To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding me the necessary and customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of two separate pieces of legislation: S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act; and H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act.

I begin with S. 1094, legislation aimed at bringing enhanced accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs and improving the care we provide to our Nation's veterans. Among other things, this bill codifies in law the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection at the VA and streamlines the process to demote, remove, or suspend VA employees if evidence proves they engaged in misconduct or poor performance.

Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, we had the opportunity to hear from the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee about this legislation, Dr. Roe and Mr. Walz. They discussed the bipartisan nature in which they have worked on this issue, along with the bipartisan work done in the Senate, to craft legislation that they hope can achieve strong bipartisan support in this body.

It is because of this display of bipartisanship and cooperation and a semblance of regular order that I am dismayed that I must now address the process and substance by which we are considering the second bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act.

Let me connect the dots for you on how we got to this point, and bear with me. The Republican majority's path to take healthcare from 23 million Americans has been as convoluted as it has been chaotic.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you and my colleagues should remember, first, the Republican mantra was repeal. Then it was repeal and replace. Then it was repeal and delay, followed by access to coverage, and then, patient centered.

Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle settled on a three-bucket strategy. The first bucket of this strategy was the Republicans'

American Health Care Act. The majority brought their first iteration of this bill to the floor after working on it for 17 days, and, with no hearings, only to have it go down in flames in the most public and spectacular fashion.

So they went back to the drawing board--not to improve the bill, or improve healthcare for the American people, mind you, but to garner enough Republican votes for a bill that ultimately had 17 percent approval ratings. And they added a manager's amendment to get support, then they added another manager's amendment, then another, and another.

Then with a bill patched together with the wants and wishes of powerful healthcare lobbyists and tax breaks for the superwealthy, with no CBO score, and with no way for the American people, let alone their own Members, to actually know what was in the bill, the majority pushed the bill through the House of Representatives.

What did my Republican friends do after passing this inexplicably bad bill? They got on a couple of buses from here at the Capitol and went to a rose garden ceremony hosted by President Donald John Trump to celebrate upending one-sixth of the American economy and taking away healthcare from 23 million people.

That was certainly the Republicans' most recent mission-accomplished moment, and it must have been some celebration because it will be another 2 weeks before the majority would actually get around to sending their healthcare bill to the Senate, due to the fact that they were not sure if it complied with the Senate rules or, more specifically, the Byrd rule in the U.S. Senate.

Then there is the second bucket of this plan, which involves the Trump administration rolling back regulations. Should the work associated with the second bucket proceed as it has with the other two, then I am sure it, too, will be a disaster, benefitting the wealthy at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the Republicans' third bucket. According to Senator Ted Cruz, this bucket is ``a sucker's bucket.'' Indeed, some like Senator Tom Cotton have referred to all of this bucket talk as simply a bunch of political spin. Whatever it is, it is an empty bucket.

The most recent bill the Republican majority has decided to dump in this sucker's bucket is H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act. Under current law, premium assistance tax credits are available for eligible individuals and families to subsidize the cost of health insurance. Individuals are not eligible for these credits unless they are U.S. citizens or are living in the country legally.

Currently, applicants have 90 days to provide documentation or otherwise address any issues with citizenship and immigration status, and are presumed eligible to enroll in marketplace coverage. If an individual is unable to provide the necessary documentation, coverage and financial assistance are terminated.

This provision ensures that individuals are not left in a position of having to wait potentially months to be verified before they can afford coverage, and it provides the proper guardrails to terminate assistance if an individual is deemed ineligible. There is no evidence to support the majority's claim that this process is not working.

H.R. 2581 would repeal this 90-day verification period, setting up an unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals to receive the credits they need to afford lifesaving healthcare. Republicans themselves acknowledge that the verification process could take months, but, nevertheless, they are bringing forth today's bill knowing full well that it will make it harder for vulnerable people to access healthcare when they need it most.

