Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4458-S4467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016--Continued

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to address the Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

FAA Reauthorization Bill

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the FAA
reauthorization and several things and stories that have arisen in the
last few days which are very discouraging to me and troublesome to a
cause I care a lot about.
I am an advocate for general aviation, and I was pleased the Senate
was able to pass the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 by a vote of 95 to
3--95 to 3, this Senate approved legislation reauthorizing the FAA for
the next 18 months. It is an unusual occurrence around here when
anything passes 95 to 3.
I also would indicate our committee voted--I am a member of the
Commerce Committee--unanimously to report that bill to the Senate in a
favorable recommendation, again demonstrating overwhelmingly bipartisan
support in regard to this aviation legislation.
Kansas is an aviation State. Wichita and South Central Kansas are
known as the significant provider of airplanes--general aviation
airplanes and parts. We have lots of subcontractors in that process. We
are also a rural State. In fact, Wichita is known as the air capital of
the world. In addition to the manufacturing sector, which is so
important to our State's economy, so important to our ability to
compete globally, we are a rural State, and airplanes and airports
matter to us greatly.
So while we care a lot about the manufacturing of general aviation
airplanes, we also care a lot about airports and their ability to take
care of flights coming in and out of small communities across our State
and certainly across the country. That general aviation airport is a
connection to the rest of the world, and it allows for medical
expertise to be flown into a community in lifesaving efforts, but just
on a more day-to-day basis, it allows for us to have access to
customers, to suppliers, to clients because we have manufacturing and
other businesses in rural communities across Kansas whose connection
with their customer base and suppliers is through that airport. In the
absence of general aviation manufacturing, our State suffers greatly,
but in the absence of general aviation airports, our State would suffer
greatly as well.
What I am worried about is the House has not acted in any positive
way on the passage of this bill, and the deadline of July 15 is rapidly
approaching. If the House does not take up the Senate-passed version,
what that would mean is the expectation--in fact, the stated
circumstance is the House would pass a short-term extension of the
current FAA legislation and leave the Senate bill hanging.
Many of the folks in this Senate who have served longer than I have
would recognize the history of this issue, where one extension after
another was required because consensus was never developed, and the
leadership was not provided to resolve the differences over the years
on FAA reauthorization. The point I wish to make by being on the Senate
floor and expressing my views to my colleagues is, do not allow us to
get into this position again where we would have a series of extensions
of the FAA legislation.
We need the House to act on the Senate bill that is pending in their
committee, that is pending on the House side, and differences need to
be resolved. At the moment, the House has not passed an FAA
reauthorization bill. Time is short. On July 15, the current law
expires. My plea to my colleagues in the House, where I formerly
served, is to take up the Senate bill, address the issues you want as
Members of the House, representing your constituency, and send the bill
back to us so we can conference this issue and have a more long-term
reauthorization bill.
Certainty matters. Certainty matters to the manufacturers in Kansas.
Certainty matters to the airports and the pilots who utilize those
airports. Do not allow us, once more, to be in this circumstance of an
extension one time after another and the uncertainty that provides.
It is my view that it would be a shame if the important reforms
included in the bill the Senate approved in such an overwhelming
fashion were held up by the House, in large part because of a
significant controversial proposal to privatize the national air
traffic control system. It sharply divides Congress. Everything I have
read publicly and everything I have heard from my friends and
colleagues, former colleagues in the House, is that there are not the
necessary votes present to pass that provision in the House. From my
own experience in the Senate, those votes don't exist in the Senate
Commerce Committee and they do not exist on the Senate floor.
So let's not tie up this bill over a proposal that does not have the
votes to pass, and let's not lose the opportunity to take advantage of
the reforms that were included in the Senate FAA reauthorization bill.
We should not consider what would be called a clean extension of the
FAA, when the authorization under our bill is the same length. The
House is talking about sending us an 18-month extension. The Senate
bill, as passed, is an 18-month extension. What would be missing are
reforms we have worked so hard to include after significant amounts of
testimony, after a number of hearings and conversations within

