Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to support the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, long overdue and vital legislation designed to reduce our Nation's vulnerability to cyber attacks. I want to commend the ranking member of my committee, Senator Tom Carper, and Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein, for their collaborative effort. This is an example of when we actually seek to find the areas of agreement that unify us versus exploit our divisions, then we can actually accomplish some pretty good things. This bill is one of those examples. The cyber threat we face today is real and it is growing. Sophisticated nation-state adversaries such as China and North Korea are constantly probing American companies' and Federal agencies' computer networks to steal valuable and sensitive data. International criminal organizations are exploiting our networks to commit financial fraud and health fraud. Cyber crime is so pervasive that the former Director of the National Security Agency described it as the ``greatest transfer of wealth in human history.'' Cyber terrorists are trying to attack cyber-connected critical infrastructure, thereby threatening our very way of life. We have already experienced the impact of this threat. Within the last year and a half alone, more than 20 top American companies and Federal agencies have experienced major breaches. A breach of the Office of Personnel Management allowed a foreign adversary to steal 19.7 million Federal employees' background checks, over 5 million fingerprint files, and 4 million personnel records. A breach at IRS allowed cyber criminals abroad to access over 330,000 taxpayer financial records. A destructive cyber attack from North Korea on Sony Pictures resulted in the destruction of thousands of computers and theft of the company's most valuable intellectual property. Data breaches at both Anthem and JP Morgan resulted in the theft of 80 million health care subscribers' personal data and 83 million banking customers' personal information. Even the White House is not immune from attack. Six months ago, foreign adversaries breached White House networks, compromising the President's nonpublic schedule. Federal agencies are neglecting to protect Americans' data and Federal law is preventing companies from defending their networks. Congressional oversight, including hearings held by my committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, has shown agencies are not doing enough to protect their sensitive data. Our committee's oversight hearings of the IRS and OPM data breaches revealed that basic cyber security hygiene and best practices would have stopped attackers in their tracks had they been in place at these agencies. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet fully implemented the cyber security programs we need to protect Federal agencies' networks. Meanwhile, current law hinders private companies from sharing indicators that can be used to detect and stop attacks against their networks. To be effective, cyber threat indicators must be shared very quickly. The 2015 Verizon data breach investigation report revealed that 75 percent of attacks spread within 24 hours, and 40 percent spread within just 1 hour. Yet our current network of anti-trust and wiretap loss hampers companies from sharing that information quickly, creating a threat of lawsuit and prosecution for sharing that the information companies can use to identify and stop attacks. There is no easy solution, but there are things Congress can do to improve cyber security that might make cyber attacks more difficult. That is why I am proud to have worked with Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein to create the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which takes a significant first step in addressing both of these issues. First, it enables information sharing to improve cyber security within private companies. Second, it improves cyber security at Federal agencies. I especially appreciate the collaboration of Senator Carper in working with me to help craft title II of the bill--the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act--which was unanimously reported out of our committee. This bill will put Federal agencies on track to implement commonsense cyber security solutions already in use in many companies, thereby improving the security of Americans' data at the Federal agencies. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will achieve four key goals.

Mr. JOHNSON. First, it will mandate deployment and implementation of a government-wide intrusion detection and prevention system for Federal networks. Second, it will require OMB to develop an intrusion assessment plan so government agencies can hunt down and eradicate attackers already in their networks. Third, it requires agencies to implement specific cyber security practices, such as multifactor authentication and encryption of sensitive data, which would have stopped previous attacks. Fourth, and finally, it will give the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget the authority they need to oversee cyber security across the Federal Government. In short, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, with the inclusion of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, will significantly improve our cyber security posture. This bill will not solve all of our cyber security woes, but it is an important step in the right direction, and I am glad to support it. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the 104th National Day of the Republic of China, Taiwan, to take place on October 10, 2015. As a longstanding supporter of Taiwan, I believe the occasion of its National Day is an appropriate time for us to consider our special relationship with Taiwan and the Taiwanese people. The United States and Taiwan have fostered a mutually beneficial relationship over the years based on shared democratic values and common strategic interests. Taiwan is a fine example of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region and is a trusted friend and trading partner to the United States. Our relationship has realized far-reaching economic and cultural benefits, and I hope that our bonds continue to grow in the years to come. It is a sincere privilege to offer my compliments to the people of Taiwan on this very special occasion.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Arizona for leading and also for his leadership for working, on a bipartisan basis, with Members from the other side of the aisle to really accomplish something to produce a result. What I have been trying to do as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is that I have reached out to every Senator and asked them: If you have identified a problem, if you have a piece of legislation that solves that problem, bring it before our committee, and I will do everything in my power to mark it up, report it out of our committee, and then first work with you to first pass it through the Senate, then through the House, to get that piece of legislation on the President's desk, and to have it signed into law to actually solve that problem. The Senator from Arizona has done a great job in this particular case because this is a piece of legislation that truly is a win-win. It is a win for our veterans, and it is a win for the border. I am not going to steal the Senator's thunder in terms of describing all of the benefits of the bill, but I just want to mention a couple. We obviously have a huge problem at our border, and neither one of us would claim that this is going to solve all of our problems. But it identifies one--a staffing problem with our ports of entry. Also there is another problem in terms of our veterans who have served this Nation and are unable to find work. So