It would disproportionately hurt low-income Americans, especially naturalized Americans from immigrant families since they can have a harder time producing documentation needed to verify their citizenship. But don't just take my word for it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens and dozens of national, State, and local civil rights and advocacy groups strongly opposing this legislation, such groups as the NAACP, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the American Friends Service Committee, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, and I could go on, and on, and on, but in the interest of time, I thank the Speaker for allowing it to be made a part of the Record.

June 12, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: As national, state, and local

organizations concerned about immigrant rights or access to

affordable health care, we are writing to strongly urge you

to VOTE NO on H.R. 2581, the ``Verify First'' Act. This bill

is an attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on

immigrants and people of color. It is not the ``common

sense'' taxpayer protection bill that its supporters would

have you believe.

H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for

both citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable

health insurance. It would strip away provisions that provide

for a person to obtain subsidies for enrollment in an

Affordable Care Act (or the contemplated American Health Care

Act) plan while they work with Department of Health and Human

Services to verify their U.S. citizenship or immigration

status. The people most impacted are U.S. citizens who were

born abroad or naturalized. The bill also affects many

immigrants, especially those newly arrived or certain victims

of domestic violence and trafficking survivors.

The fact is that when individuals are not able to

immediately verify their citizenship or immigration status on

an Affordable Care Act Marketplace, it begins an often months

long, strenuous process of sending in documents that must be

physically inspected. Health care assisters routinely say

these clients are the hardest cases they work on because the

process for verifying citizenship and immigration status is a

time-consuming exercise in dealing with inefficient

government processes.

Rather than protect American taxpayers, H.R. 2581 would

strip from American taxpayers important protections that are

needed to overcome deficiencies in federal government

databases. Immigrants who are not lawfully present are

categorically barred from enrollment in health insurance on

the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and for the subsidies

that make that insurance affordable. Moreover, safeguards

protecting taxpayers are already built into the ACA;

individuals whose citizenship or immigration status cannot be

verified already are required to pay back all of their

subsidies when they file their taxes and ``reconcile'' their

premium tax credits.

Supporters of this bill cite a sloppy Senate Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report that

arrived at a made-up number of supposed ``fraud.'' It's just

not true. The committee assumed that every person who lost

coverage for failure to verify their citizenship and

immigration status was undocumented. In the experience of our

organizations and organizations we work with, this is false.

These reports describe the first year of the marketplaces,

and it is well documented that system outages and

understaffing, among other technical problems, contributed to

the federal Marketplace's failure to verify consumers' status

promptly. The Department of Health and Human Services

Inspector General reported in 2014 that a cause of the delay

in verification was the agency's lack of prioritization of

this issue.

Despite huge gains since then, problems still persist. The

Social Security database holding many citizens' information

may not reflect common changes, such as when a person marries

and changes their last name, or when someone naturalizes and

gains U.S. citizenship. People lose their coverage because

they receive notices in languages they cannot read.

Immigrants are required to submit documents multiple times,

or wait while the Department of Homeland Security finds paper

files, a result of deficiencies in their databases affecting

groups like asylum applicants and some survivors of domestic

violence. These are among the many issues consumers face.

Congress has already deprived undocumented immigrants from

the ability to buy coverage, even at full price, so they can

see a doctor when they are sick, but this bill would go a

step further to delay or put out of reach affordable health

insurance for many citizens and lawfully present immigrants.

Our organizations firmly believe that this would be

detrimental to the people we represent and to all of our

communities as a whole. We have seen that when health

insurance is unaffordable, people are effectively prevented

from obtaining access to the care they need to be healthy.

This bill is not just an attack on our health care system,

it is also an attack on immigrants and people of color, which

our organizations stand firmly against. In his statements

when introducing this bill, Rep. Lou Barletta focused the

bill as part of his effort to ``stop illegal immigration.''

Rep. Barletta has a long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric,

from trying to prevent immigrants from leasing a residence to

stating that they should be denied life-saving services in

hospital emergency rooms. This bill is simply a vehicle for

scapegoating immigrants and people of color and will keep

eligible people from accessing health care.

We the undersigned organizations urge you to vote NO on

H.R. 2581 and the continued assault on immigrants and the

health of our communities.

