To improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I rise to debate the rule providing for consideration of the three bills related to the Department of Veterans Affairs--interestingly, all under one rule. We have been doing two bills under one rule. We are now headed to three. I recommend we just put all of our bills under a rule and save us a lot of time.

The first bill under today's rule, to improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the bipartisanship reflected in this bill is certainly a rarity in this body and, frankly, could have easily come before us under the suspension of the rules.

There are nearly 47,000 job vacancies for doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals throughout the Veterans Administration's healthcare system. The VA is consistently rated as one of the worst Federal agencies in terms of pay and leadership, and since 2009, the number of VA employees resigning or retiring has risen every year.

As of the new year, 547,000 patients were waiting more than 30 days for care at a VA hospital. It is clear that we must act to improve the VA on a holistic level, and this bill is a good start.

This legislation establishes staffing, recruitment, and retention programs to enable the VA to build a stronger workforce.

However, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee majority did not make in order an amendment that I offered to this measure, which would have allowed the Secretary of the VA to fill any existing vacant positions within the Veterans Administration, regardless of whether the position was vacated before or after the reckless hiring freeze imposed by Donald John Trump.

I would also note that Representatives Schrader and Moulton offered an amendment that would fully lift the hiring freeze, but the Rules Committee blocked this amendment as well from receiving a vote on the House floor. I remain disheartened at the way the majority continues to operate the business of the House of Representatives.

The bipartisanship this bill enjoys dissipates when we move to another bill wrapped in today's three-rule measure, and that is H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. Before I launch into all of my remarks regarding this, I want to make it very clear that I and most Members of the House of Representatives will do everything we can to protect the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens and veterans especially.

This legislation, however, if enacted, would immediately enable approximately 174,000 veterans currently deemed mentally unfit by the VA to purchase firearms. At its core, this bill assumes that all veterans with mental illness should have unfettered access to guns, regardless of whether they will turn the weapon on themselves or their loved ones, and that any determination otherwise is simply wrong. The broadly reaching bill arbitrarily removes every veteran flagged by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System from its rolls, literally putting tens of thousands of lives at risk.

Let's look at the facts. Under procedures currently in place by the VA and the Department of Justice, an individual who lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs can be prevented from purchasing a gun. This term applies to veterans with severe mental illnesses who require a fiduciary to help manage their VA benefits. If the veteran thinks there was an error or that he or she was unfairly disqualified, the veteran can utilize the same due process and appeals procedures that are available for other VA decisions.

Under the current process, which was codified in the 21st Century Cures Act just a few months ago, the veteran is allowed a hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals and given several opportunities for judicial review and appeal in Federal court.

Mr. Speaker, this bill turns this sensible and humane approach on its head. It is time that we acknowledge where we are as a country. It is time that we deal with the fact that we are in the midst of a veterans' suicide epidemic. Twenty veterans kill themselves every day. That is 7,300 of our finest and bravest persons in our society. Two-thirds of these suicides are carried out using firearms.

A Department of Veterans Affairs report, provided to Congress in 2015, revealed that nearly 20,000 veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia, 15,000 diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and thousands more diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer's, and serious depression were on the NICS rolls. Under this bill, these individuals and many more would be given immediate

access to guns, putting themselves and others in danger.

Even as our Nation suffers shooting after shooting, Congress has not acted. Democrats held a sit-in in this very room in that well in this last Congress to protest the callousness of the House Republican leadership in preventing us from even considering legislation to protect our citizens with reference to guns. Rather than act to address gun violence, we instead considered legislation like this, which will actually lead to more gun violence, Mr. Speaker. The logic and lack of compassion in such an approach absolutely escapes me.

Our country has witnessed horrific shootings in the past few years. Dozens of children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Nearly 50 people were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. One of our very own from this Congress was nearly assassinated while holding a townhall event in 2011. We continue to ignore the ramifications of shootings at Oak Creek, Aurora, Virginia Tech--I could go on and on--Charleston. The list just continues. 32,000 Americans lose their lives every year from gun violence.

We have grieved together. And I, along with several of my colleagues, have stopped standing down here in the well for a moment of silence and then going back to our regular business after hundreds of our people are killed throughout this society. We have demanded change together, and we have been shocked by the paralysis that has gripped this institution when it comes to taking commonsense steps to end our country's gun violence epidemic.

Today, we see in this bill another measure coming out of Republican leadership that sprints toward the goal set by this country's powerful gun lobby. Listen up, NRA, there are people like me that aspire to have a zero rating by you every year. And it is not just the gun lobbyists, it is gun manufacturers as well. It may be great for the gun manufacturers' bottom line and the NRA's bottom line, but it is terrible for those brave men and women who have served this country so fully, those brave men and women who suffer wounds that may not be visible to the naked eye, but are no less real and worthy of our attention.

With each new tragedy that occurs, whether it be a mass shooting or the 20 servicemembers we lose every day to suicide, those who stand in the way of legislation to address our country's gun violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its continuation. I am disgusted with this morally bankrupt obfuscation, and I think the American people are, too.

Let me lay down a marker. Of the 435, plus six Members of the House of Representatives and the 100 U.S. Senators, I want to see the first person when this measure goes into effect, if it does, and 174,000 veterans are taken off of the NICS rolls and can access guns, the first one that dies--and I hope we track it--I want everybody to stand up and remember that we had a chance to stop it here. Don't tell me, if 20 veterans are killing themselves every day and if 7,000-plus of them are killing themselves every year--and we won't even mention domestic violence and the horror that comes from those guns--if we continue this effort, we will allow more deaths along those lines.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the final bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017, and the Republicans' continued assault on the working people of this country.

