this bill will provide them?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership on this issue. I want to also point out how bad I feel and how sad it truly is because some of those individuals I spoke of--some of those patients and families--were watching on C-SPAN today. They had their hopes up that the minority leader would not play politics with this issue, would not play politics with their lives. In the last 15 minutes, those hopes have also been dashed. I care about that. I note for the Record that in my committee we have held two hearings on this Right to Try bill so the minority leader is simply incorrect when he says we have not held hearings. We have fully vetted this piece of legislation. I once again point out how bipartisan this has been in the States-- 97.4 percent of State legislators who voted on this have voted in support of it. I have another colleague, the Senator from Indiana, who has joined me in a number of instances in writing to the FDA to try and break the logjam on some of these treatments, making them available to people, giving them hope. I would ask the Senator from Indiana what stories he has to tell about his constituents who are asking for that freedom, that right to try, that right to hope?

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly thank the Senator from Indiana for his support on this issue. I will conclude by saying, this is a sad day for the U.S. Senate; that the minority leader would turn his back on terminal patients and their families, deny them that freedom, that right to try, that right to hope, to score a political point--it is a sad day for the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the rollcall vote on passage of H.R. 5985 due to my appointment by President Obama as representative to the 71st Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I am in full agreement with the Senate's unanimous approval to extend expiring authorities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Had I been present, I would have joined my colleagues in voting yea.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to an American soldier who has given his last full measure of devotion to this Nation and to the noble pursuits of liberty and peace. Twenty-eight-year-old SSG Matthew Vail Thompson grew up in Brookfield, WI, and was a proud member of the Army Special Forces. Tragically, on August 23, 2016, he became the second American this year to lose his life while on combat duty in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Thompson was truly one of the finest among us. I had the honor of attending a memorial service for Matthew at his family's church in Brookfield, where hundreds of his friends and family members paid their final respects. They loved him, of course, but they also admired him. They told stories of a generous young man, adventurous, and always ready to make friends. His father spoke about and his pastor read us something Matthew wrote 10 years ago, a list of ``all the little things'' that make life sweeter. In effect, 10 rules to live by. It shows striking maturity, especially for a young man still in his teens when he and his best friend wrote the rules. Now, the rules are actually quite deep, and there is an awful lot written, but I just want to read the 10 rules bullet points and just refer everybody to my Web site for the full rules and all he has written. 1. Never grow up. 2. Learn. 3. Never have any regrets. 4. Live for the moment. 5. Do what you love. 6. Pursue with a passion. 7. Never settle. 8. Always take time to listen and to talk. 9. Keep a positive attitude. 10. I need God and will live for Him. His father gave an extraordinary eulogy about his son, and he asked the congregation at the very end--he hoped, the congregation would learn from what Matthew had written. Matthew began college at Marquette University in Milwaukee. In paying tribute to Matthew, one of his fellow resident assistants said: ``He was one of the best humans I ever knew.'' He transferred to Concordia University in California, where he earned a degree in theological studies and met his wife Rachel. Rachel Thompson says Matthew was reluctant to date at first because of his plans to serve in the military. She said: ``He knew he wanted to go into a really specialized, extremely dangerous job.'' His first thought was to spare her the possible pain. That danger was real. Staff Sergeant Thompson served as a medic with America's elite forces in hazardous places. He was first deployed to Iraq and then to Afghanistan. The mission he and his unit were on was considered to be ``noncombat''--advising Afghan forces on how to free their country from ongoing attacks by the Taliban, Islamic terrorists who seek to reimpose their oppressive rule. Their mission was noncombat in name only, but Staff Sergeant Thompson and his unit were patrolling ``outside the wire.'' They were exposed to every danger. They were patrolling on foot, looking for improvised explosive devices left by an enemy that seeks to kill indiscriminately. One of those bombs went off, killing six Afghan soldiers, wounding another American soldier, and taking the life of Matthew--a courageous young man who was defending the liberties on which this Nation was founded, liberties our Founders said are the birthright of everyone on Earth. For 240 years, our service men and women have defended those liberties, and they have paid a very high price. Since the Revolutionary War, more than 