[[Page S4459]]

the Commerce Committee to make certain we were doing good work. Don't
let that opportunity pass us by.
So my point in having this, in this case, monologue--hopefully a
dialogue with my colleagues on the Senate floor--is, first of all, to
make sure we stand firm. I am a Senator who would be opposed to a
short-term, even 18-month extension, if it does not include the broad
array of things the Senate has included in our bill.
My message to my House colleagues and friends is this: Don't bog this
process down in a way that makes it impossible for us to pass the
reauthorization legislation to begin with. These are important issues
that we ought not let be sidetracked by a proposal that remains
dubious, and with great concern is considered by Members of Congress.
As I said earlier, every indication that I know and see is that this
proposal would not receive support in the Senate or even in the House.
So my request once again to the House of Representatives is this:
Please take up the Senate bill and work your will in that bill but send
us something more than just a short-term extension that doesn't include
the important and necessary reforms and improvements that the Senate-
passed bill does.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation
about this topic.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, whenever government acts, it does so
inevitably, unavoidably necessarily at the expense of individual
freedom, at the expense of individual liberty and autonomy. This
doesn't mean every act by government is bad--quite the contrary.
We need government. We need it to protect us from those who would
undermine our liberty, those who would interfere with it, those who
would harm us personally, whether physically or in some other way. But
just as it doesn't mean that every act by government is bad, we should
also not be too quick to leap to any conclusion that any and every act
of government is good.
We have to balance liberty, privacy, autonomy with our corresponding
needs for security and physical protection. These things need not be
deemed irreconcilable with one another. They can exist in the same
universe. In fact, when they are properly balanced, our privacy and our
liberty become far from incompatible with our physical security, far
from at odds with our need for protection. They can become part of the
same whole. In other words, in this respect, our privacy is not at odds
with our security. Our privacy is in fact part of our security.
To be truly secure means there are limits as to what the government
can do to you. It means there are limits as to what information the
government can obtain. There are limits as to how the government may go
about getting information about you. There are limits as to what the
government can do to you in depriving you of any of your fundamental
rights.
We are here this week, as we had been last week, in the wake of a
tragedy, a horrible tragedy in Orlando, one in which 49 people were
killed. Forty-nine people lost their lives at the hands of Omar Mateen,
an individual who had pledged allegiance to ISIS. This is the worst
terrorist attack we have seen on U.S. soil since that tragic day on
September 11, 2001.
I do want to make clear that pretending this attack was simply a
crime of gun violence would be an exercise in willful denial and in
political theater. Ignoring it altogether is also not something we can
or should do, but it is important to make clear, even when--and I would
argue especially when--a tragedy like this prompts Congress or any
legislative body to act.
It is in those moments we have to be very careful of how we act. We
have to remember there is this tension. We have to remember, especially
in those moments when we are feeling the anxiety of an attack, feeling
the anxiety of some tragedy, that we have to be very careful to make
sure the rights of our fellow Americans are not undermined as we try,
in our zeal, perhaps with the best intentions, to make sure we do what
we can to protect ourselves.
We have been addressing a couple of provisions this week. One we
voted on earlier today is a proposal brought forward from the senior
Senator from Arizona, an individual for whom I have great respect.
Nonetheless, his proposal is one that troubles me. His proposal is one
that would have given law enforcement officers, law enforcement
agencies the power to access Americans' Internet browsing history and
email metadata. These are things that can be analyzed to reveal the
most intimate details of a person's life, the most intimate details of
how a person thinks, a person's thought processes, and to do so,
moreover, without a warrant, without probable cause, without any kind
of judicial review by a Federal court or any other court, for that
matter, is a problem.
This interferes with some of our most fundamental rights, and I
believe it is incompatible at least with the spirit, if not also the
letter, of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which
provides that in order for the government to gain access to your
papers, your person, your residence, it has to do so in a particular
way. For example, if it wants to get a warrant to search through your
papers, it has to go to court, and it has to establish what is called
probable cause. It has to show evidence demonstrating probable cause
that a crime has been committed and a reason to look at a particular
thing in a particular place. It can't simply say: Trust us. We have a
good reason. A government agency or a group of government agents can't
simply say: Trust us. We are doing the right thing here. We have your
security interests at heart. No, they have to go to a judge--somebody
who is in a different branch of government. They have to show evidence
they need it; that they need it based on evidence demonstrating
probable cause of a crime, showing some kind of a connection between
what they want to search and the crime.
This was understood by the founding generation. The founding
generation may not have been familiar with the Internet. In fact, it
didn't exist. It wouldn't be invented for a couple of centuries after
that, but they were very familiar with these same concepts. They were
very familiar with the need for privacy, the need to restrain
government, and the need to make sure people don't live in constant
fear that the government is going to start rifling through their
personal effects without some reason, without probable cause. Nor were
they unaware of the fact that tragedies would happen.