that is the win-win. This is a perfect example of a piece of legislation now that solves that problem. Coming from the manufacturing sector, I never did quite understand why our returning veterans--with their esprit de corps, with all their skills, all their dedication, their great attitude--are having a hard time finding work, because certainly in my manufacturing operation in Oshkosh, WI, boy, if I found a veteran, I hired that individual because they are great workers. Now, in my Senate office, we actually have seven veterans with a combined total of 115 years of service. So I think what we are going to find now at Customs and Border Protection is that this bill will make it easier for veterans to connect with those particular jobs to help staff our ports of entry. Customs and Border Protection is going to find that value of being able to employ the finest among us because we have made that easier. Our veterans are going to have the ability to leave service and have a very good job further serving the country and keeping our Nation safe. I again thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership on this and for working with me to get this passed through our committee, passed through the Senate, and put on the President's desk for his signature to have this bill signed into law so we can be helping our veterans and protect this Nation. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. JOHNSON. If I could just make one final point, this is a classic example of when we concentrate on the areas of agreement and find the areas of agreement that unite us, as opposed to exploiting the divisions. Again, this is a perfect example of getting bipartisan support on a piece of legislation. It serves as a great example for everybody serving in Washington to see us concentrate on the areas of agreement that unify us rather than exploit those divisions. Again, I thank the Senator very much for his leadership.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come today to the floor first to thank the Senator from Tennessee for taking my call last night as we discussed his objection to extending this, which, from my standpoint, for the many reasons my college from Wisconsin stated, I think is a reasonable proposal to extend the Perkins Loan Program for a 1-year time period. But I certainly understand some of the concerns my colleague from Tennessee has with this particular loan program--and, quite honestly, all the loan programs--often in terms of the affordability of college loans. But as the Senator from Tennessee stated, we share the same goal here. Everyone in this body really does want every American to have the opportunity to get a good education, to get the tools so they can lead a productive life and build a good life for themselves and their families. That is a goal we all share, and we understand the importance of education and the affordability of it--making it accessible to every American. But that is the point I want to make here. We held a pretty interesting hearing in our Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and we really took a look at these student loan programs and the potential effect on the affordability of college. In testimony today, we certainly found out that the student loan program has exploded over the last 20 years, from a level of about $100 billion in 1994 to now $1.3 trillion. On average, students graduating with a 4-year degree are about $29,000 in debt. That is a concern. One of the reasons we are concerned about affordability is that the cost of college--again, in testimony--has increased somewhere between 2.5 and 2.8 times the rate of inflation over the last few number of decades. I think it is a legitimate question to ask: Why? What is so different about what colleges and universities spend their money on that the cost would increase 2.5 to 2.8 times the rate of inflation? We had some explanation provided to our committee today, and it does involve Federal Government involvement, for example, in the accreditation process. We had one witness state that the supply of colleges since the mid-1970s has increased about 14 percent, and yet, because we want to have more access for college, the demand for college education has increased 111 percent. Part of the problem, in terms of the increasing cost of college, is the fact that we are creating barriers to entry through the accreditation process. So I think we have to take a very serious look at that. Another thing that was quite troubling during our hearing is that there have been a number of studies, including one from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, one from Northeastern University, that show that 40 to 50 percent of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed, which means they are getting these college degrees and are not being able to put them to good use. That is something we should really be taking a look at. Again, I think it was a reasonable proposal to extend the Perkins Loan Program for another year for many of the reasons my colleague from Wisconsin stated. A lot of people are counting on these. But I fully respect what the Senator from Tennessee is trying to do--to consolidate these programs, to make them more streamlined, to address the affordability issue--which really is something that we are really ignoring far too often in this body as we take the Federal Government and we involve it more and more in higher education. We really have to take a serious look at what the Federal Government's involvement has actually been in terms of the unintended consequence of making college less accessible because we have made it so much more unaffordable. Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for taking my phone call and listening to my viewpoint. And I certainly appreciate his dedication to trying to achieve that same goal that we all share-- providing the accessibility for every American to have a good quality education so they can build a good life for themselves and their family. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as the son of a former general manager of a brewery and a loyal customer I wish to acknowledge the founding of a true American success story, Miller Brewing, and to congratulate it on the occasion of its historic 160th anniversary celebration. In 1855, just a few years after Wisconsin joined the Union, 30-year old Frederick J. Miller brought his brewing passion from his native Germany to the United States, taking over what was then the Plank Road Brewery in Milwaukee. Now, 160 years later, Milwaukee is known worldwide as Brew City, and the company he founded is celebrating the accomplishments of this young, brash entrepreneurial brewmaster who turned a pocketful of yeast into a global beer brewing icon. From its founding, through its expansions and partnerships, Miller Brewing has become a quintessential success story, having forever woven itself into the fabric of American society and culture. As Miller Brewing celebrates its 160th anniversary, guests from around the world have come to Milwaukee to hear and read stories of a young Frederick Miller. Each week the company is highlighting a different era from Miller's storied past, and visitors to the historic Miller Valley plant can even taste a sample of 1855 celebration Lager during brewery tours. Earlier this month, I toured Miller's Milwaukee brewery and enjoyed some of the same sights and smells I experienced as a young boy hanging around the small brewery managed by my father. After decades of continued success, Miller joined with Colorado-based Coors in 2008, thus combining more than 300 years of brewing heritage. Operating out of eight breweries in eight States, the most talented and professional brewmasters in the world now provide beer drinkers in America with a portfolio of beers that are second to