42 million men and women have served in our military, and more than 1 million of these heroes have died in that service. Staff Sergeant Matthews' home State has done its part. Since statehood, more than 27,000 of Wisconsin's sons and daughters have died in military service. Every one of us wishes they could have lived in peace, to fulfill their hopes and dreams, to enrich this country in ways we will never know. Every one of us is grateful that when freedom demanded such sacrifice, they stood on guard for America. A nation's gratitude can scarcely comfort those who loved Matthew Thompson and who suffer his loss. His wife Rachel, his parents Mark and Linda, and his sisters Karen and Robyn--but also his extended family, his friends, and his band of brothers and sisters in the Army. Our hearts go out to them, and I pray they will find consolation and peace in fond memories, in spite of their loss. But a Nation's gratitude, inadequate as it may be, is what Staff Sergeant Thompson is fully due. Rachel Thompson recounted her last conversation with her husband. Because she knew he was doing dangerous work, she said: I was crying. I was afraid. And he would just listen and tell me he loved me and that it was going to be OK. For America it will be OK, as long as men and women of the caliber and spirit of Staff Sergeant Thompson continue to stand on our behalf and in defense of our freedom. May God bless and comfort Staff Sergeant Thompson's loved ones. May He watch over all those who answer our Nation's call. May God bless America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, might I ask the majority leader: Are you objecting for yourself or on behalf of others? Further, is there a reason for the objection?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to honor the life of Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick by passing a bill to strengthen whistleblower protections. Last year the Center for Investigative Reporting published an article that revealed allegations of opioid overprescription, whistleblower retaliation, and a culture of fear at the Tomah VA Medical Center in Tomah, WI. It also detailed the tragic story of Jason Simcakoski, who passed away at the Tomah VA in 2014 from mixed drug toxicity. Jason had over one dozen different drugs in his system when he died. Jason's life is honored by a bipartisan bill introduced by my colleague from Wisconsin that I am pleased to cosponsor: the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act. The bill aims to improve VA opioid prescribing guidelines and ensure greater coordination and oversight for patient treatments. When I learned of the problems at the Tomah VA, I immediately directed my Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee staff to investigate. They reviewed thousands of pages of documents and conducted 22 interviews. We held two hearings in Tomah and two in Washington, DC, to examine what happened at the facility and hear from whistleblowers across the country. On May 31 of this year, we released a 359-page report detailing the findings of our bipartisan investigation. The unfortunate conclusion of our investigation is that with proper disclosure, the tragedies of the Tomah VA could have been prevented. One of the individuals who blew the whistle on these problems was a psychologist at the Tomah VA named Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick. His portrait stands beside me. Chris came to Tomah in 2008. He treated veterans, the finest among us, for PTSD, substance abuse, and chronic pain. It didn't take long for him to realize that something was not right. Chris told his family and the union that he thought doctors were overprescribing, overmedicating patients. The chief of staff of the facility was a doctor who had been known as the Candy Man as far back as 2004 because of the amount of opioids he prescribed for veterans. When the Candy Man found out that Chris was questioning his prescription practices, Chris was warned to stop. But rather than address Chris's concerns, the VA fired him. Tragically, late on the day that he was terminated, Chris committed suicide. Chris's managers later said they felt coerced into firing him. Yet no one ever investigated Chris's suicide, and the agency was never held accountable. Inspectors general are supposed to be the government's watchdogs. Instead of promptly investigating, preparing, and making a report of its investigation public, the VA Office of Inspector General took almost 3 years to prepare a short, extremely flawed report, administratively closed the investigation, and then buried the report. Then last year, under pressure from news reports and my committee's investigation, the office issued an unsolicited white paper that defended its flawed work and attacked Chris. It even accused him of being a drug dealer. They were retaliating against a dead man. Sean Kirkpatrick, Chris's brother, summed up the office's actions best. He told our committee: ``The haphazard attempt to discredit and slander Chris was absolutely outrageous to us when our brother was merely questioning opioid abuse and concerns that the veterans were not being cared for properly.'' Sean Kirkpatrick offered invaluable testimony to our committee and asked us to make commonsense changes to help ensure that what happened to Chris will not happen to someone else. To address these recommendations and the problems our investigation uncovered, I introduced