Floor Statements

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 claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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, I missed Roll Call votes 89, 90 and 91 on February 14, 2017.

I missed these votes while attending the swearing-in ceremony at the White House for VA Secretary Shulkin.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 89, YEA on Roll Call No. 90, and YEA on Roll Call No. 91.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 66, a resolution that uses the Congressional Review Act to roll back the Department of Labor's harmful so-called safe harbor rule. This rule allows States to automatically enroll employees in government-run IRAs without the important consumer protections provided by ERISA. This bureaucratic regulation restricts working families' access to essential plan information required to make wise investments, while also increasing the risk for financial mismanagement of State-run IRAs which would ultimately fall on the backs of the taxpayers across the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, there is a retirement crisis occurring in this country. The Government Accountability Office reports that 29 percent of Americans age 55 and older have no retirement savings--zero--and no traditional pension plan. Further, nearly 40 million working families also haven't saved a dime for retirement. This is a serious problem, and we must work together across the aisle to pursue policies that make it easier, not harder, for families to save.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's answer to the retirement crisis was less consumer choice and more financial risk. This all started with the Department of Labor's misguided decision to pursue a fiduciary rule which, if implemented, will be a disaster for low and middle class savers. The DOL published a rule that is nearly 1,000 pages to define the word ``fiduciary.'' Let me say that again, a 1,000- page rule to define the word ``fiduciary.'' I hold in my hand Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which has a few more pages than that to define every word in the English language. This dictionary defines every word in the English language, and it takes a thousand-page rule to define fiduciary.

Does anybody think that is going to be better for savers?

I seriously doubt it.

Thankfully, the President is working to delay its implementation. Here we are today trying to keep yet another misguided rule from the waning days of the last administration from taking effect. It should be no surprise that the Obama administration's safe harbor rule continues to trend toward a lack of consumer choice and more Federal involvement through a patchwork of bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve the opportunity to choose their retirement savings vehicle and not to be thrust into a government-run IRA that could eventually fall on the backs of their fellow taxpayers to fund. I

have worked tirelessly with my colleagues in the House to overturn these harmful regulations, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Trump administration to do just this.

I agree with my colleagues across the aisle wholeheartedly that we need to work together to encourage and create policies that encourage the American people to save for their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 609) to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs health care center in Center Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the ``Abie Abraham VA Clinic''.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 609, a bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs health care center in Center Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, the Abie Abraham VA Clinic.

This bill is sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend. I am grateful to him for introducing this legislation in honor of an American hero.

Master Sergeant Abraham lived a truly remarkable life. As a teenager, he set a world record for tree sitting--a popular pastime in those days--after sitting in a tree for 3\1/2\ months, according to his obituary in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

In 1932, at the age of just 19, he enlisted in the United States Navy and, 2 years later, the United States Army. Over the course of a 30- year military career, he served in the Philippines, China, Germany, and Panama. He earned a number of accolades, including the Purple Heart. He survived, Mr. Speaker, the Bataan Death March and 3\1/2\ years in captivity, being beaten, shot, and starved.

Following his rescue, instead of returning immediately to the United States, Master Sergeant Abraham agreed to stay behind to recover the remains of his fallen comrades and to ensure they received the recognition they were certainly due.

Following his service, Master Sergeant Abraham devoted his time to caring for his fellow brothers and sisters in arms as a lifelong member of several veterans service organizations and as a volunteer at the VA Butler Healthcare Center, where he spent a total of almost 40,000 hours over the course of 23 years tending to the veteran patients there.

In his spare time, he authored two books, made public appearances at schools and community centers, and participated in documentary films that have aired on the Discovery and History Channels. In addition to all of that, he was also a lightweight boxing champion and trainer.

Master Sergeant Abraham most certainly lived a full and interesting life characterized by both service in and out of uniform. Given that, it is only fitting and appropriate that we honor him by naming the VA healthcare center in Butler County, Pennsylvania, after him. This legislation satisfies all the committee's naming criteria and is supported by the Pennsylvania congressional delegation as well as many VSOs.

Once again, I thank my colleague, Congressman Mike Kelly, for introducing this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an amazing story that Mr. Kelly shared before us. I had a history professor in college who survived the Bataan Death March. He spent 3\1/2\ years in the same--I wonder if these two men knew each other. He, indeed, too, was a remarkable man. I can think of no better honor in Butler, Pennsylvania, than to honor his memory by naming this medical center. Once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 512) to title 38, United States Code, to permit veterans to grant access to their records in the databases of the Veterans Benefits Administration to certain designated congressional employees, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge all Members to support H.R. 512, as amended, the WINGMAN Act.