Sincerely,

National

Advocates for Youth; African American Ministers in Action;

American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Friends

Service Committee; American Intercession; American Society on

Aging; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Asian

Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Asian Pacific Institute

on Gender-Based Violence; Asian Pacific Partners for

Empowerment, Advocacy & Leadership (APPEAL); Association of

Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO);

Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Alliance for Just

Immigration; Breast Cancer Action; Center for Law and Social

Policy (CLASP); Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Child

Welfare League of America; Children's Advocacy Institute;

Children's Defense Fund; Church World Service (CWS).

Coalition on Human Needs; Columbian Center for Advocacy and

Outreach; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good

Shepherd, US Provinces; Conscious Talk Radio; Detention Watch

Network; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund;

Dominican Sisters; Dominicans of Sinsinawa; Family Equality

Council; Farmworker Justice; First Focus Campaign for

Children; Food Research & Action Center; Franciscan Sisters

of the Poor IJPC; Friends Committee on National Legislation;

Generations Inc.; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT

Equality; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Indivisible;

Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Interfaith

Worker Justice.

Irish Apostolate USA; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging;

Justice, Peace and Reconciliation Commission, Priests of the

Sacred Heart, US Province; Lambda Legal; Leadership Team of

the Felician Sisters of North America; League of United Latin

American Citizens (LULAC); Medical Mission Sisters; Mi

Familia Vota; MomsRising; NAACP; NAPAFASA; National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Asian

Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of

County and City Health Officials; National Association of

Social Workers; National Black Justice Coalition; National

Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Asian

Pacific Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Churches.

National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Education

Association; National Employment Law Project; National Health

Law Program; National Hispanic Medical Association; National

Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;

National Justice for Our Neighbors; National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Health; National Network of Abortion Funds;

National Organization for Women; National Women's Health

Network; Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility

of United Church of Christ; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social

Justice; NMAC; OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates; Our

Revolution; Peace and Justice Office of the Congregation of

Notre Dame; Physicians for Reproductive Health; PICO

National.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poor People's

Economic Human Rights Campaign; Prevention Institute; Project

Inform; Racine Dominicans; Raising Women's Voices for the

Health Care We Need; Refuge Ministries; Sargent Shriver

National Center on Poverty Law; Service Employees

International Union; Sisters of Charity; Sisters of Charity

of Nazareth; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute

Justice Team; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC);

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; United

Sikhs; United We Dream; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, U.S.

Province; We Belong Together; API Wellness.

State and Local

Academy of Medical & Public Health Services; Advocates for

Children and Youth; AgeOptions; Almost Home, Inc.; Anti-

Hunger & Nutrition Coalition; Arkansas Advocates for Children

and Families; Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing;

Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles; Asian

Community Alliance--Cincinnati OH; Asian Law Alliance; Asian

Services In Action, Inc.; Baltimore Jewish Council;

California Health Professional Student Alliance; California

Immigrant Policy Center; California Latinas for Reproductive

Justice (CLRJ); California OneCare; California Pan-Ethnic

Health Network; California Partnership; California Physicians

Alliance; CASA.

Center for Southeast Asians; Chicago Hispanic Health

Coalition; Child Care Resources of Rockland; Children Now;

Children's Defense Fund--CA; Chinatown Service Center;

Chinese-American Planning Council; Coalition for Humane

Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Collaborative Center for Justice;

Colorado Center on Law and Policy; Colorado Center on Law and

Policy; Columbia Legal Services; Community Health Councils;

D.C. Hunger Solutions; DuPage Federation on Human Services

Reform; Empower Missouri; Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to

End Poverty in Contra Costa; Erie Benedictines for Peace;

Esperanza Health Centers; EverThrive Illinois; Farmworker

Association of Florida.

Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC); Give for a Smile;

Greater Kansas City Coalition to End Homelessness; Having Our

Say Coalition; Health Access California; Health Care for

All--WA; Health Law Advocates; Healthy House Within A MATCH

Coalition; Hmong Ohio of Tomorrow; Hunger Action Los Angeles;

IHM Sisters, Immaculata, PA; IL Hunger Coalition; Illinois

Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Indivisible

Mountain Home, Idaho; Interfaith Movement for Human

Integrity; IRIS--Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services;

Islamic Civic Engagement Project; Jewish Family & Children's

Service; Kansas Appleseed; Kentucky Equal Justice Center;

Korean Community Services of Metropolitan NY; La Fe Policy

Research and Education Center.

La Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program; Legal Council for

Health Justice; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Maine

Consumers for Affordable Health Care; Make the Road New York;

Maryland CASH Campaign; Maryland Hunger Solutions;

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition

(MIRA); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Maternal and

Child Health Access; Maternity Care Coalition; National

Association of Social Workers, CT Chapter; National Tongan

American Society; Nationalities Service Center; NC Child; New

Mexico Center on Law and Poverty; New York Immigration

Coalition; New York Legal Assistance Group; NICOS Chinese

Health Coalition; NJ State Industrial Union Council; NOELA

Community Health Center; Northern NJ Chapter, National

Organization for Women.

Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights

Project; Office of the Health Care Advocate at Vermont Legal

Aid; OneAmerica; Pacific Islander Health Partnership; Pitkin

County Human Services; Public Justice Center; Puget Sound

Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Rainbow Center;

Reformed Church of Highland Park; RESULTS--Santa Fe (NM);

Salaam Cleveland; Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education

Network (SIREN); Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word,

Houston; Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, NY; Sisters of

the Most Precious Blood; Social Justice Committee St. Patrick

Church; South Asian Network; Southwest Women's Law Center;

St. Francis St Vincent de Paul Society; Tennessee Justice

Center; Thai Health And Information Service.

The Children's Partnership; The Latino Health Insurance

Program, Inc.; Turning Points; United Way Bay Area; URI

Feinstein Center for a Hunger Free America; Vermont

Affordable Housing Coalition; Virginia Poverty Law Center;

Voices for Vermont's Children; Voz Hispana Cambia

Comunitario; Washington Community Action Network; Washington

Healthcare Access Alliance; Washington State Labor Council,

AFL-CIO; West Chester Food Cupboard; West Side Campaign

Against Hunger; Westlake Chinese Culture Association;

Wisconsin Council of Churches; Wisconsin Faith Voices for

Justice; Women's Action Movement Washtenaw County, MI;

Worksite Wellness LA; Xaverian Brothers; Young Women United.

Mr. Speaker, ``This bill,'' that letter says, ``is an attack on people's ability to see a doctor and on immigrants and people of color.''

``H.R. 2581 is a dangerous bill that puts up roadblocks for both citizens and immigrants to obtain timely, affordable health insurance.''

If this is what we are in store for with the Republican's third bucket, then it is even worse than a sucker's bucket. It is callous, and it is cruel, and someone described the Vice Presidency once many years ago as a warm bucket of spit.

As my colleague, Congressman Richard Neal, said last night at the Rules Committee, bad process leads to bad product. I agree with Mr. Neal, and this bill is a perfect example of his salient insight. The provisions in this legislation are contingent upon enactment of the American Health Care Act.

If the American Health Care Act is enacted, this bill would not go into effect. That means we are now considering legislation amending a bill that we have already sent to the Senate, and that the Senate has made clear it has no intention of taking up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Donald John Trump issued an executive order placing a hiring freeze on Federal civilian employees across the executive branch. This executive order, like many of the executive orders this President has issued, failed to take into account the effects it could have on our most vulnerable communities.

Veterans make up one-third of all Federal workers. I am very pleased that one is in my office. She is probably smiling because sometimes Charity probably doesn't think I even know that she is in the office. But she is there and does incredible work.

The Department of Veterans Affairs--a severely understaffed agency serving those veterans--cannot afford a hiring freeze.

This week, Republicans are bringing to the floor bills they claim would improve veterans' lives. If the President and my Republican colleagues are truly committed to our veterans, then they should ensure that reckless hiring freezes do not harm them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Schrader's bill, H.R. 696, which would prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have here today is a rule with one bill that really was worked on in a bipartisan manner--sort of like regular order like we were promised by the Speaker at the outset of this session of Congress--and another bill, which is just more of the same from this majority: creating problems where none existed before.