the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act. Among other things, the bill requires agencies to discipline supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers and mandates training so employees know their rights and supervisors know how to handle complaints. The bill requires the VA to inform its employees about mental health services available to them and review their protocols to address threats from patients. The bill also prohibits VA employees from accessing the private medical records of coworkers when they blow the whistle as a means to retaliate against them. I ask the full Senate to honor Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick and protect veterans and future whistleblowers by passing these commonsense reforms. It would be particularly special for the Senate to pass the bill today as, sadly, it is the 7-year anniversary of Chris's passing. This bill received unanimous support of Democrats and Republicans on my committee in December by a vote of 16 to 0. It has the support of every Republican in the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, one or more Democrat Members have been blocking it. I haven't been told who they are, so I have come to the floor to ask that if a Senator objects to this bill, he or she explain why. Protecting whistleblowers and putting our veterans first shouldn't be a partisan issue. I know it sure hasn't been one for me. In fact, just yesterday the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act was approved as part of CARA. I was pleased to cosponsor the bill that the junior Senator from my State, a Democrat, introduced. I am not aware of any Republican Member who tried to block its inclusion in CARA, and I was pleased to do whatever I could in the Senate to ensure its passage because it is just good policy and it is just good for our veterans. I ask my colleagues to give this bill the same respect by judging it based on policy, not politics. Put our veterans first. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 499, S. 2127. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the Johnson substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is extremely disappointing that the minority leader has objected to a commonsense piece of legislation that was passed--again, let me repeat--unanimously out of my committee. Not one Democratic member of our committee objected to this. It was a good piece of legislation. It is so important. I am shocked, coming from the private sector, how much retaliation actually occurs within government even though we passed numerous bills protecting whistleblowers. The fact is, had these tragedies been known, had the whistleblowers been protected, had the Office of Inspector General made its investigation reports public, tragedies would have been prevented. One of the veterans who died at the Tomah VA was Thomas Baer. I was talking to his daughter a week or so after he passed from neglect, as he suffered a couple strokes waiting to be cared for. She said: Senator, had I only known of the problems at the Tomah VA, I never would have taken my father there. He would be alive today. All I am asking for is a commonsense bill that again was passed unanimously by my committee. Unfortunately, it is being objected to and will not pass today. At a moment in time in our history when there are so many divisions in this country, this is one thing we all agree on in this body, to honor the promises to the finest among us, our veterans. This bill honors those promises. This bill would protect the whistleblowers who have the courage to come forward and report problems at the VA health care centers. This bill would help protect veterans in the future. One of the things I am most proud of as chairman of the committee is I have worked in a very bipartisan fashion. I have forged agreements. I have looked for areas of agreement that unify us. By using that approach, a businessperson's approach, we have reported out of my committee 83 pieces of legislation--this is one of them--and 26 of those have been signed into law, again by finding areas of agreement that unify us as a committee, as a Senate, as a Congress, and as a Nation. This should have been one of those bills. I sincerely hope we can overcome whatever objection, which was not stated on the floor, and pass this very important piece of whistleblower protection as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to ask all of my colleagues a simple question: How many more constitutional rights are we going to give up in response to Islamic terror? Coming from a business background, I certainly found out the way to reach agreement is to try to find areas of agreement. Here is something we can all agree on. Nobody in this Chamber, no American wants to see weapons transferred into the hands of terrorists or would-be terrorists. We can agree on that. We are so close. I applaud Susan Collins and our other colleagues for trying to work to a bipartisan agreement to try to accomplish that goal. My amendment simply adds due process on the front end. Otherwise, it is pretty much identical to what the other Senators on a bipartisan basis were trying to achieve. Please, let's continue to work together. Let's try to find those areas of agreement to accomplish the goal of keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, would-be terrorists, while not giving up our constitutional rights. I ask my colleagues to please vote to not table my amendment so we can continue this discussion and find areas of agreement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Kenneth Kuehnl who earlier this month left the position of Wisconsin State adjutant and chief operating officer of the Disabled American Veterans, DAV, after 11 years. As Ken steps down from his leadership role with the Wisconsin DAV, I want to acknowledge Ken's service to Wisconsin and our Nation. Ken is a Vietnam war veteran who began his U.S. military service in April 1971. He is a longtime member of the DAV Kenosha Chapter 20 in Wisconsin, with 34 years as a DAV member. Before becoming the Wisconsin DAV State adjutant and chief operating officer in 2005, Ken served as the Wisconsin department commander from 1996 to 1997. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in offering our congratulations to Ken Kuehnl and his wife, Lynn. Ken has dedicated his time, talents, and energy to serving the finest among us, our Nation's veterans. I thank Ken for his service and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise first to say thank you to the Senator from Tennessee for leading this vote of disapproval on what is really a terrible rule. It is a solution looking for a problem. I spent 31 years running a manufacturing plant. It has been my experience that I have never had somebody in my operation ask to go from salary to hourly. I remember in 2004 when they tightened the rules and a number of people who worked for me were forced into hourly. None of them wanted to go. By the way, none of them received higher wages or a higher salary; they just lost flexibility--and that is exactly what is going to happen. Being an accountant, I would like to kind of go through the numbers. These are the Department of Labor's own calculations. They claim there would be $1.2 billion more wages paid to workers. That is what they claim the benefit is going to be, but they also admit that there will be $678 million in compliance costs to businesses just trying to figure out the rule, trying to implement it. What they are missing is, if wages--and I think that is a big ``if'' because I think what will end up happening is--you know, employers are competing in a global economy, and you can't just increase costs. So my guess, basically, is what is going to happen--and happened to my business in 2004--is they will just adjust. The workers won't get any more money. But let's just say $1.2 billion in wages is paid to workers. Well, that will be a cost to businesses. So as far as the overall benefit to the economy, wages might increase $1.2 billion, but business costs will increase $1.2 billion, and that nets to zero benefit to the economy. But there will still be a $678 million compliance cost to businesses, and, of course, that will be added to the already onerous regulatory burden on our economy. There are three different studies--the Small Business Administration, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers--putting the cost of complying with Federal regulation somewhere between $1.75 trillion to over $2 trillion per year. If you take the medium estimate of that and divide it by 127 million households, that is a total cost of compliance with Federal regulations of $14,800 per year, per household. The only larger expense to a household is housing. That is the cost of complying. Let me finish with another figure--$12,000 per year, per employee. That is the cost of just four Obama regulations to one Wisconsin paper manufacturer. I can't tell you which one because the CEO fears retaliation. Now, think of that for a minute. But just four Obama regulations are costing one paper manufacturer the equivalent of $12,000 per year, per employee. So if you are concerned about income inequality, if you are wondering why wages have stagnated, look no further than this massive regulatory burden, and of course the overtime rule is just one of those burdens. I would just ask everybody, would you rather have that $12,000 feeding the government in compliance costs or would you rather have that $12,000 in your paycheck feeding your family? Making a living is hard. Big Government just makes it a whole lot harder, and this overtime rule is just going to make it that much more incrementally harder.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise first to say thank you to the Senator from Tennessee for leading this vote of disapproval on what is really a terrible rule. It is a solution looking for a problem. I spent 31 years running a manufacturing plant. It has been my experience that I have never had somebody in my operation ask to go from salary to hourly. I remember in 2004 when they tightened the rules and a number of people who worked for me were forced into hourly. None of them wanted to go. By the way, none of them received higher wages or a higher salary; they just lost flexibility--and that is exactly what is going to happen. Being an accountant, I would like to kind of go through the numbers. These are the Department of Labor's own calculations. They claim there would be $1.2 billion more wages paid to workers. That is what they claim the benefit is going to be, but they also admit that there will be $678 million in compliance costs to businesses just trying to figure out the rule, trying to implement it. What they are missing is, if wages--and I think that is a big ``if'' because I think what will end up happening is--you know, employers are competing in a global economy, and you can't just increase