H.Res. 198

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1259. Let me be clear that I rise in opposition not after serving this Nation in uniform for 24 years; not after serving on this committee longer than anyone else on the committee; and not with serving honorably with my friend, the chairman, who--I want to be clear, first of all, where the commonality lies around this issue, about 95 percent of it, you are not going to find daylight between us.

The idea that anyone would put a special interest ahead of the care of a veteran is not only distasteful, it is wrong to assume that. There are legitimate differences on how to get accountability in the VA, and we have come to some conclusions that get us pretty close. This piece of legislation--and I do not condemn the committee because this is truly a bipartisan committee, but, for whatever reason, for the first time in the decade-plus that I have served on this committee, we have brought a bill to the floor without a hearing.

We held a markup and brought it to the floor. The majority has the right to do as they please. What that deprives us of is the ability to build consensus around issues we know we share. I know the chairman's heart is providing absolute best care to every single veteran. I also know the chairman's heart is to make sure that every employee who is doing their job is respected the way they are supposed to be. There is not disagreement on that.

This piece of legislation, and framing it as a false choice between veterans and the employees, the majority of whom are veterans, in many cases, serving other veterans, is a false choice. The chart that was put up, I belong to half those organizations. There is also an organization that is on there that differs from the others because it is a 501(c)(4) with the sole purpose of political attack ads on Members of the opposing party. Leave them off the sheet. The other ones I agree with. The others are 501(c)(3)s advocating for veterans, but for us to pretend this isn't a

proxy fight for outside groups on something bigger is disingenuous and moves us away from the place we should have gotten.

To show you the comity, my friend from Tennessee gave an impassioned, logical, and, in my opinion, correct assessment on the Veterans 2nd Amendment, H.R. 1181. I agree with the chairman on this. I believe we could have built consensus by bringing that through the committee, but it doesn't change the fact that I think the chairman eloquently got to the heart of that. I know what the heart of that was because the majority side used the term over two dozen times, ``due process.'' It matters. These are veterans working in the VA who should have due process to their Second Amendment rights and to their employment rights. It ensures that the working environment attracts and retains the best and brightest.

So let's go through a little bit of what is here. One of the things is, we talk about going back and breaking a sacred pledge. You can disagree what is in the collective bargaining that was done between the administrations, Republican and Democrat, and those employees who work there, but to go in and arbitrarily change that from Congress, how is that due process? How about in the next bargaining agreement you make the case that those things need to be there. I will stand there with you and tell you this: The public sector unions need to give more, because you know what happens if they don't? They get painted with those examples.

I hear some people say there are 350,000 employees in the VA, and they gave five examples of five bad people. You should give those examples. That is unacceptable, horrid, and should never be agreed to. This is a zero sum proposition. If one bad employee gives substandard care, Mr. Chairman, to one veteran, that is a failure, and the majority and the minority are in absolute agreement on that.

But here is what I fear. We have had legislation--and I will offer up an amendment to do this--that has bipartisan support, that has Senate support. We will see if I am right or wrong on this, but I am almost certain--and it is our responsibility in this House not to message things for those outside groups to run attack ads, it is to get things that actually get through.

I am saying today--and I will be the first to come back and tell you I was wrong on this--the process of getting legislation into law to be enacted by the agencies means compromise must be there. I think we come back here in October, this isn't done yet. Why don't we give on the 5 percent that is not agreed upon and get the 95 percent right so we can act to enact it? This is going to be the perfect getting in the way of the good, and I would argue the zeal to get it done in the way of due process.

I do not question the heart of any of my colleagues to get this right. I do not question--I hope it would not come back to me--the outrage I feel when I hear the story--and I know when the chairman tells me it, it is true--of someone showing up intoxicated trying to provide care to a veteran. How in goodness name is that person not done, not removed, and not moved forward? I will have to tell you this: I have been there on this. I am a public schoolteacher. Do you know who hates a bad public schoolteacher the most? A good public schoolteacher. What really angers me is when management doesn't do their dang job, follow the law and remove those people, and give the due process to them.

The same thing happens in the VA. Management needs to do their job. We have issued subpoenas for Phoenix, we have issued subpoenas for Philadelphia, we have issued subpoenas for St. Paul of people doing egregious things, not caring for veterans. They should come here, and they should lose their jobs. In some cases, they did. Do you know what they all did have in common? None of them were part of a collective bargaining agreement. They were the management. My fear on this is you have bad managers making bad decisions, and if someone speaks up, Mr. Chairman, who is a lower ranking member, their only protection to improve the system is by collectively bargained grievance processes to make sure their due process is heard. That is all we are asking for.

I do not deny there are going to be proxy fights on this. I will not deny that I believe the public sector unions need to be in a partnership with this. I believe we should have had them in a hearing and set those union members down there and asked them: How in God's name can you justify this? Ask them and say: What would help so that we can do this?

I have witnessed this as a public schoolteacher. Beating up on public schoolteachers all the time is not the best way to entice good people to go into public school teaching. I ask people, whether it be teachers or the veterans--go ask your veterans, how many have received quality care at the VA? How many really appreciate that floor nurse who did what he or she was supposed to do? How many are grateful that their cardiac surgeon is one of the best in the world and is choosing to make less money to serve there?

But I won't deny this. We have managers who are unaccountable. This piece of legislation does not get at the heart of it because the teeth are saved for the rank-and-file members. I agree. I think the gentleman is exactly right.

I want to read something. You tell me if this is okay. We had a VA employee who was written up and subsequently fired because they were practicing medicine without a license. That is outrageous. Outrageous that you would go there and you don't have the license, and you are practicing medicine. That person was fired. If we pass this piece of legislation, they are done and they are not coming back.

But there is a little bit different story to this. This was a Navy veteran in Arkansas, and you know what they got it for? Not picking up a scalpel and doing something that a doctor should do, not writing a prescription for an opioid and trying to steal medicine, which does happen. What they did was, they entered the wrong code on a chart, and that got them for practicing medicine without a license.

When they went through the approved negotiated grievance process, not only did they find out that this was wrong to this combat Navy veteran trying to serve other veterans who was discharged by a manager, it turns up the lack of management oversight. It was the entire system was flawed and the chart was wrong. So the grievance process not only returned the employee back to their rightful job, it fixed the system guaranteeing better care for veterans going forward.

So I don't disagree. When we try and make it, the big scary thing is, oh, we have unions that don't care about veterans, don't care about what the care is, and what we need to do is fire those people immediately. Well, you know what? Some of them do need to be fired. But if there is not a process in place--this Navy veteran caring for other veterans was released without due process--we don't find out about a broken system putting veterans' care at risk. That is what is at stake here.

My point is not to disagree. The chairman has insights into veterans that I think are second to none. The committee works together on this. Once again, when you gain the most votes, you get the majority, and I respect that. But I would also say that if we want to build consensus around this, I am going to offer up a piece of legislation that was written by a Republican Senator that has the ability to pass, be signed into law, and will get at the heart of this by going after the managers.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to me, and I know it is important to my chairman, a Vietnam veteran himself, it is important to the staff sitting behind, veterans ourselves, that we not allow what has happened in this country to get into the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to divide us over talking points when our goals are exactly the same.

When we have legitimate differences, again, I don't think it is fair to me, as a veteran and a union member, to put something up that says you are choosing sides. I am not choosing sides. We are all in this together. What I disagree with is it is my opinion--and I wish I would have had experts testify to this, employment law people, bring the union folks in there, have us have this debate so that we can say: you know what, these changes are good, these won't make a difference.