The fact remains that the Republicans' healthcare bill and overall bucket strategy is a disaster for the American people, and no amount of Rose Garden backslapping is going to change that fact.

Under the Republican plan, 23 million Americans will be kicked off of their health insurance and $800 billion will be cut from Medicaid. Footnote right there, we hear that the Senate is taking up something. We don't know where and who is doing the taking up, but what I read today is that they are considering a glide path of some kind to cut Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, cutting Medicaid hurts poor people. Whether you glide it or run it over them, either way you look at it, it hurts them, and we need to pay attention to that, particularly if we are doing it to provide for those of us that are better off in our society.

Seventy-five billion dollars will be cut from Medicare, insurance premiums would increase for people ages 60 to 64 by more than $3,000 a year, and protections for those with preexisting conditions will be eliminated.

I read about a 63-year-old lady who said that all of her conditions are preexisting and she can't afford insurance. H.R. 2581 only adds to this pain by setting up an unnecessary barrier for eligible individuals to get access to healthcare.

But not to worry, under the Republican plan, the 400 highest income families would ultimately get tax cuts averaging around $7 million a year, and that information comes from the Ways and Means Committee's fact sheet.

Mr. Speaker, I and others here very frequently have pointed out that what the Republicans want to do is to cut benefits for poor people--the most vulnerable in our society--and to provide for the better-off tax cuts--those people in our society who least need them.

It occurs to me that if we were to have an opportunity to ask the 400 wealthiest families in this country whether or not they really need a tax cut, my belief, based on the four billionaires that I have known personally--two are deceased now--but in my conversations with all of them, their position was that they didn't need a cut. To the man, each one of them said that, if they were to receive tax cuts, they would prefer that they go to education, particularly education for kindergartners and prekindergartners.

If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their base--a group of people, mind you, who are most certainly disadvantaged--one day they are going to wake up and recognize that much of what we are doing here, even though they support it, many of the persons who are doing it, they, too, are caught up in this downward spiral that is involving healthcare in this country, the game that we are playing.

If we are willing to work in a serious manner to address the issues in our healthcare system, then I know that Democrats are ready to work with Republicans. But whatever is going on in the other body, I assure you, no Democrats in the other body are involved in.

Last night I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee whether or not he knew what this bill looked like, and his answer was that he did not.

I also said what I repeat here, that people are hurting in this country. Whether it is ObamaCare that the Republicans, I believe, are going to find that it is going to be hard to fix, or whether it is the Affordable Care Act that is in some phantom hole over in the other body, somehow or another, my friends on the other side are going to be held accountable for all of what is necessary to be done. The only way that is sensible--and I believe that every American is imploring us to undertake--is to sit down together.

I cannot believe that the 435 people plus 6 here in the House of Representatives and the 100 United States Senators do not have the ability to do all of the things that are necessary in order for Americans to receive adequate healthcare and to lead with protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

It is ridiculous to talk about cutting Medicaid when more than 60 percent of the people on Medicaid are seniors that are in nursing homes.

What are we going to say to those families? How are we going to address them when it comes to the reality that they are confronted with while we are up here jaw jacking back and forth about whether or not it is ObamaCare or whether or not it is the Affordable Care Act that we can't seem to find.

Somewhere along the lines, we need to sit down and work together. Failure to do so is to our own peril and to the peril of the citizens of this great country of ours.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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, 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 378 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. This rule provides for debate on the final negotiated bill between the House and the Senate. This process began last Congress and resulted in the House passing H.R. 1259 in March of this year.

The Senate introduced and passed the version of the bill we have before us today by voice vote. It mirrors the reforms contained in Chairman Roe's bill that the House has already passed by a bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about veterans in this country: We thank them for their sacrifice; we applaud them at sporting events; we tell ourselves that we must take care of them, must repay them for the service to our Nation. But in the past few years, we have discovered that America's care for our veterans has been wholly inadequate. The Department of Veterans Affairs has failed them.