At its core, this bill is an attack on workers' rights, plain and simple, and will do more harm than good in our efforts to improve care at the Veterans Administration. This legislation would strip the collective bargaining rights of VA workers. It weakens an employee's right to appeal. It weakens protections for VA workers who speak up against mismanagement and patient harm.

Republicans claim they want to help fix our VA system, yet, with this bill, they do that by insulting, undermining, and attacking the very employees who serve and care for our veterans, including the over 120,000 veterans who work for the VA. Yesterday, one of our colleagues presented at the Rules Committee a statistic that I didn't know. Of the 2 million Federal employees in this great Nation of ours, 640,000 of them are veterans. So when we get ready to pare back this government that somehow or another people have targeted for all sorts of cuts, if you read today's budget proposal by Donald John Trump, you will see that lots of these veterans will be losing their jobs, in addition to all of the things that we have already discussed.

We need to make improvements at the VA. Everybody knows that. That is clear. But singling out VA employees and their protections is counterproductive, to say the least, and only compounds manpower shortages plaguing the agency.

This legislation will exacerbate recruitment problems and impair retention at the agency. It threatens the agency's ability to build a robust clinical workforce by threatening the quality of care that the VA will be able to provide.

I don't know what the pique is by my Republican colleagues with reference to workers in this country. They talk a very good game about protecting workers and we are going to bring back jobs and we are going to do all of these things that are going to protect the middle class.

I will get a chance to talk about this a little bit more, but I am very proud of the unions in this Nation. They are the unions that people like my father and countless of us who served in the House of Representatives worked in and helped build this Nation. They are the people that our veterans from the Second World War, the Korean conflict, and Vietnam who became union members and went on to do things for collective bargaining that made workers' rights be better for people in America. And I don't see tearing them down--let alone in the VA administration--is something that we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle know exactly where their priorities lie with this bill, and it is certainly not with improving the quality of care of our veterans, but rather in exploiting yet another opportunity to attack the rights of working men and women across our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have great respect for my colleague whose district abuts a portion of my district in Florida. I want to make it very clear that it is important to listen to what a person says. My colleague just commented that I did not offer the specifics with reference to persons who suffered some form of mental illness; and he said that, in my passionate remarks, I failed to provide those specifics.

Let me go back and read you my remarks again. A Department of Veterans Affairs report provided to Congress in 2015 revealed that nearly 20,000 veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia, 15,000 diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and thousands more diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer's, and serious depression.

Is that specific enough for you, or do I need to add additional reasons?

Evidently my colleague didn't hear that.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, is schizophrenia one of those things that isn't specific enough for you?

Reclaiming my time, that is what you should have said rather than say that I didn't offer specifics, and I just want to make that very clear to you.

I don't think that people with diagnosis of schizophrenia, that have been allowed--that their fiduciaries have determined that their mental illness allows that they should not get a gun, I suggest to you and to anybody that those persons that have a gun--and I made the distinction. You evidently didn't hear that part either. I made the distinction about the Second Amendment and how much I support it and I support veterans, and I support veterans' rights to defend themselves. But I don't support crazy people having guns, whether they are veterans or not, and it is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friend from Colorado to know that I have no additional speakers and I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friend that sits on the Rules Committee, my colleague from Georgia, correctly speaks to this issue and its need to go to the Judiciary Committee or other committees to ensure that veterans have the appropriate adjudication.

I don't know where he or my colleague from Florida would place schizophrenia. I am not a mental health expert, but I have spent a good portion of my career here in Congress dealing with issues and trying to address issues of mental health, be it veterans or not.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 696, Representative Schrader's bill to exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs from Donald John Trump's hiring freeze. As we have already discussed, my amendment to allow the VA Secretary to fill vacant positions, regardless of whether they were vacated before or after the hiring freeze, was blocked last night in the Rules Committee.

There are nearly 47,000 vacant positions within the VA, and we should not be limiting the VA's authority to fill these positions, especially as we continue to work towards reducing patient wait times.

On a bipartisan basis, Members of both the House and Senate have requested that the VA be exempt from the hiring freeze. Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation to ensure that the VA can recruit and hire qualified staff to meet the needs of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are gathered here, once again, to debate the same old, tired, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt policies championed by my friends across the aisle, policies that will, while we face a suicide epidemic among those servicemembers who have so bravely served this country, make it easier for them to take their own lives by increasing their access to guns. That may be good policy for the powerful gun lobby and gun manufacturers, but it is horrendous policy for the American people.

We have before us legislation that will gut workers' rights for VA employees while also making it easier to reprimand those who are brave enough to speak out against the ills they see occurring at the VA--ills that have and will continue to undermine the quality of service our veterans are able to receive.

All of this moral ineptitude is set against the backdrop of a healthcare plan recently put forth by Republicans that will raise the number of uninsured in this country to 24 million in under 10 years. This includes 14 million folks being unceremoniously kicked off of Medicaid and 7 million Americans kicked off of the health insurance plans they receive through their employers.

This is a plan that will increase premiums for individual policyholders by up to 29 percent. This is a plan that will increase, particularly for older Americans, out-of-pocket healthcare expenses.

Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, this is no plan at all but rather a shameful and cynical massive giveaway to the ultrawealthy at the expense of the middle class that will result in hardworking Americans paying far more for far, far less.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this institution 25 years, and I have been on this Earth 80 years. I have seen an awful lot of trauma during that period of time. I served as a State court judge and had the responsibility of Baker Acting--it is called in Florida--people to mental institutions. I have established fiduciaries for people who were unable to take care of themselves. I worked actively when we had mental health hospitals to keep those mental health hospitals open.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, so that you can say to the gentleman who asked that I apologize, that I apologize for nothing having to do with any remarks that I made within the confines of what is allowed in this institution. The simple fact of the matter is I used the term ``crazy,'' and I had reference to schizophrenia. Now, it may very well be that these are not broken people, it is that they are brave people who came home with problems. But crazy is crazy, and I would say that until the day I die.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I would now like to ask him, we passed the DOD Appropriations bill and sent that to the Senate. We have already done the MILCON bill. And I am wondering--there are ten remaining bills--whether the majority leader could give me some idea, in light of the fact that the CR, which once it goes to April 28, we will either have to do those bills individually or in some sort of an omnibus, whether the gentleman has any idea how soon we might be considering the balance of the year's appropriation to September 30?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that insightful comment.

Let me say this, Mr. Leader, if, as we did in the Defense Appropriations bill, if we follow the template where we will reach bipartisan agreement on those bills in committee without any poison pills language in them--which you did on the appropriation bill, and, as you saw, we appreciated that, and we were overwhelmingly supportive of that effort--I would hope that, Mr. Leader, you would urge--and I think, very frankly, I am a big fan of Mr. Frelinghuysen, who is the chairman of the committee. I think he is a Member that I have worked well with over the years, and I think he is somebody who is going to do the committee proud as its chairman--but I am hopeful that we can do, as we did with the appropriation bill for the Defense Department, a similar procedure. So I think that the majority leader will be pleased with our support if, in fact, that can happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, on a less happy collegial note, it comes as no surprise to the majority leader at the height of our displeasure and disappointment as it relates to what is going on, back to the consideration of the reconciliation process for the repeal or modification of the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act. The bill was posted this Monday, this past Monday night, it was marked up on Wednesday, there were no hearings, there were no opportunities for witnesses to come forward. And as the gentleman knows, he is absolutely correct, I like these quotes, but I like these quotes because they point out theoretically what I would have great agreement with in terms of process.

Particularly, I call your attention to a quote of Speaker Paul Ryan: ``Congress is moving fast to rush through a healthcare overhaul that lacks a key ingredient: the full participation of you, the American people.''

That quote was July 19, 2009. That quote was referring to the process involved in the adoption of the Affordable Care Act.

As the gentleman knows, the Affordable Care Act had 79 hearings. As the gentleman knows, there were 181 witnesses who testified about the Affordable Care Act. As the gentleman knows, that process took approximately 1\1/2\ years, 8 months of which was waiting to see whether Senator Grassley would participate in a bipartisan way in forging healthcare reform in this country.

The gentleman is well aware, not only have we had literally hundreds of thousands of people around the country come to townhall meetings, many that his Members have held, and express their deep concern about the loss of healthcare security if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. So there is no doubt that the American public--I am not saying it is 100 percent--but a large number of the American public are very concerned.

The gentleman further knows, I am sure, because I am sure he has seen the letters, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association,

even the Consumers Union, and hundreds of other groups representing providers, patients, even insurance companies, have expressed deep, deep concern about the adverse consequences of the passage of the American Health Care Act that was marked up in the dead of night. We were criticized. The gentleman apparently doesn't agree with that. But the facts are the facts. They are not alternative facts.

You started marking them up on Wednesday morning, there was some delay during the day, as you know, because we were very concerned about how fast you were moving that. Less than 48 hours after it was introduced, it was marked up. No hearings, no witnesses, no ability to read the bill.

As a matter of fact, shockingly, Mr. Brady voted against an amendment which said: Read the bill. Now, what was shocking about that is that was Mr. Brady's amendment that he offered back in 2010. He voted against the amendment that said: Read the bill. I don't think anybody really had much opportunity to read the bill before it was marked up.

Greg Walden, who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said also, in July of 2009:

On a bill of this significance, you would think that we

would at least allow people to come in who are affected by

the extraordinary changes in this bill and have a chance to

let us know how it affects them.

That was Greg Walden, now the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, July 9, 2009. He is now in charge of that committee. Not a single witness testified on the bill that was marked up in his committee. And it was marked up through the dead of the night, if we want to parse our words, because it started in the morning of Wednesday. But it didn't end until the morning, 26 hours later, on Thursday. Which meant that Mr. Walden kept his members in their seats marking up a bill, except when they were voting coming over here, for 26 hours straight on one of the most consequential bills this House will consider and that the Senate will consider, affecting, as I said, millions and millions and millions of people.

Now, I understand the Budget Committee is scheduled to mark that bill up on Wednesday, just a week later. Again, I don't know whether there are going to be hearings and if those hearings will be open to the witnesses that should be called to testify on a bill of such impact.

Let me do one additional quote, because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee had an interesting quote as well. He said: ``The Democratic Congress and White House simply aren't listening. Democrats are ramming it through over the public's objections.''

That was on March 17, 2010, some year after the bill had been introduced. Thousands of meetings had been held by Republicans and Democrats around the country on the bill. And, as I said, 79 hearings and 181 witnesses later. That is what Chairman Brady said.

And, of course, Chairman Brady, in less than 48 hours, had a markup. Now, he did not have quite as long a markup. It ended at 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning. So that was the dead of night. Or, if you want to parse words, perhaps, the dead of the early morning. But, nevertheless, most of my public wasn't up watching. I presume even at 4:30, which would have been 1:30 for your public, they weren't up watching.