I respectfully oppose the way this legislation is written. I respectfully totally associate myself with the chairman on why he wants to do it and why he believes that this is best. I only ask,

take a look at some of the improving amendments that can get us all to the same point, and give us the benefit of the doubt that we are not assuming the worst. And I don't--as some have said, this is an attempt to bust unions or bust the civil service system. That is the farthest thing from the chairman's mind. I know that because never, in my experience, has he done anything to disprove that veterans' care comes first, quality of care at the VA comes first, and accountability must go with that. My concern is, this doesn't get us there nor does it have a chance to become into law. With those things, let's come back at it, let's approach it a little differently, and let's find the common ground that is there.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend, the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my good friend, the vice ranking member of the full Committee on Veterans Affairs.

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

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

Mr. Chair, you are hearing it here, and these are folks, we work together. This idea of accountability matters deeply to all of us. We know when you are in any business, this business--we have had colleagues of ours in here be arrested for buying cocaine from undercover police officers in Washington, D.C.

Well, that brings great discredit to every single one of us, but I certainly don't think it requires all of us, then, to go through the same thing that person is going through or deprive us our rights of where we are at. This idea of due process, and what we are asking about, is not something meant to protect a bad employee. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is meant to improve the workforce.

My plea on this is--much of this bill, there is agreement on, Mr. Takano was right--it went a step further. Having been a rank-and-file person in a collectively bargained unit, my goal was to provide the best quality education so our students could learn--an environment, quality teachers, and all of those things.

I am at a loss for the desire to come here and decide that, and again, we say it in passing: Well, I don't want to deride all of those really good employees who are there. I just want to take away their collectively bargained right that was there.

Even though we can give example after example, like Robert. He was a

service-connected disabled Navy veteran with over a decade of experience at the Veterans Benefits Administration. He was demoted after consistently, every single year, receiving highly satisfactory or top-rated performance reviews. Robert volunteered to be part of a quality review team to get rid of the backlog, and he had the audacity to tell his manager that there were better ways we could do this. Perhaps all of this overtime pay and consolidating all of these claims to one place was not in the best interest of that. That manager, on the way out the door, demoted and tried to remove Robert from that position.

Now, keep in mind, that same manager, all of those years before, had rated him well. Well, maybe something happened. Maybe Robert started doing something wrong. Maybe Robert wasn't that good an employee.

But again, under this piece of legislation, Robert's collectively bargained right--which he used and grieved it and got back his job, and subsequently, the manager had problems on their performance reviews, where it came from.

So again, don't set this up as if everything is wrong.

And I would make note of this: We are doing our best to attract the best and brightest to the VA. Nobody is defending the bad. But when I hear folks come to the floor and it is nothing but what a horrific place this is, I leave this for you, Mr. Chairman.

I also have the privilege of representing America's premier medical institution in the Mayo Clinic, and I look at what they do. Folks at Mayo Clinic will tell me some of the finest cardiac surgeons in the world are at the Minneapolis VA.

I will also tell you this. If you, in America, go to any hospital-- Dr. Roe can attest to this--the thing that you should probably be most worried about and the thing that kills most people--over 90,000 a year--is hospital-acquired infections.

Do you know who does it better and has the lowest rate, better than Mayo Clinic, better than Johns Hopkins? The VA. So somebody among those rank-and-file members who is cleaning the operating rooms and cleaning the equipment is doing so in a manner that is better than any other.

What message are we sending them today? If a manager doesn't do their job and decides they want to fire you, we are going to lump everybody together. I just ask, once again, to my colleagues, to this body, these are things that should have been debated in a hearing. We should have brought in the experts.

Here is what I think. I think you would build a broader coalition-- because I have to be very honest with you. I think our public sector unions could help us and step up and say: What was the real situation here? How do you respond to this egregious breach of trust? And what do you think would be a better way?

I am not saying they would give us a suggestion. I want to be very honest and not disingenuous. They may not answer us. We should have at least asked them: What would you do to make this better? What could speed it up, and what could protect them?

We didn't do that because we didn't have a hearing, and I think that stops building the consensus. I think it makes it harder to get this.

I will tell you this. The bill I keep referencing that was over in the Senate had 45 Senate cosponsors. Good luck getting 45 of them to agree today. It is Thursday, and we did it on an accountability plea that also had the support of every single one of those groups on there, except one, to support that piece of legislation.

So we went a step further. We didn't have a hearing. We tried to let outside groups frame this as a veterans versus public sector union folks, who were also veterans. That is not what it is. We just need to get it right.

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

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

Again, we are not going to find a lot of disagreement.

I will tell you what a good first step would be: hire some surgeons. There are openings there. This is our first salvo at trying to fix the VA. We have an appeals bill that every single veterans service organization agrees: appeals modernization. We have worked that thing through. We have had the language. It is not here.

We have a Choice bill that is expiring August 7. We have had a hearing with the VA Secretary, and that is the way it should have been. It is not here today.

What we have is a bill that did not go through regular order, a bill that obviously didn't build a consensus, and this is very unusual to have a bill from the VA Committee. I bet you 90 to 95 percent of the time when one hits this floor, it gets 300 to 400 votes up on that board, but this one is not.

So, again, if the contention is that Members of this House don't care if there is a bad employee working there, that is disingenuous and wrong. But if we do believe, putting it in place--and again, the example I gave, the chairman is right. It took Robert 6 weeks to get all of the information gathered together because the manager who left was holding on to it and had to get the union to force the release of that information. His 14 days would have come and gone, and that is it.

This is why, sometimes, I am not going to defend 400 days. That is ridiculous. I am not going to spend--if they are dragging their feet. But this guy got fired by a manager, got demoted down, wanted to get the information. The outgoing manager said, ``It isn't my problem.'' The union had to go--and had to go, in this case, almost to court--to get the information back to them so he could present a case that said exactly what was ruled upon: You got fired illegally by a bad manager.

I am telling people, if you are angry when things go wrong at the VA, you have got 330 million Americans who are with you. We have subpoenaed them. None of them were collectively bargained. The problem is in management and middle management not doing their job.

Do your work.

You know what would be great is if the management actually did what they are supposed to do and improved bad performance before it gets to a point where it causes problems and you actually improve that employee, which saves us money from having to go out and hire someone else and you have the system working better. But to watch something go wrong, not do your due diligence, not follow the law, then fire someone and then complain that it takes too long to fix it, how about we figure out what really gets, keeps, retains, and makes the VA better?

There are other places that we could work on. Ninety percent of it, you have got my agreement. I think you are going to see that 10 percent is going to ensure this does not get into law; and that, in itself, is simply wrong because

no one disagrees. We could make this system work better.

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

Mr. Chair, after the gentleman finishes with his speakers, I will close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that I am pleased that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) is going to use the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to provide oversight of this administration. I welcome it. I have some suggestions for some other oversight of the administration, and I would be glad to share them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am glad we got an opportunity to debate this, which is what we should do. There is no disagreement that we need to hold folks accountable. We need to get the best people at the VA. We need to commit to improving the VA the best we can.

My respect and admiration for the chairman is as it has always been, the highest it can be. I know his heart and his intellect is aimed at that. We have some legitimate differences on this. I don't believe they are so big they can't be overcome. I do believe we should try and keep this away from the partisanship that so often engulfs this House.

My commitment to Chairman Roe of Tennessee is to do the best I can to continue to try and improve upon these. We have a lot more work to do that will be happening together to improve the care of our veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just a simple technical correction. It does not change my concerns with the underlying bill on H.R. 1259, but I am not opposed to the technical corrections.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Roe of Tennessee and Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. I have voiced my concern with the regular order. I think it is important to note that we are given the opportunity here to offer amendments in good faith, and I am grateful for that.

This amendment to H.R. 1259 would replace sections 3 and 9 of the underlying bill with bipartisan legislation from the Veterans First Act that was first introduced by Senator Isakson last Congress. This is a piece of legislation I have been talking about.

It is supported from both sides of the aisle, as well as those veterans service organizations, with the exception of one, that was shown earlier.

If we hope to reach any compromise with the Senate on accountability, I believe this amendment could be made in order, be voted on, debated, and passed into it.