none. But, Miller Brewing and MillerCoors are more than the product they make; they are greater than the sum of their parts. They are economic engines in Wisconsin, Colorado, and throughout the country, providing family- supporting jobs to more than 8,000 employees nationwide. Because of their presence, over $5 billion is injected in the economy each year, money that is spent on goods and services, and which helps support the businesses of thousands of suppliers. Miller pays more than $1 billion annually in State, local and Federal taxes. As they celebrate the past 160 years, current employees are taking note of the efforts made by the earliest employees of Miller Brewing, who knew the importance of civic leadership and sustainable business practices. We see those traditions continue today, as Miller Brewing and MillerCoors remain a deeply rooted presence in the communities in which they brew and sell their beer. Support of local charities and responsible consumption programs, and efforts to reduce water and energy usage and waste are only a few examples of how the company proves itself to be a valuable corporate citizen. Frederick J. Miller arrived in Milwaukee with a passion and ambition. He committed himself to brew ``confoundedly good beers'' with ``uncompromising quality.'' After founding Miller Brewing Company in 1855, he worked hard to achieve that goal. For the past 160 years, millions of Americans have reaped the benefits of his efforts, one bottle, one can, or one glass at a time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have been watching this debate as carefully as I possibly can. I think it has been very thoughtful. I think it is interesting that Members of this body have read the same agreement and come to different conclusions. It is not surprising. There are a lot of complications in this. Nobody can really know exactly how everything is going to turn out. So it does not surprise me that people have come to different conclusions. I also agree with the Members of this body when they say this is probably one of the most important votes they will ever take. We are talking about a nuclear Iran and how we can potentially prevent that. That, obviously, would be a threat to world peace. I know that sitting back in Oshkosh, WI, well before I ever became a Senator, I heard Members of parties declare definitively: We cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Well, the sad fact is, I think this agreement puts it on a path to obtaining that weapon. I also agree with President Obama in his speech really chastising those of us who don't agree with him when he says this is a pretty simple decision. I think it is a pretty simple decision. I just come at it from a totally different perspective and obviously draw a completely different conclusion from that. Let me read a couple quotes that have been brought forth by Members of this body during this debate. First: Most importantly, this agreement cannot be based on hope or trust. History belies both in our experience with Iran. This deal is not the agreement I have long sought. Another Senator: We are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran. We are, in effect, rewarding years of deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law. Another Senator: This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. Yet another: This deal is not perfect and no one trusts Iran. In my 4\1/2\ years in the Senate, I have been trying to find those areas of agreement. I agree with those comments. But what is kind of surprising about all of those quotes, these are quotes from individual Senators--I won't name them--Senators who are going to vote to approve this awful deal. I think something else we can all agree on is that Iran is our enemy. Let me read a couple other quotes. Early this year, after his congregation broke out with a death to America chant, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said: Yes, of course. Yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure. Death to America. Death to America. Then only 2 days ago the Supreme Leader said: I say that you Israelis will not see the coming 25 years. And, God willing, there will not be something named the Zionist regime in the next 25 years. So I agree that we cannot trust Iran. We cannot trust the Supreme Leader. I agree that Iran is our enemy. So my decision to vote for disapproval of this deal rests on a very simple premise: Why in the world would we ever enter a deal that will give tens of billions and eventually hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemy, our avowed enemy--an enemy that I have to remind this body was responsible, because of their IEDs, for the killing of 196 troops in Iraq and many more wounded and maimed, a regime that back in the late 1970s took 52 U.S. hostages for 444 days? That regime has not changed its behavior in all these intervening years. They are our enemy. Again, let me point out, why in the world would we ever agree to a deal that will strengthen our enemy's economy and our enemy's military? It seems pretty obvious. I agree with President Obama. This is a simple decision. But I disagree. He thinks it is a good deal. I think it is a very bad deal. In my remaining time--I want to be respectful of my colleagues--I do want to talk about what this debate and what this vote is actually about. This is not a straight up-or-down vote to approve an international agreement that would be deemed a treaty. This body gave up our ability to deem this a treaty and provide advice and consent when we voted on my amendment to deem it a treaty. President Obama, on his own authority, his article II powers, said: No, something this important, this consequential is not a treaty, it is an Executive agreement, and I can go it alone. And he basically did until the Senators from Tennessee and Maryland came together and recognized the fact that a key part of this deal is the waiver or lifting of the congressionally imposed sanctions that we put in place-- against the President's objection, by the way--in 2012. What this debate is all about is whether President Obama can retain that waiver authority. Regardless of how this turns out, President Obama, again, has negotiated this deal. He has run to the United Nations Security Council and gotten them to agree to it. The process will be put in place to lift those sanctions from the United Nations that, by the way, were put in place in resolutions that would have required the suspension or halting of the uranium enrichment capability, which is not part of this deal, unfortunately. So it is extremely important for the American people to understand that we are not debating and we are not going to be voting on the actual deal itself. We are going to be voting on something that has pretty weak involvement, pretty minor involvement, because President Obama has pretty well blocked us, blocked the American people from having a voice on a deal which is so important, so consequential, and which I believe is going to be so damaging to America's long-term interest, a deal which I believe really will put Iran on a path to obtaining a nuclear weapon. We are going to be lifting the arms embargo. We are already lifting the embargo on ballistic missile technology. And let me reiterate that we are going to be injecting tens of billions and eventually hundreds of billions of dollars to strengthen the economy and the military of our avowed enemy. It is a simple decision for me, which is why I will vote to disapprove this very bad deal. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to one of America's sons who has fallen in the line of duty. Sgt Carson Holmquist was a 25-year-old marine from Grantsburg, WI, who lost his life tragically as a result of the heinous act committed by a terrorist on July 16 in Chattanooga. Sergeant Holmquist was one of the finest among us. He gave his life to preserve the liberties upon which America was founded. He was a son, a husband, a father, and a very proud marine. He also must have been a great friend to all the people he knew and a man who was respected by many people he didn't know. I was honored to attend his funeral this past Saturday, and I was witness to a tremendous outpouring of support. I saw a line--probably about 2 blocks long, three or four people wide--of citizens from all across Wisconsin and from several other States. Some of these people were Sergeant Holmquist's relatives, some were his friends, many were brothers-in-arms, both past and present. Still others were citizens who had no personal connection to Sergeant Holmquist. They came simply to pay their respects to a man who swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They came to honor a man who so loved America that he chose to serve in faraway lands. He revered freedom, so he sacrificed his own freedom that we may be free. He defended our right to live as individuals by yielding his own individuality in that noble cause. He valued life. Yet he bravely readied himself to lay down his own life in humble service to his comrades-in-arms, to his family, and to his Nation. For 239 years, our service men and women have served as guardians of our freedom. The cost of that vigilance has been high. Since the Revolutionary War, more than 42 million men and women have served in our military, and more than 1 million of those selfless heroes have given their lives. Wisconsin has borne its share of that sacrifice. Since statehood, more than 27,000 of Wisconsin's sons and daughters have died in military service. Statistics cannot possibly convey the weight of these losses. Statistics are merely numbers that could never fully communicate the qualities of promising lives which were cut far too short. Statistics say nothing of unfulfilled hopes and dreams. So instead of numbers such as 1 million or 27,000, I ask everyone to think for a moment about a much smaller but yet even more staggering number--simply the number one. Sergeant Holmquist was one man, loved and cherished by family and friends. He was one man whose loss is a tremendous blow to Wisconsin and to this great Nation. He was one man, but his sacrifice was not his alone. His parents Thomas and LaBrenda, his wife Jasmine, his son Wyatt, and every other relative and friend left behind are experiencing profound loss and grief. But tragedy multiplies. It is not contained. For those left behind, the pain may slowly subside, but the wound will never heal. The Holmquist family loved Carson dearly, and our hearts go out to them. I pray they will find peace and comfort amid overwhelming tragic loss. The torch of freedom burns brightly because of men like Sergeant Holmquist. May God bless and comfort the sergeant's loved ones. May He watch over those who have answered the Nation's call. May God bless America. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise also to join my colleagues in support of a couple of bills that are supporting the finest among us. I certainly want to underscore the thanks that the Senator from South Dakota expressed to the men and women of our military, people to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude for defending this Nation and fighting for our freedoms. I also really want to thank the good Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, for in a very expeditious fashion taking up some very good pieces of legislation that will hold accountable those individuals who are caring for the finest among us in our veterans health care centers. But before I address those bills, let me make a couple of points about the vast majority of men and women who are working in those VA health care centers. They are dedicated individuals, and they are doing a great job providing health care to the men and women of our Armed Forces. Upon becoming a Senator for Wisconsin, I started visiting the VA medical facilities within our State and also in Minneapolis, a center that also serves veterans from Wisconsin. What I found did not surprise me at all. I found those dedicated individuals, and they are providing excellent health care. The veterans I spoke to in the halls and throughout the State were very satisfied with the health care they were getting. They were more than satisfied. They heaped praise upon their care providers. The wait times were pretty long. The parking lots were pretty full. But again, they underscored certainly what I saw--that the vast majority of those men and women--the nurses, the doctors, the administrators--in our VA health care facilities are really dedicated to the task, and they are doing a great job for our veterans. But the fact of the matter is that they are not all doing a good job. It is not a perfect system--not by a long shot. I give the press corps a great deal of credit for breaking stories, first in Arizona, where we saw those long wait times actually resulting in the deaths of some veterans. Then, in early January, I first became aware, because of a news report, of a real problem in the Tomah, WI, VA health care facility. I think maybe the best way to approach this is to provide a timeline that I provided in a field hearing that we held. It was a joint field hearing between my committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House raising the issue in the community. It was an excellent hearing. It afforded the surviving family members of some of the veterans who had died in the care of the Tomah VA center the ability to tell their stories, to make an impression, and to get the attention of the administrators of the VA to start correcting the problems. But in my opening statement, I laid out a timeline that I would like to repeat here. In April of 2003, Dr. David Houlihan was disciplined by the Iowa Board of Medicine for having an inappropriate relationship with a psychiatric patient. According to the executive director of the Iowa Board of Medicine, the sanctions should have been a serious concern for future employers. That was April of 2003. In 2004, Dr. Houlihan was hired as a psychiatrist by the Tomah VA Medical Center. In August of 2005, Dr. Houlihan became chief of staff of the Tomah Medical Center. In November 2007, Kraig Ferrington, a veteran who sought treatment for medication management, died from a lethal mixture of drugs. Autopsy results showed Mr. Ferrington had seven drugs in his system. In April 2009, it was known and documented by employees of Tomah VA that many patients had called him the Candy Man and that veterans were ``prescribed large quantities of narcotics.'' Again, that was April of 2009. In June of 2009, Dr. Noelle Johnson was fired from Tomah for refusing to fill prescriptions she believed to be unsafe. Dr. Johnson had raised concerns to her superiors, had sought guidance from the Iowa medical licensing board, and later spoke with the Drug Enforcement Administration about Dr. Houlihan. In July of 2009, Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was fired from Tomah. Dr. Kirkpatrick had raised concerns to his union about overmedication at Tomah. Tragically, later that day, on the day of his termination, Dr. Kirkpatrick committed suicide. In August of 2011, the VA Office of Inspector General received an anonymous complaint about overprescription and retaliation by Dr. Houlihan at Tomah. In March of 2012, a second anonymous complaint was filed with the IG against Dr. Houlihan. The OIG examined 32 separate examinations during his 2\1/2\-year-long inspection. In March of last year, 2014, the Office of Inspector General finished its inspection of Tomah and administratively closed the case without making it public. On August 30 of 2014, Jason Simcakoski died in the Tomah mental health wing as a result of a mixed drug