Shameful misconduct at the VA has been rampant, and it has hurt our veterans:

In 2014, we learned that the Phoenix VA concealed extremely long wait lines for patients and that up to 40 vets may have died while waiting for care at the facility;

Just last year, we discovered that a VA Hospital in Colorado Springs also falsified wait time records. The majority of patients at that hospital faced wait times over 30 days, and 28 patients had an average wait time of 76 days. One veteran is even thought to have committed suicide because he wasn't referred for mental healthcare, even though he had been deemed at risk for suicide.

That is why Congress needs to act. S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, allows the Secretary of the VA to hold all employees at the agency accountable for their conduct.

We desperately need this legislation, not because all the employees at the VA have problems. Quite the opposite. Most VA employees show up to work every day because they are passionate about serving our Nation's veterans. But there are bad apples, people who put our veterans in danger. These people must be held accountable, and, frankly, many of them must be fired.

This bill empowers the Secretary to reprimand, suspend, or remove VA employees who have engaged in misconduct. It also permits the Secretary to recoup bonuses if an employee performed poorly or conducted themselves inappropriately and to recoup relocation expenses for fraud, waste, or malfeasance.

The bill also bolsters protection for whistleblowers, creating an office within the VA devoted to protecting those who expose wrongdoing. Supervisors will be taught how to protect whistleblowers and will be held accountable for how well they do.

And the bill requires reporting to Congress on the performance of senior executives at the VA and on the outcomes of disciplinary actions at the agency.

You may be wondering why Congress has taken such an in-depth interest in an executive branch agency, and I will tell you why. It is our job.

The legislative branch was designed to oversee the executive branch. We appropriate the funds used to pay the salaries of everyone working at the VA. These funds come from the taxpayer. For the sake of the taxpayer, we must ensure that the VA is serving its purpose.

But this bill also empowers the Secretary of the VA, allowing him or her to take immediate action to protect veterans. We can't wait for long appeals processes when a bad employee on the front lines of a VA hospital is harming our veterans.

This legislation should not be controversial. Both Democrats and Republicans want the best for our veterans. This legislation, the legislation we are discussing today, gives the VA Secretary and Congress more tools to hold employees accountable because if we are holding employees accountable, then we are protecting our veterans from abuse.

This bill is one small way to say thank you to those men and women who have served our country. We can never adequately repay them, but we can do our best to provide them with sufficient medical care.

I urge you to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

In response to my friend from Florida's statement about the second piece of legislation that we are dealing with in this rule, I believe it is our responsibility to the American taxpayer, and we are fulfilling that responsibility. We are expected to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. This bill ensures that the government only disburses premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, or under the American Health Care Act, to those individuals who are eligible for those tax credits.

Under the ACA, an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States is ineligible from receiving a premium credit. Unfortunately, the ACA also allows the government to hand out the tax credit first and verify later.

This pay-and-chase scheme means taxpayer money is flowing out the door to people who don't meet the requirements for premium tax credits, and much of these funds may not be recouped. In fact, under the ACA, over half a million people who were ineligible for coverage and tax credits received credits.

H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act, requires the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that any department disbursing payments have first verified the recipient's legal presence with information like Social Security numbers. By requiring this verification, we can confirm that, under both the ACA and AHCA, those who receive credits deserve credits.

With that confirmation, we will ensure that these laws are used as they were intended; that the wishes of the American taxpayer are followed. I urge Members to support this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing two important bills. One of them fulfills the congressional duty to steward taxpayer dollars well. We shouldn't be handing out tax credits to people without first checking their eligibility for their tax credits. This is common sense.

H.R. 2581, the Verify First Act, will require verification of legal presence in this country before someone can receive a tax credit. It is only fair to the American people that we pass this legislation.

The other bill in this rule, S. 1094, protects our veterans from harm. We all have a commitment to repaying the men and women who have served this Nation in the military. These brave individuals have put much on the line and sacrificed so much time and opportunity. They deserve the best healthcare.