The amendment specifically targets senior executives. It has been the senior executives, not the frontline employees, who we have subpoenaed before our committee, and who the VA has failed to hold accountable.

Like H.R. 1259, it provides an expedited process for the VA Secretary to hold senior executives and VA employees accountable.

For a senior executive employee, the employee would get 10 business days' notice. The employee subject to an adverse action would be able to grieve the action through an internal grievance process that would take no longer than 21 days. The employee would also be permitted to appeal an adverse action to court. It would also require the VA Secretary to develop a performance management system for SES employees. Do your job. Have the management do their job.

For VA employees, the employee would be removed from misconduct or poor performance that took place within the previous 2 years before the proposed removal. The employee would get 10 business days' notice. The employee would get 10 business days to respond to the charges. The VA Secretary would be required to provide the employee a decision in a reasonable period of time, and the employee would have 10 days to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This takes a little time.

The Merit Systems Protection Board would have 90 days to issue a decision. During that time, the employee would receive no pay and no benefits.

My amendment would also leave in place sections 4 through 8 of H.R. 1259 because I agree employees convicted of felonies connected to their jobs should not receive pensions, and poor-performing employees should not receive bonuses. No disagreement.

Most importantly, my amendment provides a fair process that protects whistleblowers. By allowing our frontline employees to use arbitration and grievance procedures under collective bargaining agreements, these frontline employees remain protected from bad managers who want to retaliate against them for speaking out when something is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the choice is not as easy as that. Do you want to stand with Robert, the good employee who was fired by a bad manager who used the process to get their job back, or do we want to just hurry it?

It is better to get it right than get it done. And I will point out, AFGE, the union you keep hearing about, Mr. Chairman, does not endorse my amendment. They do not endorse my amendment, nor do I care about that.

What I do believe is that this amendment has the opportunity to improve upon on a bill that we 90 percent agree upon, taking out the piece that is going to make it difficult and not improve care for our veterans. And I guess the thing that I would hope matters, I believe-- and we will come back here and see. We will see. That is the good part about this place. If this piece of legislation is passed by October, by Halloween, we should have this bill through and it should be done, and we should be seeing changes.

If we don't, perhaps we do this exercise again, through regular order, taking some of these suggestions that make it possible to get it done.

I encourage my colleagues to support this change that makes sure we can get accountability. Let's agree where we know we agree. It is not picking one over the other. It is deciding how you give due process, encouraging good employees to have the rights that they have earned to improve that care and workplace while at the same time removing those that don't.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

This is not the Veterans First Act. It is pieces from the Veterans First Act, but changes.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment and, in fact, I am enthusiastically supportive of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. This amendment addresses an issue that we dealt with in our committee last Congress, where senior executives are transferred to different positions around the country, receive pay increases and relocation incentives.

We subpoenaed two senior executives. In fact, the first subpoenas ever issued out of the VA Committee, I asked for them to get there; and they were backed by Mr. Roe, backed by our chairman and ranking member. And to refresh people's minds, these were folks that took positions of lesser power, used their positions to negotiate to get there, and then, in some cases, took $129,000 moving expenses.

You cannot find anyone more outraged than me. And I will tell you, because it was not done correctly, and we didn't focus on this, I still work with some of those very same people. They have their jobs back.

Now, the debate that the gentleman may have heard earlier is we don't disagree at all that we should get rid of these people. This amendment will focus on the right things, that is what we have been making the case of.

So I applaud the gentleman. I am glad he is here. His military service is greatly appreciated. The statistics he gave on veterans shows that he will be there. I support this amendment, and I certainly believe that my colleagues should all support it.

It is this type of work that improves upon a bill, as I say, once again, 90 percent of what is in this bill is in absolute agreement. This just makes the bill better.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I am not only not opposed, I am enthusiastically supportive of the gentlewoman's commonsense, absolutely important piece of legislation. It improves upon the bill. I am glad we had a rule that brought it here, something we have worked on in our committee. I will make note of this.

The gentlewoman is absolutely right. The people we just talked about in the last amendment received bonuses also, but the bulk of this bill also deals with kitchen staff, janitorial staff, and rank-and-file members on the floor that we are working to go after their agreed-upon grievance process to keep their jobs. So this amendment is absolutely something that will get total approval from certainly, I believe, all Members of the House. This should be in the bill and will be in the bill.

This is how bills get better, address real issues, and take on the issue of accountability in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all my colleagues to support the gentlewoman. We have more work, as the gentlewoman said in this, but this is how it is done to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1259.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017.

Mr. Chair, you and many other Members of this body are well aware that providing true accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs has been a goal of mine and many of my colleagues for years. The House has remained committed to this goal and has already passed several iterations of the legislation before us today, yet the challenges remain, which is why we are here once again trying in this Congress to effect real change and reform.

To bring real reform, we need to provide Secretary Shulkin with the tools he needs to swiftly and effectively discipline employees who don't meet the standards our veterans deserve or who fail in their sacred mission to provide world-class health care and benefits to the men and women who have served.

My bill would provide a singular expedited procedure for all VA employees to respond and appeal to proposed removals, demotions, and suspensions for performance or misconduct or, in the case of title 38 employees, who are healthcare providers, for a question involving direct patient care or clinical competence.

The prenotification and response process would be required to be completed within 15 business days, and the employee would be entitled to an expedited appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, where the first step at the administrative judge would be limited to 45 days. Additionally, either party would be able to appeal the administrative judge's decision to the full MSPB and would be provided the opportunity for limited judicial review.

H.R. 1259 would also ensure that the disciplinary procedures and avenues to appeal set up by this bill are the only avenues in place for title 5 and hybrid title 38 employees to dispute proposed removals, demotions, and suspensions for longer than 14 days. Pure title 38 employees, mainly VA's physicians and registered nurses, would retain their current internal process, but the timelines for disciplinary action and the appeals process would also be aligned to the timelines for all other VA employees as set up by this bill.

This bill would also provide improved protections for whistleblowers; would allow the Secretary to reduce an employee's Federal pension if they are convicted of a felony that influenced their job at VA; would provide the Secretary with the authority to recoup a bonus provided to an employee who engaged in misconduct or poor performance prior to receiving the bonus; and would allow the Secretary to recoup any relocation expenses that were authorized for a VA employee only through the employee's ill-gotten means, such as waste, fraud, and malfeasance.

Lastly, it would also provide the Secretary with the direct hiring authority that he desperately needs and has been asking for so that we can hire medical center directors and VISN directors in a more expedited manner and fill leadership vacancies across VA.

Mr. Chair, as I have said, I agree with all of my colleagues that the vast majority of VA employees are hardworking public servants who are dedicated to providing quality health care and benefits for veterans. But it is beyond comprehension that, with as much outright malfeasance that Congress, the American public, the media, and our courageous whistleblowers have uncovered at the VA, which has led to the increased scrutiny of the Department over the past few years, that we still see far too many instances of VA employees not living up to the standards America expects and not living up to the standards that our men and women who have served this country deserve.

Knowing many of the instances that have happened at the VA are a slap in the face to our veterans, it is unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose the bill before us here today.

The committee has discovered an instance of an employee showing up drunk to work to scrub in for a surgery on a veteran; a VA employee taking a recovering addict to a crack house and buying him drugs and a prostitute; a VA employee participating in an armed robbery; and senior managers retaliating against whistleblowers, at which point VA then has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the whistleblower in restitution.

Not only are all of these acts egregious and not only are all of these instances factual, they are just the tip of the iceberg; but what causes me to stand before you today is that, in none of these instances, did the VA hold these employees accountable in any reasonable timeframe, if at all.

I blame many factors for this, but mainly I blame an antiquated civil service system and a grievance process set up by the union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements that have left VA unwilling to jump through the many hoops to do what is right.