So this was done out of the sight of the public and is inconsistent, I suggest to my friend, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, inconsistent with the pledge of transparency, openness, and those three quotes that I just read you that said the American people should have the opportunity to express their opinion on legislation generally, but certainly on legislation of this consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, we have had, literally, tens of thousands of hearings that have dealt with almost every issue that this

House considers. I suppose I should take from the majority leader's discussion that, if we have had those hearings in previous Congresses, in the last Congress, the Congress before that, the Congress before that, and we have a substantial number of new Members in this House, and we have millions and millions of voters who are counting on this, we will just simply tell them: Read the transcript of 2002 or of 2009 or of 2013. That is not regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Regular order is you introduce a bill. It is referred to a committee, which in turn refers it to a subcommittee, and, even if it keeps it in the bosom of the full committee, it has a hearing. It posts the bill. It tells citizens throughout this country: If you have an interest, come in and tell us what your interest is, what your perspective is, what you think the ramifications of this bill are. The subcommittee marks it up, if it was referred to a subcommittee, then the full committee marks it up, and then it is referred to the floor. That is regular order, Mr. Speaker.

To rationalize a procedure which has a bill introduced Monday night and is subjected to 26 hours, straight, of markup on the following Wednesday, less than 48 hours later, no matter how you dress it up, that is not, Mr. Speaker, regular order.

What it is is trying to jam through a bill before the American public has an opportunity to tell us what they think about the bill. What it is is jamming through a bill and not allowing the providers, the doctors, the patients, the insurance companies, all of the stakeholders, to have an opportunity to read that bill introduced about 72 hours ago now--a little more than that, maybe close to 96.

That, Mr. Speaker, is not regular order. And I will tell my friend for whom I have a great deal of respect, I think he puts the best face on it, but nobody believed the Republicans had a bill, Mr. Speaker, until Monday night. Well, actually, I believed they had a bill at the last colloquy, and I looked for it all over this Capitol. I couldn't find it. It wasn't posted. The ranking member on the committee didn't have it. No committee Democrat had the bill. They couldn't read it.

So to pretend, Mr. Speaker, that hearings on some other bill at some other time in some other Congress suffices for regular order is something, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with. And if the situations were reversed, as I have experienced over the last 36 years, that side of the aisle would have torn this place apart. Why do I think that? Because I have seen it.

Yes, we had some delaying, four motions to adjourn, so that we had some time to figure out what this bill was about and some time to hear from the American people. It certainly wasn't enough time. We are going to be hearing more from the American people, I think, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman trying to say that, well, we only had 48 hours. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we do that in a hurry. And the reason is because we are about to go on a break. We are about to go on an August break or a recess or something of that nature. That is not the case. These committees didn't have to meet through the night. They could have met Thursday. They could have met today. They could meet next week. But this bill is being rushed through too fast with too much adverse consequence to the American people.

I would hope the majority leader would slow this bill down. I hope the Rules Committee has full hearings on this bill and that it does not have just attenuated hearings with few witnesses, because there are a lot of people who want to tell us, their Representatives, what their view is of this bill.

I know the Speaker has said there are going to be three phases to this bill, and the majority leader said so as well, and there will be additional legislation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my friend, the majority leader, will urge the committees not to consider additional legislation either in the middle of the night or with no notice and no opportunity for witnesses and no hearings.

Previous hearings will not suffice, Mr. Speaker. Other Congresses had hearings. This Congress has a responsibility to hear from the American people. That is what Speaker Ryan said; that is what Mr. Brady said; that is what Mr. Walden said. They said it at a time when they were in the minority, but it ought to apply when they are in the majority. And if we are in the majority, it ought to apply to us as well. I hope that happens, Mr. Speaker, for the country's sake, for our people's sake.

I will yield to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if he would like to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I presume that he has heard from--I don't have the quotes in front of me,

but maybe I will bring them next week--the thousands of people who have said their lives have been saved by the Affordable Care Act; the thousands of parents with a child with a preexisting condition that, if the Republicans had succeeded in their 65 votes to repeal it, would not have been protected; the millions of seniors who are paying less for their prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act.

I could read all those letters.

Why do I read the letters of Mr. Walden, Mr. Brady, and Speaker Ryan?

Because they are in charge.

All our constituents, on either side, had no opportunity to testify on this bill. But Speaker Ryan, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Brady could have given them that opportunity, and they chose not to. They rationalize it apparently because, well, we had hearings in the past.

Does this bill have the subject matter of the ACA?

It does. But this bill was offered just some, as I said, 90-or-so hours ago. And the leader says: Well, that is okay. It is based on all those hearings we had.

The fact is this bill has not been brought forward for the last 7 years while there was a repeal for ACA.

Why?

We all know why. Mr. Speaker, it is because the majority could not come to an agreement, and they are not in agreement now. Perhaps, if this bill stands out there a little bit, it is so flawed they won't be able to get the votes on their side of the floor.

I was here--I don't think the majority leader was here--when we adopted the part D prescription drug program. It was called up by the majority, the Republican Party at the evening hour; and we voted from 3 a.m. until 6 a.m. And when I say we voted, that vote was kept open for 3 hours while they opportuned their Members: You have got to vote for this. President Bush wants it. You have got to vote for this.

We voted against it. But the vote was held open 3 hours, I tell my friend. That was not regular order.

Now, our side has held a vote open from time to time--never for 3 hours, but from time to time. That is why it is being rushed. It is not because they had a lot of hearings before, not because witnesses had testified they didn't like the Affordable Care Act. We understand that.

The issue is not whether people like or dislike the Affordable Care Act. It is how are we going to provide what the President has promised: access for everybody to health care at a lower cost and a better price.

I told the majority leader last week--and I repeat my comments, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader this week--if they bring such a bill to the floor, I will support it. This bill does not do that.

So what President Trump promised during the election and what he promised from that podium just a few days ago is not what this bill represents. It is not what they promised to the American people.