The Founding Fathers fully understood that tragedies arise. They
understood that violence erupts from time to time and that people
engage in lawless behavior from time to time that threatens not only
the lives of individual citizens but also threatens to undermine the
very foundations of our society. Yet, notwithstanding this well-
developed grasp they had of the existence of tragedy and the risk that
people could do harm, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves had
been revolutionaries just a few years earlier, and notwithstanding that
many of these people who had a hand in the drafting of our Constitution
and drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights had themselves been
revolutionaries and had themselves witnessed and in some cases even
been a part of the violence that propelled the American Revolution,
they understood it was imperative that we constrain the power of
government relative to the liberty interest protected within the Bill
of Rights, relative for our purposes here to the zone of interest of
the Fourth Amendment. They understood that, and they understood it
well.
They also understood that if someone had papers in their home, those
papers would be protected by the Fourth Amendment regardless of whether
the papers had been written by the person residing in that home. They
likewise understood the possibility that in some instances the papers
might not even be kept at home; they might be kept somewhere else. But
they understood that there were zones in which people had a legitimate
and reasonable expectation of privacy, and it is in those

[[Page S4460]]

areas where things need to be protected, regardless of who wrote the
papers in question or where they might be located. If they were in an
area where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, the
government has to follow certain procedures.
Here is why I worry about the measure offered by the Senator from
Arizona. It is because this would get at the very privacy interest that
is supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment. If passed, this
would give law enforcement agencies the authority to access your
Internet browsing history and email metadata, meaning data about whom
you emailed, who emailed you, and when the transmissions occurred,
without probable cause, without a warrant, without any review by a
Federal court and without any review by any court.
This is a problem, and it is a problem because, as I think most
Americans can appreciate--certainly most Americans outside Washington,
DC, can appreciate--the papers referenced in the Fourth Amendment would
absolutely have to include electronic papers, such as records regarding
your browsing history. Your browsing history is just like papers you
might collect in your home for your own reading, and regardless of
whether you had authored the papers in question, they wouldn't lose
their protection simply because someone else had authored them. The
fact that you had them in your home and the fact that you had obviously
been reviewing them by virtue of their location in your home says a
lot, perhaps, about what your interests are. We understand that your
interests are not necessarily the government's business simply because
someone in the government arbitrarily decides that is going to be the
case.
There is another measure that we will be reviewing and that we expect
to vote on later this week, and it is an amendment that has been
proposed by another one of my esteemed colleagues, the senior Senator
from Maine. This amendment would prevent anyone appearing on a
particular list, such as the no-fly list or selectee list--these lists
are maintained for the purpose of trying to track those who should
perhaps not be allowed to board an airplane or, in the case of the
selectee list, individuals who have been determined to be candidates
for additional screening at airports before boarding a plane--from
purchasing firearms, denying Americans their Second Amendment rights
based on a mere suspicion that the FBI might have information which
shows that the person in question is engaged in terrorist activity.
There are a couple of things that worry me about this,
notwithstanding the good intentions underlying it. This one implicates
not only the Second Amendment, which protects Americans and their right
to bear arms, but it also implicates the Fifth Amendment, which
guarantees that we won't be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. If this provision, as it is now written and
as I have read it in its current formation, were to become law, it
would, as I understand it, allow the government to take away your
Second Amendment rights--anyone's Second Amendment rights--based on a
mere suspicion and not based on probable cause, although I don't
believe that in and of itself would be enough either.
It would allow that right to be taken away, and it would do so
without any opportunity for the citizen affected by this action to
challenge this decision prior to the deprivation. It would, to be sure,
set up a procedure whereby someone could go into court and challenge
the action taken by the government, but, as I read the proposal, the
government would end up winning. It would end up winning based on this
same reasonable suspicion standard.
Let me explain what that means. Reasonable suspicion refers to the
relatively low threshold of legal justification required before a
police officer may initiate a stop--what we call a noncustodial stop or
what lawyers sometimes refer to as a Terry stop--to engage in a
conversation with a citizen. Before a police officer pulls you over--
for example, if you are driving in your car, the police officer has to
have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a law has been violated,
and that reasonable, articulable suspicion can't be just based on an
unparticularized suspicion or a hunch but must be based on some type of
objective observation indicative of a possible violation of the law.
But it is a relatively low threshold, and for that reason--when
reasonable suspicion exists and therefore justifies a brief
noncustodial stop--that stop may continue only for as long as it takes
for the officer to either confirm or refute the initial basis for the
suspicion, and usually that means not very long unless, of course,
during the stop they learn more information which may lead to probable
cause.