Mr. Chair, it is well past time that we not allow the current system to continue, and it is certainly our duty to finally take action and enact meaningful changes at VA that put veterans and their families first and foremost. Everything else should come second. That includes the power of the public sector unions.

Everyone in government knows that the civil service laws that were once meant to promote the efficiency of government are now obsolete and make it almost impossible to remove a poor-performing employee. Last year, VA's then-Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson, under President Obama, sat before the Veterans Affairs' Committee and admitted it was too difficult to fire a substandard VA employee.

The Government Accountability Office studies the government's ability to hold low-performing employees accountable and found that it took 6 months to a year, on average, and sometimes significantly longer, to fire poor-performing government employees.

I have heard the concerns that this bill will hurt the Department's ability to recruit and retain good employees. I don't buy this argument, as every VA employee I speak to tells me exactly the opposite. Good employees want to work in an environment where they know everyone can be held accountable for their actions.

I believe the current status quo of allowing bad employees to continue at

their jobs while receiving a paycheck actually hurts the moral of other employees who are doing the right thing 24 hours a day.

This is the same for employees of the Department who are veterans. I know that some have said that this would hurt veterans who are employed at a VA, since they make up a large percentage of VA employees, as it should be. As a veteran myself, and as my fellow veterans here today would agree--we don't sign up to serve, whether in uniform or civilian clothes, because we put our individual employee protections ahead of the mission--the mission always comes first, Mr. Chair; and at the VA, the mission is our veterans. Veterans want to work alongside colleagues they know are working hard for their fellow men and women they served alongside.

I also want to note that, from day one, I have worked with Secretary Shulkin and his team in the drafting of this bill that is before us today. He has endorsed this legislation not because he wants to punish employees or make it harder to recruit quality employees, but because he sees this type of change as desperately needed if he is going to truly reform the Department, as both sides of the aisle want.

Secretary Shulkin is someone who garnered the trust and respect of two Presidents of two different parties to serve our veterans, and he was confirmed by a vote in the Senate of 100-0. Mr. Chair, I hope that my colleagues would understand that his support and assistance in crafting this bill before us today is because real accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs is a veteran issue, not a political issue.

It is time that we align ourselves with our Nation's veterans and the organizations that represent them. Fifteen veterans service organizations support the bill before us today: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Concerned Veterans for America, Student Veterans for America, Reserve Officers Association, Fleet Reserve Association, Association of the United States Navy, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, VetsFirst, AMVETS, the Military Officers Association of America, and the United States Army Warrant Officers Association. These are 15 groups that represent millions of veterans and their families.

While I am in no way trying to make this a political argument or say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not care about veterans--they do--but when it comes to this particular issue, accountability at the VA, I do not believe we can avoid the facts:

The facts are, when we talk about accountability at VA during our VSO hearings with the Senate, Members get an ovation.

The facts are that veterans, not just from the headquarters in D.C., but across this country, come up and thank Members for putting veterans' rights before all else.

The facts are the only groups that have staunchly come out and opposed the reform we are trying to make in this bill are the public sector unions.

As I said, this should not be a political discussion and this should not be one side of the aisle trying to out-veteran the other side of the aisle. We don't want to do that. But when you look at the facts, it is clear what our veterans and what the American public want us to do here in this Congress.

We have a package that makes meaningful changes to VA's civil service system while maintaining due process rights, as we should. Today we have the opportunity to make real and lasting changes to a broken system. Today we can decide to stand with our veterans or we can stand with the status quo and the unions that perpetuate the status quo, which I believe has failed them and the American public for far too long.

I hope you all will join me and the 15 veteran organizations that support this legislation and do what is right for veterans and pass H.R. 1259. Let's put accountability first so that transformative reforms can succeed.

Mr. Chair, 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. 1259, ``VA

Accountability First Act of 2017.'' 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 February

28, 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. 1259 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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With that impassioned plea, I was asked yesterday on a Facebook page who I might, from the other side of the aisle, like to ride across the country with, and it was my friend Tim Walz who I would like to ride with. He very passionately represents veterans very well, and it has been an absolute pleasure to work on the committee with him for the last 8 years.

Mr. Chair, just a couple things. The bill subjects all career employees to this new formal removal authority, and this would include frontline employees, middle management, even Senior Executive Service employees. Just a couple more things. It provides a unified process, not a bunch of different ones, for employees to appeal major adverse actions and other actions for title 38 when it pertains to a question involving direct patient care or clinical competence.

The current grievance procedures can allow an appeal to drag on for almost 350 days, and the House is the only legislative body that has passed a true accountability bill. I know, having spoken with Secretary Shulkin yesterday, he very much wants this piece of legislation in his toolbox to help reform the VA, which is desperately needed.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), our Conference chair.

Mr. Chairman, also during that live Facebook page, I mentioned another person I wouldn't mind riding across the country with, and it was Mr. Hoyer, just to clarify the Record.

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of clarification things.

All we have done with this bill is--we haven't removed due process rights--we have just shortened the time. And to show the concern that I had, I was afraid that if we used 14 or 15 calendar days--let's say, President's Day would be on a Monday, which would be a holiday--that would take a day away. So I said let's make this first part of this 15 business days. So that is 3 weeks. And then the accelerated review can go on 45 business days, which is 9 weeks. So this is 3 months of time, not a full year. But it simply compresses that time into a 3-month timeframe that this could last. So I think that people have their due process rights protected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my good friend, vice chair of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Takano.

``If you engage in an unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired. Period. It shouldn't be that difficult.'' President Barack Obama, at the Choice Act's signing in 2014.

Dr. Shulkin is not a hard-line person. He received 100 votes, Mr. Chairman, in the Senate. I don't know that anybody else in this confirmation process has come close to that, but he has had unanimous support. He has asked for this. We worked with his office. He has personally asked that this be passed. That is why we are bringing this bill down here in this form.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), one of my great friends here in Congress, a fellow classmate. We came in together. We, too, have traveled to Afghanistan together to visit our Active Duty military in combat. He, too, is a combat veteran.

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

Mr. Chair, I think my good friend, Mr. Walz, helps make the point that this person who was aggrieved, it doesn't have to last so long. You can actually compress this time. As I mentioned, it is not short; 3 months to get this resolved. But this process we are putting together actually helps that person that has been aggrieved by the supervisor, I would argue.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), a new member of our committee, a veteran and physician from Florida.

Mr. Chair, I will just point out that I don't think the VA has a reputation of firing too many people.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a new Member, and a very active member of our committee.

Mr. Chair, I would like to inquire as to the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a fellow classmate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), a new member of our committee who is also in the Reserves serving our Nation in the military.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a good friend and long-term member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, to go along with what Sergeant Major Walz said, it is truly a privilege to work with him on these issues. His heart is in the right place. He truly cares about veterans.

I believe this bill, though, does do what needs to be done. Secretary Shulkin--approved 100-0 in the Senate--believes that he needs this tool to be able to reform the VA. I think it is imperative that we, as legislators, provide him the tools when we say we demand accountability at the VA.

Once again, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 1259.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment would provide technical changes to the bill, while not changing the overall substance of the bill. The amendment is noncontroversial and no cost. It does not change any underlying policy in the bill.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), but I must oppose it at this time.

The amendment would dramatically weaken the current accountability language for non-SES employees to the point that it would not be a meaningful improvement to or departure from current law. Just as a point of clarification, the Senate never did move the Veterans First Act.

The amendment includes many of the archaic and unnecessary civil service rules that currently hamper true reform and accountability at the Department. And unlike H.R. 1259, which would require the entire internal and first level of external appeals process to be completed within 67 days, the Walz amendment would allow for the process to take at least 120 days, and this period could expand indefinitely.

Additionally, the standard used in this agreement for removing or demoting employees for performance is not a meaningful departure from current law, and I fear it won't make any true changes that are desperately needed at VA.