First, I want to say a special thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), our colleagues, for introducing the WINGMAN Act. This bill will help Members cut through the red tape and help constituents who have applied for benefits from VA.

Isn't that why we are here, to help our constituents?

The problem is that when a constituent calls one of our offices to ask about the status of a claim for benefits, the only thing we can do is write VA and wait for the VA to respond. I know I get very frustrated, and I am sure my colleagues do as well, with how long it takes for the VA to get back to us. The WINGMAN Act provides a simple solution. The bill allows designated, permanent, full-time congressional staffers to look up the status of a claim on VA's database, but only if the veteran has given the staffer permission. Staffers would have read-only access to VA databases, meaning they wouldn't be able to add or remove any information.

Passing H.R. 512, as amended, would allow Members to help constituents who simply want to understand the status of their claim for benefits. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 512, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 58, which nullifies the teacher preparation issues rule finalized by the Department of Education in October of 2016.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in when I consistently hear from educators that they are spending more and more time trying to comply with misguided rules from the Federal Government instead of teaching our children and grandchildren.

The Department of Education and the Obama administration have acted as if they know what type of teacher is best for east Tennessee instead of the

people living and working there every day. I want nothing more than to have the best teachers in our classrooms teaching children all across this country, but burdensome one-size-fits-all regulations from the Federal Government that emphasize bureaucracy and compliance instead of a student education is not the way to get there.

The teacher preparation regulations put forth by the Obama administration are yet another example of misguided Federal overreach that would burden schools, institutions of higher education, and States. These regulations are unfunded and would impose extensive data collection requirements on States, colleges, and universities. And one university, Mr. Speaker, in my State spends $150 million a year complying with government regulations.

Under these regulations, institutions of higher education that do not meet the rules requirements could lose access to Federal financial aid, which is yet another example of the prior administration using the regulatory process to bypass the legislative process. Both the School Superintendents Association and the National Governors Association have highlighted how these regulations are a significant intrusion on the role States play in ensuring accountability for teacher preparation. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education has indicated that these regulations are likely to exacerbate teacher shortages in areas where they are critically needed, like special education.

When Congress passed on a bipartisan basis Every Student Succeeds Act, we expected the Obama administration would work to continue the momentum for giving States and local school districts the flexibility they needed to help kids learn. The administration went in the opposite direction, which is why I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in the well of the House tonight remembering 8 years ago when I stood here. I am the only one, other than Pete Olson, that was here that has spoken tonight.

I actually left my medical practice of 31 years. I have been a physician--it is hard to believe--46 years. I ran for Congress because I wanted to be involved in the healthcare debate. I realize that the American people needed healthcare reform.

One of the most disappointing things I have had since I have been in the U.S. Congress was, when I showed up here, I naively thought that people cared what I thought. I found out I was wrong about that.

We had nine physicians in the Doctors Caucus on the Republican side in 2009, and not one of us was asked one thing about that healthcare bill. Not one Republican amendment to that bill that would have made it better was ruled in order.

So it was passed on one-party rule, and now the Democrat party owns it. Unfortunately, patients own it. And that is what I came here to do, was to try to help people.

I had spent 31 years of my life in the small town of Johnson City, Tennessee, practicing medicine and trying to do a good job for patients that I saw every single day.

You have heard it many times before: If you liked your doctor, you can keep it. We are going to reduce your premiums by $2,500.

The President also said that I will go over this bill line by line with anyone who wants to. We asked to do that on multiple occasions, and I am still waiting for my cell phone to ring.

So we have heard over and over and over again that the Republicans have no ideas. Two Congresses ago we were challenged and asked to write a Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and we did just that.

I want to show you out there tonight--those of you who are watching-- this is the bill right here. It is a 184-page bill. You can read it in an hour or so or less than that.

I read the entire Affordable Care Act. I felt like I should. I didn't pass it and see what was in it. I actually read it ahead of time.

We had healthcare reform in Tennessee in the nineties called TennCare. I wrote the epitaph on this bill with Marsha Blackburn in 2010, if anyone is interested in reading that.

So what did we do with this bill?

With the Affordable Care Act, the Federal Government said: You will purchase 10 essential health benefits or your insurance is no good. You have to get rid of it.

And this 10 essential health benefits cost, in many cases, is a lot of money.

Then what do we do?