That leads us to probable cause. What does that do? Well, probable
cause is there. Probable cause is the standard used. It is a higher
standard and requires more evidence, more of a showing, and more of a
likelihood that some kind of a violation of the law has occurred.
I mentioned probable cause a moment ago as being the standard used to
determine whether the government can get a warrant. It is also a
standard used in deciding whether the police have authority to
undertake an arrest, but it is not a permanent thing. Those persons who
are convicted and in custody have the right to a trial. At the end of
that trial, they have a right to have a jury make a determination about
guilt. The jury is supposed to make that determination on the basis of
a standard that says that based on the evidence, they can conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.
It seems odd that we would allow a court to take away a fundamental
constitutional right without any review prior to that constitutional
deprivation and thereafter purport to allow a challenge to that action
by the government but say that the government will prevail if the
government can show reasonable suspicion on the part of the person
whose due process rights have been deprived.
Again, we have to get back to the fact that we have very good
intentions that are animating the legislative proposals we have been
reviewing. We have an understandable reaction to these tragic deaths
that have occurred in Orlando, FL. Yet even in those circumstances--and
I would add especially in those circumstances--we have to be especially
vigilant and not less vigilant about protecting the rights of each
individual American citizen. Those rights are fundamental. They are not
to be tinkered with.
The dignity of the human soul is at the core of our constitutional
Republic. It is the very reason it is so important that we have to
balance the government's action and the interest that we pursue in the
name of security with liberty and privacy. The two don't have to be at
odds with each other; they can be in conflict. And in the end I believe
that our security is not at odds with our privacy. Properly understood,
our privacy is part of our security. In fact, we cannot be truly secure
unless we are secure from unlawful, unwarranted, and unjust actions by
the government, and this is why we can't be too quick to jump. This is
why we can't be too eager to expand government authority without
analyzing the basic constitutional and fundamental liberties that are
at stake.
I have been inspired by the example of an Englishman named John
Wilkes, who was a member of Parliament. John Wilkes found himself
living through a very real deprivation of liberty and a very real
intrusion into his privacy. He found himself at the receiving end of a
general warrant issued by the administration of King George III. His
offense was criticizing the administration of King George III in a
publication called the North Briton. The North Briton 45 criticized the
King and the King's ministers, and for that, John Wilkes had his house
aggressively searched. It was effectively ransacked by officers who
were searching for something, and they were doing so pursuant to a
general warrant, a warrant that basically said: Those involved in the
publication of North Briton 45 have engaged in illegal activity. Go
find the people responsible for this and search any and all places and
things that might contain relevant information regarding this offense.
There was no particular area that was required under that warrant.
Well, this was incompatible with the rights of Englishmen at the
time, and so John Wilkes fought the King's officials in court. He
eventually won not only his freedom, but he also secured a

[[Page S4461]]

civil judgment against the King and was awarded substantial money
damages.
As a result of this fight, John Wilkes became a hero throughout
England and in America at the time. The number 45 associated with North
Briton 45, the offending publication, became synonymous with the name
of John Wilkes, and both the name of John Wilkes and the number 45
became synonymous with the cause of liberty on both sides of the
Atlantic because of the fact that truth resonates with people,
particularly with those people who believe in freedom. People on both
sides of the Atlantic understood that John Wilkes's cause was a just
cause and that he should be congratulated for this. It was the example
of John Wilkes that was still well known at the time of the American
Revolution. It was still fresh in the minds of the American people at
the time the Constitution was drafted in 1787 and took effect a couple
of years later and by the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified and
amended after that.
These early Americans and these patriots on the other side of the
Atlantic understood this very same principle: that our liberty and our
privacy on the one hand are not inevitably incompatible or
irreconcilably at odds with our security and our protection. The two
can be balanced, and that balance has been struck. That balance was
struck more than two centuries ago. It was struck and put in place in
our Constitution.
Our Constitution does contain these protections, at least three of
which are relevant to our discussions here with the Second Amendment
and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. We cannot sidestep
them just because something bad is happening. In fact, it is especially
when something bad has happened that we realize we are not the first
generation of Americans to experience bad things, to experience
violence. We are not the first generation of Americans who have
understood that when we give government too much power in those
circumstances, other bad things will happen.
We can protect ourselves and at the same time protect our liberty. We
can do both. The Constitution requires both.
So I say to those who think this is a fool's errand, we can, in fact,
do these things. We can, we must, and together I hope and I pray that
we will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Veterans First Act