On the collective bargaining piece, I understand the ranking member's concern, but the last thing I want to do is create a giant loophole that makes it harder to discipline bad employees. Just looking at one of VA's master contracts with employee unions, AFGE, which is the largest union at VA, one can see that the grievance procedures that he wishes to keep in place to dispute discipline can extend to almost 350 days, and this timeline can be easily extended.

With the Walz amendment, we would be creating a giant loophole where the Secretary would have one expedited process in place, while the long and administratively burdensome grievance process remains in place for nearly 285,000 employees at the Department, or 76 percent of the VA's workforce.

Clearly, covering only 24 percent of the VA workforce under an expedited authority is not what I want to do, nor do I expect veterans and taxpayers or the Secretary want to do.

Additionally, when the committee first began working on accountability issues at VA, they were told by the largest Federal Government union, AFGE general counsel, that the union would never support any legislation that changes the status quo.

Based on AFGE's strong support for language identical to the Walz amendment last Congress, I think the message is clear. If Congress adopts this language, we would not be protecting taxpayers or veterans, and we would be supporting the corrupt status quo that fails VA employees and veterans daily.

In the end, the question is very clear: Do we want to stand with veterans and taxpayers to provide the Secretary with the appropriate tools he has asked for to hold these employees accountable? Or do we want to give in to special interests groups to support the status quo?

Once again, I urge all Members to oppose the Walz amendment and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am just looking at the AFGE website, and it does have support for the Veterans First Act here on the website; so that is true.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

Basically, the accountability provisions are the same. I, once again, urge all Members to oppose the Walz amendment and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would allow a whistleblower who is alleging prohibited personnel practices, as defined in title 38, from being disciplined under the bill until the whistleblower complaint is resolved.

The committee has always favored strengthening protections for whistleblowers. My bill already protects whistleblowers, but I am not opposed to Ms. Kuster's amendment and suggested changes, and I appreciate her offering it. The bill has my full support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Taylor for his service to our country and to our Nation. I am appreciative of him and his staff for working with us on the amendment. The amendment has, as chair, my full support.

Mr. Chairman, this would require the Secretary to report to Congress each year any performance awards or bonuses provided to Senior Executive Service employees at the VA. This is an excellent amendment from the gentlewoman from New York and will provide additional needed transparency at the Department where taxpayer money is being spent, especially when being spent on bonuses for the most senior individuals at VA. This amendment has my full support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Kuster's amendment would require VA supervisors to develop performance plans for employees which would, as a part of the plan, measure steps taken to address poor performance but also improve training for VA supervisors--an excellent suggestion.

I agree that all VA employees, especially our managers, should be held to high standards and should have as much training provided them as is available. Ms. Kuster's amendment has my full support.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment, and I urge support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate Mr. Takano's--who is a very hardworking member of the committee--attempt to insert what he thinks is an appropriate balance of due process and accountability, but the substitute language misses the bar of what we are trying to accomplish.

It would strike the entire bill and insert new language only allowing the Secretary to remove someone if they present a threat to health or safety. This is a nearly unobtainable, if not an immeasurable, bar to reach. This undefined standard makes it almost impossible for the Secretary to remove any employee. It would create a confusing process that only allows someone to be removed after they are suspended first and the Secretary conducts an investigation into the individual.

It would allow for employees to be on indefinite suspension for months, if not years, awaiting the Secretary's final decision, which is not fair to veterans and the employee or good-performing employees and taxpayers. The employee deserves a quick opportunity to present their case, and, if exonerated, get back to doing their job.

Unlike my bill, this would only provide backpay to someone if their removal is overturned on appeal if they are a whistleblower. My bill would require any individual whose disciplinary action is overturned on appeal to receive any backpay for that period.

This amendment does nothing to provide the Secretary with the authority to recoup bonuses or relocation expenses from individuals who receive taxpayer-funded money through ill-gotten means such as fraud, waste, or abuse, nor does it allow the Secretary to recoup a portion of a Federal pension of someone convicted of a felony that influenced their VA job.

It would ensure that the current ineffective civil service rules would continue to hamper any change to the corrosive and unaccountable culture at the VA, and would also, more than likely, not apply to some of the employees associated with the VA's egregious scandals, including the bloated Denver, Colorado, construction project; data management at the Philadelphia regional office; FY 2015 $2.5 billion shortfall cost overruns at the Orlando VA Medical Center; allegations of inappropriate use of government purchase cards to the tune of $6 billion; and many others.

These are the types of employees that our constituents and veterans expect to be held accountable, but this amendment would not cover.

In the end, the facts are clear: our veterans and the American taxpayer support the reform in H.R. 1259, and not the status quo, which is supported by public sector unions.

I encourage all Members to oppose the Takano amendment and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with my friend on the other side of the aisle that you cannot fire your way to excellence, nor can you grieve your way to excellence. You have to perform your way to excellence.

I certainly appreciate his passion for the committee and the hard work that he has done on numerous bills, but, in this particular case, I will urge all Members to oppose the Takano amendment and support the underlying bill in which the Secretary has asked for the authority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker: ``If you engage in an unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired. Period. It shouldn't be that difficult''--Barack Obama at the Veterans Choice Act signing in August of 2014. That is who said that.

Yesterday, I had breakfast with the Secretary of the VA. We know that accountability and the VA needs reform. The first thing he said to me when he was there was he needs this accountability act to better manage the VA.

What does this bill do, in a nutshell, very quickly? It simply shortens the process instead of taking as much as a year or longer to terminate someone. And we have had people in egregious things they have done. The Phoenix VA issue was mentioned. It took 2 years to get rid of anybody out there.

The Secretary says he needs these authorities. It maintains the due process rights of the employees, which is important. It simply shortens the length of time for as much as a year for some people. The VA said it would take 6 months to a year to fire a government employee--or longer.

It also has accentuated whistleblower protections, allows the Secretary to recoup bonuses from people who have gotten them illegally.

It allows the Secretary to hire people. We have many VA facilities out there that do not have CEOs at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we oppose the MTR, and I would strongly encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1181.

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

Mr. Speaker, too often, as Americans, we tend to take our freedom for granted. We should never forget we owe the freedom to our Nation's veterans. That is why it is so egregious that many veterans come home to find that they have to do battle with the VA--the very agency that is supposed to help and support them--to protect their own constitutional rights. The problem occurs when VA, for whatever reason, determines that a veteran needs assistance managing his or her VA financial benefits and decides to appoint a fiduciary.

Now, there may be many reasons that a veteran might need a fiduciary, such as a veteran who has TBI may have trouble with math and struggles to balance his or her checkbook. But it is important to remember that the decision to appoint a fiduciary is made by a VA bureaucrat, not a judge or a magistrate after ensuring that veteran's due process rights are protected.

Unfortunately, there are serious, unintended consequences when VA appoints a fiduciary. This is because, once VA decides that the beneficiary needs help with finances, even though there may be no evidence that the individual may be a danger to himself or others, the Department sends his or her name to the FBI to be added to the NICS list.

As you know, anyone whose name is on the NICS list is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. This means that the veteran can no longer participate in sports like hunting or target shooting. The veteran is also legally obligated to relinquish any firearms he or she owns, including collector's pieces and family heirlooms.

I am opposed to the VA's existing policy not only because it deprives veterans of their constitutional rights without due process of law, I am also concerned that these veterans are not able to participate in recreational therapy programs like VA's program at the VA Grand Junction medical center in Colorado that enables veterans with physical and mental disabilities to go hunting or shooting. I know from personal experience that these therapy programs are very effective in helping these heroes recover from injuries that they have received while serving our country.

It is unfortunate that some of the opponents of this bill are perpetrating the outdated stereotypes that people who are mentally ill may be violent and should be feared. I am concerned that these false characterizations may actually deter people from seeking the health services they need.