costs. So my guess, basically, is what is going to happen--and happened to my business in 2004--is they will just adjust. The workers won't get any more money. But let's just say $1.2 billion in wages is paid to workers. Well, that will be a cost to businesses. So as far as the overall benefit to the economy, wages might increase $1.2 billion, but business costs will increase $1.2 billion, and that nets to zero benefit to the economy. But there will still be a $678 million compliance cost to businesses, and, of course, that will be added to the already onerous regulatory burden on our economy. There are three different studies--the Small Business Administration, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers--putting the cost of complying with Federal regulation somewhere between $1.75 trillion to over $2 trillion per year. If you take the medium estimate of that and divide it by 127 million households, that is a total cost of compliance with Federal regulations of $14,800 per year, per household. The only larger expense to a household is housing. That is the cost of complying. Let me finish with another figure--$12,000 per year, per employee. That is the cost of just four Obama regulations to one Wisconsin paper manufacturer. I can't tell you which one because the CEO fears retaliation. Now, think of that for a minute. But just four Obama regulations are costing one paper manufacturer the equivalent of $12,000 per year, per employee. So if you are concerned about income inequality, if you are wondering why wages have stagnated, look no further than this massive regulatory burden, and of course the overtime rule is just one of those burdens. I would just ask everybody, would you rather have that $12,000 feeding the government in compliance costs or would you rather have that $12,000 in your paycheck feeding your family? Making a living is hard. Big Government just makes it a whole lot harder, and this overtime rule is just going to make it that much more incrementally harder.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Senate Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. 2755 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 431, submitted earlier today.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to confirm Michael Missal, the nominee for the Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general. For far too long, our Nation's veterans have been without a permanent watchdog in place to ensure the VA affords them the care that they deserve. I have seen the damage that acting leadership in the VA Office of Inspector General has done in my own State of Wisconsin. Numerous veterans of the Tomah VA facility suffered for years through dangerous prescription practices, whistleblower retaliation, and a culture of fear. The VA Office of Inspector General, under acting leadership, conducted a multiyear investigation of the Tomah VA facility but then swept the allegations under the rug--the secret report that was hidden from veterans, the public, and Congress. Months after the report was finalized and closed, Jason Simcakoski, a 35-year-old Marine Corps veteran, died of a lethal cocktail of over a dozen different drugs at the Tomah VA facility. Another Wisconsin veteran, Thomas Behr, died after being treated at the Tomah VA facility. Mr. Behr's daughter Candace told me that had she known about the inspector general's report, she never would have taken her father to the facility and he might be alive today. In other words, had the VA Office of Inspector General been transparent and published the findings of its investigation, these tragic outcomes could very well have been avoided. Under acting leadership, the VA Office of Inspector General has tried to stonewall my investigation into the tragedies at Tomah VA medical facility. Its actions have shown that, under acting leadership, the VA Office of Inspector General has become too close to the VA, the agency it is charged with overseeing. The acting leadership lacked the fundamental tenets of transparency and accountability that all inspectors general should have that could literally mean the difference between life and death. I was forced to resort to a subpoena to obtain the information about the investigation of the Tomah VA Office of Inspector General, and there are still some documents the acting leadership has refused to produce. For over a year, I have urged President Obama to appoint a permanent VA inspector general. I was pleased that President Obama finally heeded my calls--and, quite honestly, the calls of many of my colleagues--when he nominated Michael Missal to the position late last year. My committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, moved his nomination after carefully considering his qualifications, and we reported him out to the full Senate immediately. I am hopeful that under Mr. Missal's leadership, the VA Office of Inspector General will restore veterans' trust in the inspector general's office, protect VA whistleblowers, and forge a new relationship with Congress, but above all else, I hope Mr. Missal will use his position to help ensure the finest among us receives the high- quality care they deserve. I am confident Mr. Missal is up to the task, and I thank him for agreeing to serve in this supporting role.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 448 only, with no other executive business in order.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nomination.