This legislation holds the VA accountable. We need to empower the VA Secretary to quickly fire employees who put our veterans in danger. We also need the VA to report to Congress so that the legislative branch can fulfill its oversight duties.

I thank the sponsors of these important bills--Senator Rubio for S. 1094 and Representative Barletta for H.R. 2581.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying this. I was prompted to say this by the remarks from my colleague from Florida just now.

I believe that there is absolutely nothing that is common sense about preventing those who defend America from having the opportunity to defend themselves. There is no common sense in that whatsoever.

I listened to your emotional remarks here, and I listened as you gave zero specifics on the mental illness that my colleague specifically talked about being worried about.

Specifically, what mental illnesses is it that had you concerned?

I would encourage you to have the courage to be specific and say exactly what it is that you mean so that there is no confusion.

Now, the true intent of my remarks today are to talk about my favorite part of going to the VA, and that is sitting next to my fellow veterans when I sit down at one of the clinics at my local VA hospital. Whether it is a marine from Iraq, whether it is a sailor from World War II, a soldier from Vietnam, an airman from Korea, whenever we sit down next to each other, there is a camaraderie that exists immediately.

One of the first things that is said is usually some sort of off- topic joke about the branch that the other person comes from. It is that camaraderie of shared service that unites us in a way that half a century of age can't divide. I can tell you, we have common experiences, and we have common healthcare challenges as well.

It is important for veterans to come together and for the VA to establish and maintain expertise in providing for our unique healthcare needs. Unfortunately, too many VA facilities have lost their hunger to provide care. They have lost the passion to meet the individual needs of veterans, and it has become way too much of a rarity that a veteran's needs are truly met when they enter the VA facility.

You cobble that together with enough bad experiences from underperforming employees, and it forces veterans to ask: Where else can I go for my care?

That is why I am excited to see the House bring forward two bills this week that get at the crux of the matter: authority to hire the best employees and the ability to remove underperforming employees.

Today we will debate the VA Accountability First Act. We will provide the VA Secretary the flexibility to either remove, demote, or suspend an employee for misconduct. It can be very little that is more important to go on at the VA.

Tomorrow we will debate H.R. 1367 that will bolster the Secretary's situational awareness to recruit and retain the very best employees.

You know, when a veteran like myself or my peers goes to the VA, we are not given a choice in our provider. We go there, and they look at a person like me and they say: Your last name is Mast. We are going to assign you to Alpha clinic. This is your provider, and there is no choice.

The veterans deserve nothing less than the kind of care and accountability that these bills endeavor to provide.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and to bring each of these bills to the floor.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that. When I get to speaking about the specifics of this matter--and you used a very broad, general term, like the term ``post-traumatic stress disorder.'' That is something that is, unfortunately, layered upon nearly every veteran that exits service today. So to go out there and have this ability to put people into this NICS, who have this sort of label placed upon them, that is exactly the crux of this that I am getting to that is not specific enough. It does not point to what is specifically an issue that anybody is facing.

If the gentleman would yield, that is certainly an issue that we can point to. But when you talk about post-traumatic stress and so many other issues that are diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs----

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with a term that was thrown around far too loosely twice in just the last couple of minutes by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle here where each of them used the term ``crazy.'' They used the term ``crazy'' twice. I take serious issue with that.

This is the reality: our servicemembers that endeavor onto the battlefield, they face snipers that are targeting them. They face mortars being dropped on their head. They face improvised explosive devices like the ones that took my legs and so many of my friends. There are aviators that fly beyond the lines of our enemy. They face the threat of being shot down or captured. There are marines, there are sailors. And all of us--you know, the reality is we do come home with demons that are associated with a life that is surrounded by death. That is certainly the truth.

But to say for one moment that that is something that allows the term ``crazy'' to be layered upon any one of these heroes that goes out there and serves in defense of this country, that goes out there and has the willingness to have their uniform stained with the blood of their friends, I find that to be a disgusting use of that word. I resent the fact that it has been done, Mr. Speaker, and I would respectfully ask that there be an apology made to those that put on the uniform and go out and defend this country on behalf of every single American.