It is hard enough for some people to admit they need help, Mr. Speaker, but image how much more difficult it is when they fear that they would be stigmatized and isolated. It is also possible that some veterans decide to avoid using VA healthcare services all together out of fear that a VA bureaucrat may decide that they are incompetent and take away their constitutional rights.

Let's take a look at the people who actually are added to the NICS list as a result of the Veterans Administration's appointing a fiduciary.

There are currently more than 1,000 children under the age of 20 here on the NICS list, likely because VA appointed a fiduciary because they are too young to handle their own money.

VA has also added the names of 107,000 people over 80 years old to the NICS list. These individuals probably just need help with their finances due to their advanced age.

But should VA really take away the Second Amendment rights from our Nation's seniors, particularly those who fought for the country? It is outrageous that the only group of people that can have their constitutional rights taken away without a hearing before a judge or magistrate are the very people who fought for those rights and their dependents. Even criminals must be convicted in a court of law before their names are added to that list, Mr. Speaker.

H.R. 1181 would simply prohibit VA from sending veterans' names to the NICS list unless there is an order from a judge or a magistrate that says the person may harm themselves or others.

This proposal has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In 2011, the House passed H.R. 2349, which included similar provisions, by voice vote. And just last month, both the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 40, which prevented the Social Security Administration from implementing a similar policy to report the names of some people who have received disability insurance benefits to NICS.

H.R. 1181 also has wide support among the veterans community, including the American Legion, the VFW, and AMVETS. H.R. 1181 is also supported by the National Disability Rights Network and the National Rifle Association. Additionally, H.R. 1181 has a positive statement of the administration's support.

Mr. Speaker, veterans who fought to defend the Constitution should also be allowed the rights it protects. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1181. It is the right thing to do, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In America, the last time I looked, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What we have done with these veterans who have served this country, many of them injured in combat, is we have said you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent to be able to own a firearm in your own home.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, people who are in a fiduciary status actually statistically have a slightly lower incarceration rate than veterans who are not. So to say that they are a danger to themselves or a danger to others is erroneous.

The other thing I would like to say is that the 21st Century Cures Act, Mr. Speaker, has codified basically the VA policy is what it did. It did not change the policy. What we are saying to veterans is that if you are an honorably discharged veteran who needs a fiduciary for whatever reason, you automatically lose a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), an active member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is currently on the NICS list. It simply prohibits the VA Secretary from continuing to send the names of beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary to the NICS list. And there is nothing in the bill that would require the VA Secretary to take any action with respect to those already on the list.

Just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, to show you how the VA's policy is not consistent: just as an example, a veteran who is rated at 100 percent disabled for PTSD is not automatically given a fiduciary, even though the symptoms required for that rating may include suicidal or homicidal ideation. So they are very inconsistent about how they do this. And of the 915,744 veterans who have a service-connected PTSD condition, only 1.7 percent of them have a fiduciary. Remember, they lose their constitutionally guaranteed right.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a hardworking member of this conference.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me state this for the record. The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is currently on the NICS list, except it prohibits the VA Secretary from continuing to send the names of the beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary to the NICS list.

I don't want guns in the hands of anybody who should not own a gun who is mentally unstable, but what we are saying is that a VA rater should be a judge or a magistrate, where you can argue both sides of this in front of them. It shouldn't be a VA bureaucrat that is doing this.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

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

I guess by listening to the debate that is going on, one would assume that someone who has a fiduciary would be a danger to themselves and others, and I think that is completely erroneous to assume that.

Let me read you excerpts of a floor statement that Senator Burr made in 2009 to show you how this can get off track. And we are going to put sort of a human face on this, just an excerpt from a letter that Jennifer wrote as the wife of Corey.

``Corey served in Iraq. He was a paramedic. He was severely injured by an IED explosion in 2004, which caused severe burns, damage to his lungs, and severe traumatic brain injury after shrapnel entered his skull. Corey spent . . . 5 years recovering from his injuries. Jennifer reports that he is walking, talking, and enjoying life at home with his two children.

``Now it gets really sad. Because of his head injury, Corey still requires help with certain things. The VA said he needed help managing his disability compensation payments, and they named Jennifer, his spouse, as his fiduciary''--his wife. ``That is where I would like to read you her letter. Again, I quote from the letter:

`` `On May 19, 2009, we had our annual fiduciary meeting with the VA field examiner. At the end of the meeting, our field examiner said he needed to read a statement to us. He read the Brady Bill statement and then stated that Corey can't own, possess, use, be around, et cetera, any firearms. He then went on to say that anyone in our household can't own a gun while living in this household.

`` `I asked him about Corey going on adaptive hunting trips and he said he couldn't. Corey stated that he had a gun that was handed down from his grandfather and that Corey was going to hand it down to his son, and the field examiner told him that he couldn't have it. He stated to Corey that if he did own a gun or be around a gun that he would be threatened with imprisonment.

`` `The way that that field examiner talked to Corey about this issue was not appropriate. The field examiner said that I could challenge it and handed me a blank sheet of paper with a VA heading. I asked the field examiner for the statement that he read to me, but he said that he had to ask his boss if he could actually provide a copy of that statement. After 2 weeks of me emailing him, I finally got the attached papers in the mail. I think the VA is taking this way out of concept, and I would greatly appreciate your support.'

``Well, in case any of my colleagues think the government would never prosecute someone like Corey for possession of a firearm, being around a firearm, I wish to read to my colleagues excerpts from the VA directive that went out to all VA regional offices on September 29, 2009, on this very issue.

``The directive is meant to inform fiduciary field examiners of their obligation if they were to witness a violation of the Brady Act. I am going to quote from this VA memorandum to the field examiners.

`` `Field examiners or other VA employees who encounter beneficiaries believed to be in violation of the Brady Act are required to notify the fiduciary activity manager as soon as safely possible. At no time should the employee place him/herself in danger. The fiduciary activity manager at the VA regional office of jurisdiction must immediately report the alleged violation to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,' '' and here is the number.

And that is straight out of their memorandum, Mr. Speaker.

We don't want weapons, no one in this room, and none of my colleagues on the VA Committee, Republican or Democrat, want weapons in the hands of someone that is considered dangerous. But we have American heroes that are being denied their Second Amendment right to even keep their grandfather's gun. I feel that, if you want to go and have your due process rights in front of a court of law or magistrate, that is perfectly okay. That is the way our system works. But not a VA rater. They don't get to do that. And I think, by passing this bill, we will guarantee those rights to our American heroes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record two documents from the VFW and The American Legion supporting this legislation.

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

March 8, 2017.

Hon. David P. Roe,

Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Roe: On behalf of the men and women of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our

Auxiliary, I am pleased to offer the VFW's support for H.R.

1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

It is unconscionable to require veterans to choose between

the care they have earned and deserve and their

constitutional rights. Your legislation would ensure veterans

who suffer from mental health conditions no longer have to

worry about losing their 2nd amendment rights when seeking

potentially lifesaving mental health care. By elevating the

threshold for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System, this important legislation would

help destigmatize mental health and protect veterans'

constitutional rights.

The VFW commends your leadership on this issue and your

commitment to our nation's veterans. We look forward to

working with you to ensure the passage of this important

legislation.

Sincerely,

Carlos U. Fuentes,

Director,

VFW National Legislative Service.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, served in the military as a military doctor in the 2nd United States Infantry Division in Southeast Asia many years ago, so I have seen patients who were mentally ill. One of the things that has bothered me is that we are perpetuating an outdated stereotype that mentally ill people are prone to violence. Most are not, and perpetuating this stereotype that they are may result in their being isolated or not seeking treatment. This is unfortunate for people who suffer from mental illness and need support and understanding.

I think we do them a great disservice. My bill would require a court of law rather than a VA rating specialist--that is all we are saying here--to determine whether an individual actually poses a danger to themselves or others before their name gets sent to the FBI and added to the NICS list. A VA employee should not be able to add a veteran's name to a NICS list before that veteran has been afforded due process.