We passed a tax, a mandate, a fine, a penalty, whatever Judge Roberts decided he wanted to decide that it was, or define it, I should say. But here we are passing a mandate for people to purchase something they can't afford. I find that astonishing that you tax people for something they cannot buy.

So what our bill did was repeal the Affordable Care Act. It then massively expanded health savings accounts. Look, there are Indian tribes out there that use the Indian Health Service that can't have an HSA. There are disabled veterans that can't have an HSA. There are retired people that can't have HSAs. We expanded that. I have used them in my own practice for patients. I use one myself.

We used high-risk pools, and we expanded ERISA benefits to help offset preexisting conditions. Quite frankly, I think in two paragraphs I could have done two-thirds of what the Affordable Care Act did, which is expand Medicaid, which is a system that needs to be reformed, and allowed 26-year-olds to stay on their parents healthcare plan.

We also allow you to buy across State lines with association health plans, malpractice reforms, and transparency. It is a very simple, patient-centered bill. We have said this before, our bill is open for amendment. If a Democrat has a good idea, I am open to listen to it. The main thing is I want patients and doctors to be in charge of their healthcare decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight, and I look forward to going into much more detail about the details of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 315, the Improving Access to Maternity Care Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a fellow OB/GYN and chairman of the Health Caucus.

One of the easiest ways to ensure a safer and healthier pregnancy experience for both mother and child is through adequate maternity care. Unfortunately, there are pockets across the United States where women do not have access to needed OB/GYN care, which puts both mothers and babies at risk should a complication arise.

As an OB/GYN who spent 31 years in practice, I find it unacceptable that 1 million babies are born to mothers who did not receive adequate prenatal care. Without that proper care, babies born to these mothers are three times more likely to be born at a low birth weight and five times more likely to die than babies whose mothers did receive adequate maternity care.

With a large number of OB/GYNs nearing retirement age and a female population expected to increase by 36 percent by 2050, there is no more important time than now to ensure adequate access to maternity care for all mothers, no matter where they live. A woman living in rural east Tennessee or rural Texas should have the same access to adequate maternity care as someone living in the city of Nashville, Memphis, Dallas, or wherever.

I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration to designate maternity healthcare professional shortage areas and target maternity care resources where they are most needed, helping to ensure healthier pregnancies and healthier babies.

It was my job as an OB/GYN to make sure that mothers and their children

were healthy during and after pregnancy, and I feel very strongly about that duty now that I am here in Congress. While this bill will not solve the entire shortage crisis, I think this bill is a meaningful start. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this very important procedural measure to site the memorial to honor the men and women who served and died in Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield in Area I of the National Mall.

On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, in less than 24 hours, dominated nearly 30 percent of the world's oil supply, swiftly setting his sights on neighboring Saudi Arabia. Recognizing Saudi Arabia's importance to the region, President George Herbert Walker Bush launched Operation Desert Shield, the deployment of American combat forces to Saudi Arabia, and ordered Saddam Hussein to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. With Kuwait still occupied after the deadline passed, over half a million United States armed services members led coalition forces in the liberation of Kuwait-- Operation Desert Storm.

Of the roughly 600,000 American troops who were deployed in both Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, 294 died in theater, of which 148 were killed in action. The United States currently lacks a national memorial dedicated to the valor and sacrifices made by those members of our Armed Forces who fought honorably in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that no Federal funds will be spent to build this memorial. All funds will be raised privately by the National Desert Storm War Memorial Association. We must honor the men and women who fought honorably and valiantly in support of these operations and memorialize those who gave a life to free another.

The establishment of this memorial was authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. Passing this resolution is simply the next step in the process for site selection. The Secretary of the Interior has confirmed the historical value of the proposed memorial and deemed it worthy of being constructed in Area I of Washington, D.C., which includes the areas around other monuments to great American heroism.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, many of us in this Congress know many of the people who served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, many personal friends of mine did, and many paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is time now we honor those heroes of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, February 13, 2015 because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Roll Call #81--NAY

Roll Call #82--AYE

Roll Call #83--AYE

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Roll Call #77--YEA.

Roll Call #78--AYE.

Roll Call #79--NAY.

Roll Call #80--YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Roll Call #69--YEA.

Roll Call #70--YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 71--``yea'', rollcall No. 72--``aye'', rollcall No. 73--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 74--``nay,'' rollcall No. 75--``yea,'' rollcall No. 76--``yea.''

Personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 65--no; rollcall No. 66--no; rollcall No. 67--no; rollcall No. 68--aye.