toxicity. Simcakoski was a patient of Dr. Houlihan. His autopsy revealed he had over a dozen different medications in his system. In September 2014, Ryan Honl began lodging whistleblower complaints about patient safety and quality of care at Tomah. On January 8, 2015, the Center for Investigative Reporting published an article detailing overprescription and retaliation at Tomah. The article revealed that veterans and employees referred to the Tomah VA Medical Center as ``Candy Land.'' On January 12, 2015, Candace Delis brought her father, Thomas Baer, to the Tomah VA Medical Center with stroke-like symptoms. Mr. Baer waited over 2 hours for attention. That day the facility's CT scanner was down for ``routine preventive maintenance.'' Mr. Baer passed away 2 days later. On February 26, 2015, the Office of Inspector General finally posted its Tomah health care inspection report on its Web site. I called Candace Delis, the daughter of Thomas Baer, shortly after I heard of the tragic death of her father. I will never forget what she told me. She said: Ron, had I known the problems at the Tomah VA Medical Center, I never would have taken my father to the facility, and my father would be alive today. I believe that to be a true statement. Accountability is something that is crucial in any organization. I ran a manufacturing plant for 31 years. I can't tell you how corrosive it is to an organization if individuals within that organization are not doing their job, not pulling their full weight, undermining the shared goals of the organization. It is corrosive. I was surprised when I offered a piece of legislation and the chairman of the VA committee allowed me to present that piece of legislation to the committee, the Ensuring Veterans Safety Through Accountability Act, and the VA representatives at that hearing were opposed to holding medical professionals accountable. Fortunately, the chairman, the Senator from Georgia, agreed with me that the only way we are going to reform this system, the only way we can make sure we honor promises through our VA health centers to the finest among us--the men and women of the military--is by holding individuals accountable, which is exactly how the bill was reported out, sponsored by the Senator from Florida. I truly thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I am pleased to join him as the lead sponsor of that bill. The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act of 2015 will hold every employee within the VA accountable. That is crucial. Again, I thank our veterans, I thank the Senator from Florida, the Senator from Georgia, and I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Let's get it passed. Let's start holding those few bad apples--and I truly believe that. I think it is just a few people who need to be held accountable. A little postscript to my timeline, and I think one of the reasons this piece of legislation is so important is even with that record dating back to 2004--and by the way, our own committee's investigation shows there are employees of the Tomah VA who were referring to the Tomah VA back then as ``Candy Land.'' It is crucial we hold those people accountable. But to date, nobody--after multiple deaths caused by the overprescription of opiates, after the death of Thomas Baer, a veteran who basically died of neglect--has been held accountable by being fired, by being terminated. Again, there is not, from my perspective, any joy in terminating an employee, but for the good of the organization or to honor the promise of the finest among us, that type of accountability is absolutely necessary. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Col Rhonda Smillie of the U.S. Army Reserve who retired in May 2015 with more than 32 years of service and who, for the past 2 years, has served as a legislative liaison for the chief, Army Reserve. I am grateful for her life of service to the Army Reserve and wish her well as she transitions into retirement. A native of Fort Atkinson, WI, Rhonda was commissioned via the Reserve Officer's Training Corps Program at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and went on to earn advanced degrees from Lindenwood University in St. Charles, MO, and from the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Currently serving as the legislative liaison for the chief, Army Reserve, with responsibility for 19 States, Colonel Smillie travels extensively throughout her territory. From Ohio to Washington, from North Dakota to Missouri, she conducts education and outreach events that ensure community leaders understand the impact of the Army Reserve. Her efforts highlight key aspects of the Army Reserve that otherwise go unnoticed such as providing medical and dental assistance to underserved communities in northern Montana, providing cost effective training via Chinook helicopter simulators in Kansas, and working to ensure returning soldiers receive necessary support via the Yellow Ribbon Program in various States. She has helped to highlight the Public Private Partnership and other programs unique to the Army Reserve. Prior to assignment as a legislative liaison, she served as the deputy director, Military Personnel Management, Department of the Army Headquarters, G-1. On points of law and policy she was trusted to consider the needs of the Army, the Army Reserve, and soldiers and families. She expertly assisted in developing personnel policies to keep pace with an Army engaged in persistent conflict while simultaneously drawing down the force. With more than 20 years of Active Duty in support of the Army Reserve, Colonel Smillie's distinguished career is marked by tremendous accomplishments, impacting across the breadth and depth of the Army. Her distinctive leadership in positions demanding the utmost trust and responsibility, coupled with her exceptional professionalism and selfless service, will have a lasting positive impact on Army personnel readiness. It is only fair and proper to acknowledge the tireless support of her husband, Mr. Douglas Bryan Way, and their son, Truman Douglas Smillie Way, as it enabled her to work tirelessly on her assigned duties. Let us thank them all for their sacrifices and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the point frequently made by the supporters of this bill that this is the only way--the only way--that this body, the Congress, the Senate and the House, will receive the details of the deal. What the Senator from Maryland is saying is that this President, our Commander in Chief, will be so brazen, so arrogant as to negotiate and conclude an agreement of such import, of such consequence, and he would then keep it secret from the American people in this Congress. I hope that is not so. But if that is truly the belief, I would be happy to modify my amendment to require that same disclosure of the information of the details of the agreement. I would be happy to do that. I would be happy to work with the other side to do so. But barring that agreement, I am still urging my colleagues and I am urging this body to allow a vote on my amendment, to clarify what this bill is and what it is not. It is not advice and consent. It is the minimum--the minimum--threshold, the minimum involvement, the minimum input on the part of the American people through their elected representatives to pass judgment to approve affirmatively such a consequential agreement with a mere majority of votes of both Chambers of Congress. Is that asking so much? It is true that we passed this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee with a unanimous vote, because we were granted assurances. I realize this is a delicate negotiation. I realize our friends on the other side of the aisle simply refuse to have what I consider a minimum involvement. Again, I appreciate and applaud Senator Corker for doing