Let me explain how bad it really is. It is outrageous that a criminal has more rights than a veteran when it comes to being placed on the NICS list--at least they aren't added to the list until they have been convicted by a judge or a jury, Mr. Speaker. We should at least treat our American heroes that well.

Here is another point I would like to make: a veteran that has been rated--listening to the debate to show you how the VA system is not a standard for everyone. A VA veteran rated 100 percent for PTSD does not automatically get a fiduciary because they are 100 percent service- connected disabled because of their service even though the symptoms require that, for that rating, it may include suicidal or homicidal ideation.

All we are saying--and I think, hopefully, everyone would agree--is that you deserve as an American citizen--and especially an American citizen, Mr. Speaker, who has served this country whether in combat or not, who has served his country in the military--your day in court and at least be heard by a judge and jury.

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

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, this proposal is not new. It has been passed out of committee in 2010, 2011, 2013, and this year. It passed the full House, H.R. 2349, in the 112th Congress, which is included in this proposal, by a voice vote.

On February 2, the House approved H.J. Res. 40, which nullified the Social Security Administration rule that would have similarly restricted the Second Amendment rights to certain disabled people who require help managing their finances. There is no reason that veterans who have fiduciaries should be treated any differently than Social Security beneficiaries who need help managing their finances.

Next, Mr. Speaker, veterans who need fiduciaries are not necessarily mentally ill. A veteran may not be able to handle his or her finances due to conditions such as traumatic brain injury. Furthermore, The American Legion testified in 2015 about a case in which the VA declared a veteran incompetent because he told his doctor he didn't pay his bills. But, in reality, the veteran didn't pay his bills because, like a lot of us, of the division of household responsibilities. His wife paid the bills, and he got caught up in that. Then to get out of it is a chore.

I wanted to say, once again, I really feel strongly about this because we worked on the 21st Century Cures bill on removing the stigma of mentally ill people that because someone is mentally ill, they are a danger to themselves or others. Perpetuating this stereotype, I think, is dangerous. I think it keeps people from coming in and seeking the help that they need.

Also, and I have participated in this, Mr. Speaker, at home where we have used hunting trips or fishing trips to help veterans with PTSD get back on their feet and assume--instead of treating it as a disability and saying: We are going to get you well and back on your feet and be a productive member of society.

I am afraid if we stereotype this, we will prevent people from coming in for the very needed help that they so richly have earned and need.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this incredible place that we are in, the House of Representatives in the Capitol of the U.S., our hearts go out to everyone, especially the families, of all those touched by that horrible tragedy that was just described. I am willing to work with anyone on the committee or otherwise in a reasonable way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people who are dangerous. There is no question we are all willing to do that. But that case did not involve a veteran who had a fiduciary.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment even if others aren't. I think we can all agree that veterans should not be denied the same due process rights that all other Americans receive. What this bill does is ensure that veterans do not lose their constitutional rights without a judicial hearing.

The freedoms granted under the Constitution of this great country should apply to all Americans, especially those who have been willing to put their lives at risk to protect those same freedoms. It is wrong for veterans and beneficiaries who use a fiduciary to lose their Second Amendment right without due process.

This commonsense bill would ensure that no veteran or beneficiary is declared mentally defective simply because a VA rater appoints someone to assist with the management of that person's financial affairs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this room are, I am personally devastated that our Nation loses 20 of our finest citizens to suicide every day. Ending this tragedy is one of the top priorities we have on the Veteran Affairs' Committee and as a nation. We have and will continue to work with the VA to develop programs that will effectively help identify and treat veterans who may be considering ending their own lives.

But denying veterans who have fiduciaries their constitutional rights will not end veteran suicide. It is unfair to paint all veterans who may need a fiduciary with the same broad stroke and to assume that just because someone needs assistance with their financial affairs, that they may also be violent and a danger or they are contemplating suicide. That is just plain wrong.

It is unfortunate that the arguments advanced by some of the opponents of this bill reinforce the false impression that people who suffer from mental health challenges--and veterans, in particular--are dangerous. There is no evidence that people who suffer from mental illness are more likely to be more violent than people in the general population--just none. I am convinced that perpetuating this outdated and incorrect stereotype makes the situation worse, deterring people from seeking the very health services that they need.

It is difficult for some folks to admit they need help. I saw patients like that for years who finally broke down in my office and explained that they were depressed or whatever the situation may be. Imagine how much harder it is when people feel that they will be stigmatized or isolated because other people may fear them?

By passing this bill, Congress will send a strong message that people who suffer from mental illness are owed the same respect and have the same constitutional rights as every other American citizen.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to support H.R. 1181, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently joined the Committee on Veterans' Affairs because of its bipartisan history of working together to improve care for our veterans. I stand ready to work with the committee--in particular, with Chairman Roe--and with every Member of this House to improve and work on the important issues that affect our veterans every day. However, I cannot support this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

As this House knows all too well, there is a veterans suicide crisis in this country, a crisis that is enabled by the easy access to firearms. Just last week, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, David Shulkin, told the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the issue of veteran suicide is one of his highest priorities, and it needs to be a priority of this House as well.

Today, on this day that we have this debate, 20 brave men and women who have worn the uniform in service of this country will take their lives in suicide, and the vast majority of them will use a gun.

As folks all over the country who have helped veterans know, the means matter. Research has shown that more than 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm are ultimately fatal compared with just 5 percent for all other means. That is why addressing the public health crisis in the veteran community demands a thoughtful and comprehensive approach: to ensure that veterans in crisis do not have easy access to guns and that they get the care that they need and deserve.

And yet, today, this House is voting on legislation that completely ignores the crisis that many of our most vulnerable veterans are facing. Unfortunately, this bill was rushed to the floor with no consideration in committee, collaboration, or even time for all of us to understand its full implications. The majority scheduled H.R. 1181 for a vote in committee last week with the bare minimum notice required, even having to move the start time of the markup to comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.

During last week's committee markup, I raised the concern shared by many who work closely on this issue that H.R. 1181 would end up being applied retroactively. The result of this bill being applied retroactively would mean that, if it should pass, more than 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm would be able to

pass a background check and buy a gun.

While the chairman expressed his sincere intent and desire that this legislation not be applied retroactively, it is fair to say that reasonable people disagree on how this bill would be implemented. This honest disagreement, alone, illustrates exactly why this House should be taking its time on a bill that could have such a profound impact on our Nation's veterans.

The fact of the matter is that, should H.R. 1181 be signed into law, it would need to be read together with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which requires--requires--Federal agencies to update the records they have previously shared with NICS, meaning, should this bill pass, the VA would be required to remove the 170,000 records they have previously shared with NICS since none of those were approved by a court, nor did they meet the new standard established by this bill.

Now, with respect to the text of the bill itself, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, contrary to its name, would create an end run around the firearms mental health prohibitor that we have attempted to refine and improve since Congress passed the Brady Act nearly 20 years ago and the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007.

Put simply, this bill would make it easier, not harder, for those veterans in crisis to get access to a firearm by establishing a new judicial requirement that is far higher than any other agency's or department's implementation of the firearms mental health prohibitor, and, quite frankly, would be impractical, if not impossible, for the VA to actually use. The VA is already strapped for resources, and it is unclear if it has the legal standing to initiate a legal proceeding such as that suggested in the bill.

As Members of this House know very well, there has been a fierce debate in this country over the meaning and extent of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But the question before this House today is not whether an American has a right to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this issue, and the controlling law has been settled. However, constitutional rights are not absolute. As the late Justice Scalia wrote in the controlling Supreme Court Heller decision on the Second Amendment, ``the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

The question before this House is whether we are going to summarily overturn the VA's efforts over the last 20 years to help prevent veteran suicide and protect veterans' families by reporting the names of veterans with serious mental health issues to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS.