What I asked the majority leader was--they are apparently going to have some additional bills--whether or not they will be also rushed through without hearings on the premise that there were hearings in the past.

I repeat that there are a lot of new Members in this body that didn't have the opportunity to have those hearings and weren't in this body. I don't know how many there are because I don't know how many Congresses we are talking about if we adopted this bill 7 years ago and then there were hearings subsequent.

So I don't know where we are going, Mr. Speaker, but I think the American people expect an opportunity to be heard. Yes, I may quote some next week.

The people who were elected by the American people to do their job have the power to open up the doors and open up the windows and pull back the curtains so that the American people could come in and testify. There were all those witnesses who testified in the last Congress and the Congress before that, but I am talking about the people who testified during a Congress in which we considered the bill. We haven't had an open rule this year, Mr. Speaker. We have had structured rules. We have had no open rule.

So in terms of the majority leader telling me, Mr. Speaker, that we want everybody to have their opportunity, and he caricatures one amendment that was--I think I would agree with him--more to show that not a single Republican would vote. And Mr. Brady, as I pointed out, didn't vote for his own amendment that he offered when the Affordable Care Act was marked up to say read the bill.

Time was not given to read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understand we are not going to come to any conclusion today; but I am hopeful that the process that was perpetrated on not only the minority but also the majority this week will not be repeated, and that the representations that have been made by the Speaker, by the young guns, and by so many others would be a process that is, in fact, open, thoughtful, and democratic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my manager's amendment makes a number of minor technical changes to the reported version of the bill and would significantly reduce discretionary costs while maintaining the overall intent of the bill.

The biggest change that would be made in the manager's amendment is the removal of section 11 of the bill, which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to track a number of hiring effectiveness metrics.

That section alone scored at $6 million because the Congressional Budget Office expected that the VA would have to hire an additional employee in each Veterans Integrated Service Network in order to gather that information. I disagree with that assertion and I intend to continue working on that provision to, hopefully, include it in future legislation in some form.

In addition, the manager's amendment would authorize but not require the VA to track and match qualified job applicants for vacant positions using the recruiting database that the bill would establish. The CBO estimated that the VA would have to hire up to 40 additional employees with an average compensation of $100,000 per year to accomplish that task, meaning that provision in total would cost $19 million. Again, I disagree with the assertion that such a task could not be accomplished using existing staff.

The Subcommittee on Health, which I am proud to chair, is holding an oversight hearing next week where I intend

to ask the VA how the Department would utilize the recruiting database and whether it would entail additional employees. Should it appear that the VA would not use the recruiting database to identify qualified candidates for open positions in a timely manner and to promptly fill prolonged vacancies, I will certainly reconsider mandating that in future legislation.

The manager's amendment would also stipulate that the additional human resources training that the bill would require be done virtually. Finally, it would extend the timeline to implement the executive management fellowship program from 90 days to 1 year, which would provide the VA additional time to set up this important new leadership development program and would extend the GAO reporting deadline from 1 to 2 years, which would provide the GAO additional time to complete their investigation into the VA succession planning.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr, Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Meng's amendment, which would stipulate that the annual determination of Veterans Health Administration staffing shortages must include at least five clinical occupations and five nonclinical occupations within each VA medical center.

This amendment rightfully recognizes that some VA medical centers may have staffing challenges that extend beyond just 10 occupations and provides sufficient flexibility for this reporting requirement--which triggers the VA's direct hiring authority--to accommodate that by reporting more than five clinical and five nonclinical occupations, as needed.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I thank Representative Meng for submitting it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Sewell's amendment, which would authorize the Secretary in selecting employees to participate in the executive management fellowship program established by section 3 of the bill, to provide a preference for employees in rural areas.

According to VA's Office of Rural Health, there are currently 3 million veterans living in rural communities across the country who rely on the VA healthcare system for their care.

It is critical that VA medical facilities in rural areas are given access to leadership development opportunities like the executive management fellowship program so that rural veterans benefit from them.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I thank Representative Sewell for submitting it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Hanabusa's amendment, which would strike section 6 of the bill.

Section 6 would allow the VA to noncompetitively reappoint a former VA employee to a position not more than one grade higher than their former position, as long as the employee left voluntarily within the prior 2 years, had a satisfactory performance record, and maintained necessary licensures and credentials.

The former employees who would be helped by this section had performed admirably, left voluntarily, and gone on to gain relevant education or experience that the VA needs. They should be encouraged to come back to the VA and put their new skills to work for our veterans, not required to go through a lengthy competitive selection process at the VA for the second time.

Striking this provision would deprive the VA of an authority that could be used to address access and other challenges by recruiting high-performing former employees back to VA employment.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Buck's amendment, which would prevent former VA political appointees from receiving nonpolitical, competitively selected positions pursuant to section 6 of the bill without going through the proper competitive selection process.

This amendment would prevent political appointees from inappropriately burrowing in across VA, and I am in full support of it.

I thank Representative Buck for submitting this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Shea- Porter's amendment, which would require the VA to ensure that the recruiting database established by section 7 of the bill includes a list of open mental health positions.

Though I am glad to report that, as of January, only 3,469 of VA's 45,360 vacant positions were specific to mental health, it is critical that the VA closely track to mental health vacancies on an ongoing basis so that they can be prioritized and filled to prevent any disruptions in care to our most vulnerable veterans.

I am fully supportive of this amendment and grateful to Representative Shea-Porter for submitting it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Brownley's amendment, which would stipulate that the Government Accountability Office report on VA succession planning should include an assessment of succession planning at VA medical centers, domiciliary facilities, outpatient clinics, community-based outpatient clinics, and vet centers.