a bipartisan agreement, for reaching that agreement. But our understanding was that this would be a completely open amendment process. The Senator from Maryland points out that there are 66 amendments to 1. Let's start voting on them. We will vote on the one Democratic amendment. Let's start voting on ours. Eventually, we will tire. Eventually, we will have made our points. Eventually, we will convey to the American public what this bill is and what it is not. Again, let me say, for a final time, what this bill provides. If passed, sure, we get the information which we should get, regardless, but it sets up a process--a very convoluted process--of votes of disapproval which would require 60 votes in this Chamber to pass. We assume it would be vetoed. Then it would require 67 votes in this Chamber to override the veto and two-thirds of a vote in the House to override that veto. In effect--let me clarify one last time--instead of requiring the bare minimum of an affirmative vote of a majority of Members of both Chambers of Congress, this bill would allow approval of this agreement by a simple majority in the House and only 34 Senators providing that rubber stamp of approval to a bill that could be incredibly consequential and of which we will live with the consequences--the results--for many, many years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1149 to declare that any agreement reached by the President relating to the nuclear program of Iran is a congressional-executive agreement to be considered under the expedited procedure in both Houses of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps if the Senator from Maryland will listen to my explanation of what this amendment does, he will withdraw his objection. During our debate on Tuesday, when I offered an amendment to deem the agreement between Iran and America--well, actually and the world--a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the Senator from Maryland spoke about one of the objections to the treaty. He said: Secondly, I don't know how we are going to explain it to our colleagues in the House of Representatives. The Presiding Officer served in the House. I served in the House. Senator Menendez served in the House. The last time I checked, we imposed these sanctions because the bill passed both the Senate and the House, and now we are saying that the approval process is going to ignore the House of Representatives, solely going to be a matter for the U.S. Senate on a ratification of a treaty? That does not seem like a workable solution. Now, Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Maryland did not object to my raising my first amendment to deem it a treaty. And of course this body then voted on that, and I appreciate that fact. And I accept the verdict of this Chamber that they did not want to deem this agreement a treaty--fair enough. But I would like to quote, in addition to the Senator from Maryland, the Senator from Tennessee in arguing against deeming this a treaty. The Senator from Tennessee said: ``We think the President has the ability to negotiate things.'' Well, first off all, I agree with that. Article II, section 2 states: ``He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. . . . '' So that actually is the constitutional method for making agreements between nations--having the President negotiate that. I completely agree. We can't have 535 negotiators. But we certainly should have this body involved in those agreements. We should have a role. We should have a robust role. And, of course, I believe it is so important, that this has such an effect and that it risks so much for this Nation, that I believe it should be a treaty. But again, fair enough--this body deemed it would not be a treaty. The Senator from Tennessee went on to say: We had no idea this President would consider suspending these sanctions ad infinitum, forever--no idea. I think even people on the other side of the aisle were shocked. We were shocked. Yes, we granted those waivers for national security. We did not believe those waivers would be abused the way they are being abused right now. The Senator from Tennessee also went on to say: ``This is one of the biggest geopolitical issues that will potentially happen if an agreement is reached in our lifetime here in the Senate.'' Once again, I agree with the Senator from Tennessee. This is a huge geopolitical issue. And right now this administration deems that agreement on its own authority, an executive agreement, and really, at this point in time, we have no role. There is no involvement. The Senator from Tennessee went on to say: ``Look, I have strong agreement with the sentiment of our Senator from Wisconsin.'' Again, he is agreeing with the fact that this really should rise to the level of a treaty. He also went on to say: ``Without the bill that is on the floor, the American people will never see it.'' Think of that. Think of an agreement between Iran, as it is being described--and, as I say, nobody really knows yet, but what I believe is being described to us--puts Iran on a path for a nuclear weapon. How many years has it been that Presidents from both parties and Members of Congress from both parties have stood and said very forcefully that we simply cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Now we may be facing an agreement between this country, other nations of the world, and Iran that actually puts Iran on a path for a nuclear agreement. The Senator from Tennessee is correct. I hope he is not correct, but I think he may be correct that right now this President has no duty to bring that agreement to the American people. I do happen to believe that public pressure would be so great that the American people would not tolerate that level of brazenness, that level of arrogance on the part of any administration or any President to do a deal, to make an agreement of such import that before implementing that agreement the President of the United States would not bring that agreement to the American people and subject it to, in some shape or form, the advice and consent of either this Chamber or Congress as a whole. The final quote from the Senator from Tennessee is this. He said: Now, look, if I could wave a magic wand or all of a sudden donkeys flew around the Capitol, I would love for us to have the ability to deem this a treaty. I really would. Well, if the agreement that President Obama is talking about in its current framework is agreed to between this administration and the other negotiating partners and Iran, we better all hope that donkeys start flying around the Capitol, because that agreement, as it is being described to us, would put Iran on the path to be a nuclear power. That would destabilize not only the region, but it would destabilize the world. It would lead to an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation within the region. It is a very bad deal. It is very risky for this Nation. It affects this Nation. Let me just go through the three forms of international agreements. There are no set criteria in terms of what is a treaty, what is a congressional-executive agreement or what is simply an executive agreement. There are considerations. There is precedent. I go to the Foreign Affairs Manual at the State Department, and they lay out the considerations; what should be considered in determining what an agreement is--a treaty, a congressional-executive agreement or just an executive agreement. The first consideration is the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the Nation as a whole. The third consideration is whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by Congress. Well, the fact that we have this bill proves the fact that it needs subsequent legislation by Congress. The fifth consideration is the preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement. Well, that