Supporters of this legislation argue that the current process used by the VA to share mental health records with NICS is overinclusive and must be thrown out and replaced with a process that ensures veterans' due process rights.

I agree that the current process is overinclusive, and I agree that we must do more to ensure veterans have sufficient notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful opportunity to appeal any decision that may impact their constitutional rights; and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the committee and in this House to more specifically tailor the application of the firearms background checks law as it applies to veterans, both prospectively and retroactively.

But a wholesale elimination of the VA's long-established practice to help keep firearms out of the hands of veterans who are at serious risk of harming themselves or others is dangerous and misguided.

To be clear, of the 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm, as of 2015, almost 20,000 of them were diagnosed with schizophrenia, over 11,000 with dementia, and over 5,000 with Alzheimer's. For a veteran suffering with a significant mental health condition like one of these, access to a firearm is a serious matter.

Moreover, just 3 months ago, this Congress passed bipartisan legislation that codified a process for how the VA can make a determination of the mental capacity of a veteran before that information is sent to NICS. The 21st Century Cures Act, which passed this House 3 months ago by a vote of 392-26, required a veteran to be provided notice of a proposed financial competency determination and given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and be represented at a hearing.

H.R. 1181 seeks to undo this carefully crafted compromise before we even have a chance to study the impacts of the 21st Century Cures Act or the VA's existing practices.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 12 veterans, including retired Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, whose leadership and support for our military and veterans community is unquestioned and who believe that this bill could put mentally ill veterans in harm's way by giving them easy access to firearms.

Veterans Coalition for

Common Sense,

March 14, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker

Ryan and Leader Pelosi, As dedicated service members and

members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, we write

to you today to express our grave concerns with legislation

being considered by Congress, the Veterans 2nd Amendment

Protection Act. This proposal would put America's veterans

who need our support the most in harm's way by providing them

with easy access to firearms. Instead of passing this

irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Congress should

instead do more to guarantee that all veterans have access to

world-class medical and counseling services. We urge you to

oppose this bill.

Our nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran

suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an

average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of

whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed

veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared

to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans

are at a 41 percent higher risk. Firearms are the most lethal

means when it comes to suicide, resulting in death nine out

of ten times. When vulnerable veterans have access to

firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to

family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies

is felt in communities across our nation.

Last week, we were pleased to hear Secretary of Veterans

Affairs (VA) David Shulkin announce his intent to provide

urgent mental health care services to veterans with other-

than-honorable discharges. This is a step in the right

direction. Over 22,000 soldiers in the Army alone have

received these bad paper discharges since 2009 due to mental

health conditions, and they are among the ones who most need

access to comprehensive mental health services.

But they are not the only ones. In 2008, President Bush

signed a law requiring all federal agencies to submit the

names of individuals who are legally prohibited from

possessing guns to the National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NICS). Since then, the VA has submitted over

174,000 names of servicemen and women who require a fiduciary

to manage their benefits and have been determined through

clear and convincing evidence to meet the federal standard

for gun prohibition. Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals

that suffer from schizophrenia and another 15,000 have severe

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Everytown for Gun Safety and a coalition letter led by the Newtown Action Alliance signed by over 40 organizations from around the country opposing this bill.

Everytown for Gun Safety,

New York, NY, March 7, 2017.

Re Reject H.R. 1181, which would put U.S. veterans in danger.

Hon. Phil Roe,

Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the current practice of information sharing between the VA and NICS is overinclusive and that alternatives should be explored that would more appropriately balance veterans' Second Amendment rights with ensuring that veterans who pose a danger to themselves or to others do not have access to firearms.

This bill, however, was not considered through regular order and no genuine attempt was made to work across the aisle or with the VA to craft a real solution that addresses the real crisis of veterans' suicide in this country.

I stand ready to work with the chairman to address legitimate concerns regarding the VA process. And in fact, just yesterday, I visited at length with VA Secretary Shulkin on how we can all work together to keep our veterans safe and get them the care and support they and their families need.

I cannot support any bill, especially one addressing an issue as important as veterans' suicide, through this rushed process.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1181. Our veterans put their lives on the line for this country. We shouldn't put their lives and their families at risk when they need us most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the assertion that there is no due process in this act and that the 21st Century Cures Act did not do anything to help veterans.

The 21st Century Cures Act codified the following due process guaranteed to veterans through the VA. Individuals are notified by the VA that a fiduciary is recommended and are allowed 30 days to respond with a notification of acceptance or contest, and they are notified of the implications that this would have for being reported to NICS. The veteran then has 60 days to present evidence against the need for a fiduciary. And as required by law, the VA relief process allows impacted individuals to maintain their fiduciary, but regain gun eligibility removing their names from NICS. These are all already processes in place.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the chairman noted the support of some of the veteran service organizations, and I think it is noteworthy that the IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has in the past supported this bill. They do not support it this year. They do not because they are so concerned about the crisis we are facing, particularly in their members--those who have come back from the wars in the last 10 or 20 years. They are concerned about that veteran suicide crisis that we are facing and are concerned that this bill might make that worse.

We have heard repeatedly assertions that this would be the only category, that veterans alone would be deprived without adjudication. That is not true. In fact, the law for the firearms prohibitor covers many categories of people who do not have any legal determination:

Anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled

substance is prohibited, does not require any adjudication.

The NICS has 23,000 people who are prohibited under the controlled substance addiction and use category. Anyone adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, there are 4.2 million people. There are a wide variety of people who are in that category, again, many without court orders. Those were aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, that is 10,000 individuals. So it is not unique to veterans. There are other categories as well.

But I really think the bottom line is this: we have heard a great deal of agreement that we care about our veterans, we want to prevent military suicides, and we know that for some of these veterans, it would be dangerous for them to have a firearm. That is precisely why this committee should have had a hearing, so we would have had the opportunity to systematically address these issues and find a better way forward that recognizes that some veterans who need a fiduciary also should not have firearms, and some who need a fiduciary, there is no concern there. But we have been deprived of that opportunity in committee, to do the work we should be doing in committee, to work together in a bipartisan way to fashion a better way forward.

This is way too far. It is an overreaction to a process that should be fixed, and we are committed to do that. But the alternative we are presented with today will wholesale uproot the 20-year process of the Veterans Administration that would be dangerous and wrong, and we remain committed to working together in committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that 18 of the 26 Members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee did not serve during a time when there has been a hearing on this bill--18 of us, and that includes me. The evidence that the chairman was referencing from 2015 was from a hearing that never occurred, so there was never an opportunity to discuss that evidence. Again, I think this underscores the extent to which we really do need a hearing.

I have to say, since 2012, when the Newtown shootings occurred in my district, the public feels differently about this now, and our veterans numbers have been going up and up. So I think it is high time for us to have a hearing. It has been 5 years. We should be looking at this process.

The last point I will note: there has been much made of the Constitution today and how outrageous it is. In 20 years since this process has been in place in the VA, I note that no one has ever challenged this successfully in court as a violation of constitutional due process, and I know the love our veterans have for the Constitution, as we do in this Chamber. That tells me that many families, for example, actually are relying on this.

So, again, I pledge to the chairman we should be working together in committee to get this process right. This is not the way to do it, not with this bill, not with the questions, and not without an opportunity for us to do the things I have referenced.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard spirited and passionate remarks here today, but I think it underscores how much we would benefit, the veterans that we serve would benefit, their families, and this Chamber would benefit from our pursuing regular order with this very important topic. So, again, I urge in the strongest possible terms for my colleagues to vote against this bill, to give us the opportunity to get this process right, to safeguard our veterans, protect them from military suicide, and to preserve their rights in the best possible way. This hastily considered, rushed-through legislation that leaves way too many questions and way too much risk for our veterans I must strongly oppose.

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

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.