I appreciate this clarifying amendment and my friend and colleague Representative Brownley, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, for submitting it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Welch's amendment, which would ensure that the GAO report on VA succession planning includes an analysis of succession planning in rural areas.

Rural facilities undoubtedly face unique challenges in recruiting and retaining employees and in planning effectively to ensure leadership continuity as employees retire or depart. I am glad that, with the adoption of this amendment, GAO will be reviewing these issues specifically and will be able to offer recommendations as to how VA can improve succession planning in rural areas where approximately 40 percent of our veterans reside.

I appreciate Representative Welch for submitting this amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Gottheimer's amendments which would ensure that veterans who are recent graduates and/or recipients of the

post-9/11 GI Bill are also eligible for excepted service appointments under section 12 of the bill.

As a veteran and as the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, there are few things I support as strongly as assisting veterans in seeking and receiving employment opportunities, particularly in the Federal Government.

The skill sets and commitment to service that veterans display while in uniform often make them particularly suited to government work once they transition to civilian life. The adoption of this amendment would provide yet another tool to support veterans looking to continue their service to our Nation, and I am grateful to Representative Gottheimer for submitting it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Hanabusa's amendment, which would tweak the report on exit surveys the VA is required to submit in section 13 of the bill to stipulate the VA provide the total number of employees who voluntarily separated from VA service and the percentage of those who took an exit survey.

This information will be very helpful for Congress to receive in order to track how many employees are choosing to voluntarily leave the VA and are taking advantage of the opportunity to complete an exit survey prior to their departure.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I am grateful to Representative Hanabusa for submitting it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Meng's amendment, which would encourage military medical professionals who are transitioning out of the Armed Forces to seek employment within the Veterans Health Administration.

Wherever possible, the VA should be filling vacant positions at VA medical facilities with eligible, qualified veterans. And I am fully supportive of any amendment like this one that recognizes the highly specialized skills that many veterans gained while in uniform, skills that, in this case, could be used in service to fellow veterans by addressing access to care challenges across the country.

I am grateful to Representative Meng for this important amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Bost's amendment, which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a plan to hire directors at each VA medical center that lacks a permanent director.

Twenty-five percent of current VA medical center directors are eligible to retire, and the VA testified last year that it can take more than 6 months and multiple reannouncements to recruit new VA medical center directors.

The VA must begin planning now to ensure that leadership at VA medical centers across the country remain stable and that medical center director vacancies are closely monitored and prioritized.

The text of this amendment passed the House last year with unanimous support, and I am grateful to Representative Bost for submitting this amendment again this year to H.R. 1367.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative O'Rourke's amendment, which would allow the VA to offer physicians conditional job offers 2 years prior to the completion of their residency, and also require VA recruiters or other officials to visit each teaching institution with a residency program at least once a

year. It is a great idea and one that I greatly appreciate.

The VA's existing workforce is increasingly retirement-eligible, and, historically, the VA has performed poorly in comparison to other Federal agencies when it comes to hiring younger employees.

By creating a pipeline of young, up-and-coming physicians willing to practice in VA medical facilities and committed to VA service, this amendment would help ensure that the VA healthcare system is fully staffed to care for our veterans for years to come.

The text of this amendment passed the House last year as an amendment to H.R. 5620, and I am grateful to Representative O'Rourke for submitting it as an amendment to H.R. 1367 today.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert any extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 1367.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1367, to improve the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs to recruit and retain employees.

VA's mission of honoring and serving our Nation's veterans is second to none in the Federal Government, and a high-quality, high-performing workforce is key to VA's ability to successfully execute on that mission.

H.R. 1367 contains a number of provisions that would strengthen VA's ability to identify staffing shortages, recruit employees to fill vacant positions, quickly onboard new hires, and retain high-performing workers across the country. It also contains provisions that would improve leadership and accountability throughout VA and increase the number of veterans in the Federal workforce.

To assist VA in identifying and addressing local staffing deficiencies, this bill would modify the annual determination of staffing shortages to include five clinical occupations and five nonclinical occupations for each VA medical center. Staffing needs can vary significantly from facility to facility, even within the same State, and create a variety of delays, backlogs, and other challenges for veterans.

This provision would allow VA to use this existing reporting tool, which dates back to the 2014 Choice Act, to target a total of 10 occupations at each VA medical center and use VA's existing direct hire authority to expeditiously address shortages for those occupations.

To increase leadership development opportunities for emerging leaders and encourage the dissemination of best practices between and among VA and private sector, the bill would establish an executive management program to allow eligible VA and private sector employees the opportunity to take 1-year fellowship positions in either comparable private sector entities or VA, respectively. This idea was brought to us by a veteran participating in the joint Veterans of Foreign Wars- Student Veterans of America legislative fellowship program and would mirror a successful fellowship model used by the White House and the State Department.

To increase accountability for senior VA decisionmakers, the bill would require annual performance plans for VA political appointees, similar to the annual performance plans that are required for Senior Executive Service employees.

Like SES employees, political appointees perform at the very highest levels and play critical roles in setting and achieving high profile policies and priorities. It is only appropriate that they too be held accountable for their performance.

To incentivize the hiring of veterans across the Federal Government, the bill would change the service requirement for reservists and guardsmen to be eligible for veterans' preference from 180 days of consecutive Active-Duty service to 180 days of cumulative Active-Duty service, and expand those considered preference eligible to include all retired servicemembers.

Veterans gain a variety of skills during their time in uniform and are often

uniquely suited to Federal employment. In recognition of this, some form of veterans' preference has been in place since the Civil War. By modernizing this important benefit today, we can bring needed skill sets to the Federal workforce and promote employment opportunities for veterans, a win-win if there ever was one.