is what we are talking about here--the Congress weighing in, in the form of my amendment, to say we want a role, we want a more robust role than is currently offered in this bill. The seventh is the proposed duration of the agreement. We are going to be living with the impact, the effect, the results, the collateral damage of this agreement between Iran and the other negotiating parties for a very, very, very long time. So based on those considerations, based on the fact that in the State Department's own Foreign Affairs Manual in determining whether something is a treaty or an executive agreement or a congressional executive agreement, there should be consultation with Congress. I consider this amendment consultation with Congress. Again, all I am asking in this amendment is to provide a minimal--a minimal constitutional threshold, a minimum constitutional role for Congress in affirmatively approving a deal between Iran and the rest of the world and America. So all this amendment really does, in effect, is just asks the President to bring the agreement before the American people, before this Congress, allow us to have input, to affirmatively approve this in both Chambers, both the House and the Senate, with a mere majority vote of both Chambers. Because what is currently on the floor in this bill-- and, again, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Tennessee. I know in his heart he believes this Senate, this Congress, should have a far more robust role and involvement in such a consequential agreement, but I also realize the challenge he has had dealing with our friends on the other side of the aisle and how very little involvement they are willing to agree to for this Senate and for this Congress. If the bill is passed, we need to clarify what that means in terms of approval. Probably the best way for me to point that out is I had a third amendment I tried to offer. It was an amendment that was going to specifically describe what this bill does with a vote of disapproval, what that threshold really means in terms of approval of this very consequential deal. So I offered an amendment: I called it a very low threshold for approval of a congressional-executive agreement. It would have allowed the agreement between Iran and the rest of the world to be approved by this body, by this Congress, with a majority vote in the House and a vote of only 34 Senators in this body. Now, very appropriately, that amendment was ruled out of order. It was ruled unconstitutional by the Parliamentarian, as it should have been, because that is not approval of a process. That is not the way Congress should weigh in, have input, be involved in such a consequential agreement. But that is exactly--in a very convoluted process of votes of disapproval, that would have to be, first of all, voted on by 60 Senators. Then, of course, if that is vetoed, we would have to override that veto with 67 Senators and two-thirds majority in the House. Again, what this bill does, it will allow a very bad deal-- potentially very bad deal--between Iran and the rest of the world and America to be approved with a majority vote in the House and a vote of only 34 Senators in this Chamber. Again, with that reality, with that clarity of what this bill does, the minimum role, the minimum role that this bill allows, I would urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment that provides for what should be the minimum involvement of Congress: a majority vote, an affirmative vote of approval in both the House and the Senate to any deal this administration concludes with Iran. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. The difference between the two, as I understand them, is the amendment of the Senator from Texas would actually have a higher threshold. I think it would rise to a 60-vote threshold. I am not asking that. I am actually asking something less than that, to again clarify what this bill allows in terms of approval by this Chamber. So even though we discussed this earlier, I don't believe I can combine the two because I think it is important to clarify the issue with an amendment that requires what I really do believe--truly believe--should be the minimum, the minimum role, the minimum affirmative approval of disagreement: a mere majority vote in both Chambers. That is so reasonable. That is the minimum role the American people ought to have in terms of having a say in this. I have never insisted on an amendment in 4 years in the Senate. I feel so deeply about this that I really ask both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Tennessee, please, just allow a vote on this one amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this deal the administration is involved in making with Iran has serious implications not only for America's long-term national security but for really the peace and security of the world. It is true that at this point in time, nobody knows what is really in the deal. We certainly have been given a framework in terms of what the deal is supposed to be. But what we do know is that even within that framework as has been described to the American public, there are some serious discrepancies in terms of the way this administration has typified that framework of the deal and what the Ayatollah in Iran--how they have described that deal. For example, according to our President, the sanctions will only be lifted once Iran has complied with major components of the agreement. According to the Ayatollah, those sanctions will be lifted immediately. That is a big discrepancy. According to this administration, we will have the right to inspect to ensure verification and accountability of any agreement. The Ayatollah disagrees with that. The Ayatollah certainly says there will be no inspections on military sites. If we want to enter into this agreement to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, surely we should have the right to inspect the military sites. Another pretty serious discrepancy in terms of the administration's understanding of what this framework is versus the Ayatollah's understanding, what is going to happen with the 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium? According to this administration, it is going to be shipped out of the country, not available for any kind of nuclear program. According to the Ayatollah, no way; it is going to stay in Iran. So those are major discrepancies in terms of what this agreement is all about, the types of discrepancies that certainly need to be fully vetted, and the American people need to understand what that is. There have also been some real deceptions about this agreement. For example, we have heard repeatedly in hearings that this administration will insist that any agreement will ensure that the nuclear program within Iran will be for peaceful purposes. I have to point out that there is no peaceful purpose for Iran to have nuclear enrichment. If they want peaceful nuclear power, they can certainly do what a number of other countries that have peaceful nuclear power have done: They can purchase that uranium fuel, that nuclear fuel from outside countries. The only reason Iran would subject itself to the sanctions, to the isolation, to the economic harm to its economy and its people, is because it wants nuclear weapons to blackmail the region and the world. Of course, this administration talks about snapback of sanctions. That is deceptive because once these sanctions are relaxed, once these sanctions are lifted, it will be virtually impossible--once tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment from the West and from other countries start flowing to Iran, it will be impossible or almost virtually impossible to put those sanctions back in place. We have had a sanctions regime going back to--U.N. resolutions dating