To encourage former VA employees who left VA service to gain relevant education or experience and then return to the VA, the bill would allow the VA to noncompetitively reappoint a former employee to a position not more than 1 grade higher than their former position.

I believe we must do everything possible to encourage former employees to come back and work at the VA and reward them for furthering themselves and using their new skills to benefit veterans.

In order to be eligible for reappointment under this authority, the former employee must have voluntarily, within the prior 2 years, maintained a satisfactory performance record while at the VA, and retained any necessary licensures or credentials.

To assist the VA in identifying and prioritizing vacancies, the bill would require the VA to establish a recruiting database listing each vacant position that the VA determines is critical to the VA's mission, is difficult to fill, or both.

Also, the bill would authorize and encourage the VA to track qualified applicants for vacant positions and use the recruiting database and the qualified applicant pool to quickly fill vacancies that have gone unfilled for a prolonged time.

To ensure the VA human resources professionals have a thorough understanding of the VA's unique hiring authorities, the bill would require Veterans Health Administration HR employees to receive regular, ongoing training.

The VA healthcare system benefits from direct hiring authorities for clinical personnel under title 38, United States Code. However, these hiring authorities are unique to the VA and can be complex and difficult for HR employees to understand and work with, which increases the likelihood that those authorities go underused and HR professionals experience burnout.

This provision would support those professionals in their important work while ensuring that veterans benefit as much as possible from the special hiring authorities that Congress has granted the VA in statute.

To encourage highly skilled employees wishing to advance in their career at the VA without taking on a management role, this bill would require the VA to establish a promotional track for technical experts that does not require transition to a managerial position. This is a commonsense provision that would increase the VA's ability to retain employees in highly technical positions who want to remain at the VA and continue moving forward in their careers, but are either uninterested in or ill-suited to becoming a manager.

To increase the understanding of the VA's succession planning efforts, the bill would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on succession planning at each VA medical facility, as well as within the Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration.

Earlier this week, the VA confirmed that 80 percent of current Veterans Integrated Service Network directors and 25 percent of current VA Medical Center directors are eligible to retire. Last year, the VA testified that it can take more than 6 months and multiple reannouncements to fill these important positions in both rural and major metropolitan areas.

Effective succession planning is critical to ensuring stable leadership and to identifying and developing emerging leaders who are ready, willing, and able to step up when existing directors or other managers retire or depart. I look forward to reviewing the results of GAO's work to see what further improvements can be made in this area.

To improve recruitment and retention of younger employees, the bill would require the VA to allow for excepted service appointments leading to conversion to career or career-conditional employment for students and recent graduates.

VA's existing workforce is aging and, as I mentioned just a moment ago, increasingly retirement-eligible. Unfortunately, the VA has historically performed poorly in comparison to other Federal agencies when it comes to hiring younger employees, which could put the VA's future at risk. I am hopeful that this provision will increase the VA's ability to build a pipeline of young talent.

Finally, to increase the VA's understanding of why departing employees choose to leave the VA and, in turn, how the VA could improve in order to retain other employees, this bill would require the VA to develop and deploy a standardized, anonymous exit survey process. The VA has an existing survey process but it is underutilized, with just 30 percent of all clinical employees completing it prior to their departure over the last 5 years, according to a GAO report issued last year.

Factors that contribute to employees voluntarily leaving VA service cannot be addressed unless they are identified, and this provision would help us do that.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the future of the VA, our Nation's second largest bureaucracy, depends on the VA's ability to effectively and efficiently recruit and retain highly qualified and motivated employees in towns and cities across this country. In an increasingly competitive market with an increasingly retirement-eligible workforce, the stakes are simply too high for the VA to continue to struggle to hire the employees it needs.

While more remains to be done to simplify and shorten the VA's hiring process and strengthen the VA's ability to bring the very best professionals onboard to serve our veterans, H.R. 1367 is the first step to ensuring a sufficient VA workforce is available to veterans for generations to come.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2017.

Hon. David P. Roe,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 1367, ``to

improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to

hire and retain physicians and other employees of the

Department of Veterans Affairs; and for other purposes.'' As

you know, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs received an

original referral and the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform a secondary referral when the bill was

introduced on March 6, 2017, I recognize and appreciate your

desire to bring this legislation before the House of

Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly,

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will forego

action on the bill.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1367 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I

request your support for the appointment of conferees from

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any

House-Senate conference convened on this or related

legislation.

Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the

Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as well as in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration, to

memorialize our understanding.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a second here to thank the ranking member for his hard work and putting forth many of the ideas that are in this bill and working with us, and thank him for his service to our country in the military and the high rank that he achieved, and bringing those experiences to us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who has been a very vocal supporter of our veterans every step of the way.

Mr. Chair, once again, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 1367, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Our veterans have paid a high price. Dispatched to foreign lands to fight for our freedom, many returned injured, grief-stricken over lost friends, and torn apart by the violence of war.

We owe them our time, our energy, our gratitude, and our protection. That is why we are here on the floor today: to protect the constitutional rights of our heroes and to make sure we are taking care of them like we promised we would.

H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, ensures that government cannot strip our heroes of their constitutional rights without due process. Under current law, if the VA determines that a veteran needs a guardian or fiduciary to help manage their benefits, then that veteran's name must be sent to the NICS database, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm.

The decision to strip any constitutional right from anyone, most importantly our veterans who have put their lives on the line to defend our Constitution, needs to be made with due process. The VA was never designed to adjudicate the removal of constitutional rights. This decision should be made by a judge or judicial authority.

Instead of stripping veterans of constitutional rights, our VA should be focused on protecting veterans. That is exactly what the other two bills under consideration do.

H.R. 1259 gives the Department of Veterans Affairs greater ability to discipline employees for misconduct or poor performance.

We entrust our VA employees with the health and well-being of our veterans. Most of these employees do a great job, working hard to make sure our heroes are cared for; but, occasionally, a VA employee engages in misconduct, behavior that can endanger the very lives of our veterans.

These men and women sacrificed to serve our Nation. The least we can do is enable them to receive the best care possible at the VA. That is why we need H.R. 1259, to allow the VA, under an expedited process, to fire or suspend or demote employees who are putting our veterans at risk.

The legislation also allows the VA to recoup the money paid in bonuses or relocation grants to employees convicted of a felony.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve the best. They deserve the best employees. They deserve the best medical staff. That is what the third bill under consideration, H.R. 1367, will achieve. This legislation improves the VA's ability to recruit the best medical staff, offering the agency direct hiring authority to fill key positions with critical staffing needs.

It also creates a fellowship program to train up VA management for the best performance. It is time to improve the personnel practices at the Veterans Administration.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the floor today is vital for our Nation's veterans. Their constitutional rights and their well-being stand in the balance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from Florida and I were in committee yesterday and heard testimony from one of our colleagues that this bill, as it pertains to veterans' gun rights, is not reactive. It does not go back to those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, who have been denied their Second Amendment rights.

This bill is prospective only. It will only affect those who in the future have been denied those rights. And I think it is absolutely important that we understand the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is committed to make sure that those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, their Second Amendment rights in the past, we will find a solution. We will help those individuals.

Right now, we are focused on making sure that others have the ability to a fair, open hearing where they can present their side of the story before they are denied their constitutional rights.

My friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) also talks about the fact that H.R. 1259 will do more harm than good; that somehow disciplining those who are delivering poor services to our veterans is unfair to unions. The truth is that 35 percent of the VA's workforce is made up of veterans.

But the fact is that veteran employees believe employees that are not meeting acceptable standards for their fellow veterans should be removed, period, regardless of their service while on Active Duty.

Are opponents of removing poor-performing employees and those whose misconduct warrant removal saying that a veteran employee who cannot do the job or is guilty of misconduct be kept on the job?

On the contrary, veterans know that the strictest accountability standards apply to them during their military service, and millions of hardworking Americans in the private sector do not enjoy anything close to the protections enjoyed by Federal employees.

The only employees who need to be concerned with reasonable reform that would be made by this legislation are those who aren't doing their jobs on behalf of the veterans who they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from Florida talked about the specificity that he used in describing the conditions of these veterans, but that is not what the rule says.

What the rule says, Mr. Speaker, is that if someone--if a veteran needs a fiduciary, they will be denied the ability to own, possess, purchase a firearm. It doesn't say if they are schizophrenic. It doesn't say if they have PTSD. It doesn't say if they have depression, and if they have PTSD or depression that is somehow linked to further violent behavior. It doesn't say that.

What it says is, if you can't balance your bank account, you can't have a gun to protect yourself. There is no relationship between those two.

Now, if the gentleman from Florida would go to the Veterans Administration and talk to them about the need to link that finding of a fiduciary with future violent behavior, we may not be here today.

But so many people have been trapped in this overbroad rule that we are going to make sure that those people that have a fiduciary and are listed by the VA have a due process right to show that they are nonviolent; that they don't have a propensity to commit a crime with a weapon; that they are not a harm to themselves or to others.

And if the VA or an independent judicial officer finds that they are, then yes, list them on the NICS report, but give them that due process right. That is where the majority believes this rule created during the Clinton administration and by the Veterans Administration falls.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention and the attention of my colleague from Florida to a letter dated January 26, 2017, from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Roe, and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Chairman Isakson, to the President in which they asked for various positions to be exempted from the President's executive order concerning a hiring freeze.

The next day, January 27, the Acting Secretary issued a memorandum under the authority of that Presidential memorandum, executive order, granting the chairman's request and exempting various positions.

I would exceed my time limitations, Mr. Speaker, if I were to read all of these. But let me assure you there are dozens and dozens of positions at the Veterans Administration that have been exempted from the President's hiring freeze. They include social worker, science lab technician, practical nurse, nursing assistant, dietician, nutritionist, occupational therapist, on and on and on. And the need for the amendment that the gentleman presents is unnecessary.

I would also like to talk very briefly about the gentleman's argument that somehow those at the Veterans Administration are being harmed, and we are attacking a union in some way rather than trying to deal with real situations and improving the quality of care at the VA.

I want to give a few examples of VA employees and just the time that it took to remove people. A VA employee was a willing participant in an armed robbery several years ago, and after a lengthy legal and administrative battle where the employee was supported by the Public Employees Union, the employee was reinstated in their previous position without any discipline.

A VA nurse showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the influence of alcohol. Although the employee eventually resigned, to date, no other employees were disciplined for allowing the employee to participate in the veteran's surgery.

In 2013, a vocational rehab specialist out of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System crashed a government car, and a passenger ended up dying. He was later indicted for a DUI. The VA confirmed that the employee was not removed from payroll until January of this year-- almost 4 years.

In 2014, a VA employee at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System took a veteran who was a recovering drug addict to a crack house where he purchased illegal drugs for the veteran, as well as purchased a prostitute for him, though the employee was still employed at the VA well over a year later after the incident until they were finally able to remove him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up now for our veterans. They have performed their duty, and it is time for us to perform for them.

Our duty is to take care of them. A ``yes'' vote restores their Constitutional rights and improves their quality of care.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I thank Chairman Roe and Representative Wenstrup for bringing these bills before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.