back to 2006. It took years for those sanctions to really take hold, to have the teeth that brought Iran to the bargaining table. Unfortunately, in its negotiations, this administration relaxed those sanctions and basically acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and, in that event, basically lost these negotiations before they ever began. So there are an awful lot of deceptive typifications about what this deal is and what it won't be and what it will be. The purpose of my amendments is to bring clarity to what the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would be and what it is not. I give the chairman and the ranking member of our Senate Foreign Relations Committee a great deal of credit for trying to come up with some sort of deal, some sort of law that will give Congress some kind of role in this incredibly important deal. But this is not Congress's rightful role. This is not what the Framers felt, in article II, section 2 of the Constitution, would be advice and consent. It is far from it. There are basically three forms of international agreements: There is a treaty, there is a congressional executive agreement, and then there is just an executive agreement. There is really no set criteria of what makes one international agreement a treaty, a congressional executive agreement, or an executive agreement. They are considerations. There is precedent. What, in fact, basically is the final determination is how that particular agreement is ratified or approved by Congress or not approved by Congress. I believe when we take a look at the considerations in the State Department's own foreign policy manual, consideration No. 1 is ``the extent to which this agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole.'' I would say this agreement with Iran certainly involves risks that affect our entire Nation. Consideration No. 3 is whether the agreement ``can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress.'' The whole point of this particular act is that we have put sanctions in place by passing laws in Congress, and Congress does realize that we have a role in any lifting of those sanctions. Consideration No. 5 is ``the preference of Congress as to a particular type of agreement.'' Well, there can be some dispute, and that is really at the heart of what my amendments would do, is involve Congress in determining what exactly this deal is. Is it a treaty? Is it a congressional executive agreement? Is it simply an executive agreement that really does not have long-lasting effects? Now, that is really the point of my first amendment. I believe that this is of such importance, that this deal is so important to the security of this Nation and to world peace that it rises to the level of a treaty. So my amendment simply strikes the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and replaces it with a simple statement that this Congress deems this agreement with Iran as a treaty. The other thing my amendment does is it removes the waiver authority this Congress granted this President as relates to those sanctions. That would then require this President, upon completion of the deal with Iran, to come to this Congress--as was contemplated by article II, section 2 of the Constitution--for the advice and consent of this body, so that 67 Senators would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal, that basically the American public would be involved in the decision through their elected representatives. We are not being given that opportunity. The American public is not being given that opportunity right now. What is happening right now under this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we have turned advice and consent on its head. We have lowered the threshold to what advice and consent means as relates to this Iran deal. Hopefully we are going to vote--and it sounds as if we will--on this amendment. I have a second amendment. In case this one does not succeed, I have a second amendment. If this Congress, this Senate doesn't want to treat this as a treaty, we should at a minimum treat it as a congressional executive agreement. I am willing to lower that threshold under expedited procedures to a simple majority vote of both Houses, 50 percent. I contemplated and I had actually written an amendment to really detail what this review act really is--a low-threshold congressional executive agreement. And when I say ``low threshold,'' I mean that what is going to happen here if we pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we will get a vote of disapproval. If 60 Senators agree this is a bad deal for America and they disapprove of it, we can pass that disapproval, and then that goes to the President for signature. He can veto that. Of course, if he vetoes that, it would take two-thirds of this body to override that veto and two-thirds of the House to override that veto. That requires 67 Senators. If we are unable to muster those 67 votes to override the veto of our vote of disapproval on a bad deal between Iran and America, what we, in fact, have done is we have given 34 Senators the ability to approve that bad deal. When I offered that amendment to the Parliamentarian--that would basically show with real clarity that what this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act really is, is a very low threshold approval by this body-- the Parliamentarian I think very appropriately ruled that amendment out of order, unconstitutional. You can't approve something with just 34 votes in the Congress, in the Senate. I think that is my point. I appreciate the fact that we will be able to vote on my amendment deeming this deal between America and Iran a treaty so that the American people have the ability to weigh in, to have a say in whether this is important enough to be affirmatively approved--as our Constitution contemplated with an international agreement of this importance--be affirmatively approved by 67 Senators, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maryland yielding time. If I could ask a question, if this amendment fails in terms of involving the House, I have another amendment that if the Senate decides not to deem this a treaty--and I believe it should be deemed a treaty--we can also deem this a congressional executive agreement which, of course, would have to be voted on by both Houses. I think the fact is this does rise to the level of a treaty. Again, there is no specific criteria in terms of what creates a treaty or comprises a treaty and what doesn't. In the end, what determines whether something is a treaty is how it is approved by Congress. From my standpoint, when we take a look at the considerations in the Foreign Affairs Manual, in terms of what actually causes something to become a treaty, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affects the Nation as a whole. I think this deal between Iran and America and the world affects and risks--certainly affects the Nation as a whole. Another consideration is whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress. I think the fact that we are even debating this bill lends credence to the fact that Congress needs to be involved. In the end, though, it is not about involving Congress. This is about involving the American people. I think the American people should have a say through their elected officials as to whether this is a good deal or a bad deal. The fact that this bill does allow some involvement, some role, forces the administration to, for example, provide us the details of the bill. Can you imagine the arrogance that they would not even provide the details without this bill? Again, I appreciate the Senator yielding time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1150.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHNSON

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