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee of the Senate, I am pleased to be joined on the floor today
by Senator Tillis, Senator Rounds, Senator Cassidy, and Senator
Blumenthal, who will follow later, to take about 45 minutes to discuss
with the citizens of our country, Members of the U.S. Senate, and, most
importantly, those people who have served in our military around the
world for years and years, the Veterans First Act, accountability in
the Veteran's Administration, and ensuring the proper services to our
veterans who served our country so well.
As chairman of the committee, first I want to say how indebted I am
to Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, my ranking member, who has done
outstanding work in developing this legislation. Senator Tillis,
Senator Rounds, and Senator Cassidy have done great work. We are proud
to be a part of what is a great piece of legislation that will address
many of the questions that have been raised about the treatment of our
veterans over the years.
There is a chart here, and I wish to read these headlines that every
American has read over the last year and a half.
``VA abandons law aimed at firing employees.'' That was June 17 of
this year in the Stars and Stripes, where Loretta Lynch, the Attorney
General of the United States, and Secretary McDonald of the VA
announced they were not going to enforce the Veterans Choice Act and
the laws that gave them the authority to bring about accountability and
discipline at the VA. Why did that come about? I will tell you why it
came about.
This headline is from November 11, 2015: ``Veterans Affairs pays $142
million in bonuses amidst scandals.'' That rocked the country, it
rocked our committee, and it rocked the U.S. Senate.
June 3, 2016: ``Half a million veterans still waiting a month or more
for VA care.''
February 1, 2016: ``Judge overturns demotion of VA official accused
in job scam.''
In the past 2 years, we have had people fired by the VA in Arizona
and in Pennsylvania who appealed their firing and were reestablished by
the courts or the Merit Systems Protection Board at full pay back in
the jobs they had. There is no accountability.
Secretary McDonald, as good a job as he tries to do, has no teeth
behind whatever it is that he says. The 314,000 employees who are part
of the veterans health system have an ability, if they are fired, to
appeal. That appeal can be drug out over periods of time as long as 9
months, and they can serve with pay until the appeal is finally heard.
There is no swift judgment in the VA. There is no accountability in the
VA. There is no culture of accountability in the VA.
I have been joined by members of the committee, and 3\1/2\ weeks ago
every member of the committee, Republican and Democrat alike, voted
unanimously for the Veterans First bill. There was not a single
dissenting vote. Why? Because it first of all hits the heart and
strikes the point we all know needs to be struck. That is No. 1. No. 2,
it is bipartisan and has as many Republican proposals as it does
Democratic proposals, but most importantly it has American proposals.
When you are on the battlefield, when you have that
M-14 rifle, when you are charging the hill, you are not a Republican,
you are not a Democrat, you are an American. Our veterans, who have
served us, fought for us, risked their lives for us, and in some cases
died for us, deserve the respect, the treatment, and benefits they were
promised when they signed up for duty.
So we have introduced the veterans accountability bill; it is called
the Veterans First bill. I wish to speak very quickly and briefly about
why it brings accountability to the VA.
First of all, there are 434 senior managers of the Veterans'
Administration, the executive leadership, the senior executive
leadership--434 of them. Every one of those people now can be fired
unless they go before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which can
reinstate them. We take away the Merit Systems Protection Board
protections for senior management and give Secretary McDonald the power
to hire them and the power to fire them, and if they appeal their
firing, they appeal to Secretary McDonald, not to some innocuous court
or some third party. So the boss is really finally the boss, and on his
shoulders becomes the responsibility for performing at the VA.
Secondly, in terms of the rank-and-file members of the VA, we say:
Yes, if you are fired, you have a right to appeal. If you are fired,
you get 10 days to respond, and when you make an appeal, you get 11
days for an answer. Once you get that answer, if you appeal it, you go
home without pay until the appeal is over. In other words, justice is
swift, accountability is swift, and the employee responds accordingly.
Thirdly, we all know that whistleblowers are an integral part of an
accountability system. Having the protection and the ability for an
employee within an agency to go out and say: Look, I have seen
something wrong in my agency. I want to tell you about it, but I want
the protection as a whistleblower to be protected by the management--we
put an office of whistleblower protection in the Veterans'
Administration so those employees will know we want to hear their
criticism and we want to know when they see something going wrong, and
we want to give them the protection to do so. If they abuse it, they
will be punished, but if they use it for the right reasons, we will
have a better VA and a more responsible and a more accountable VA.
Talking about accountability, what is the least accountable thing
that has happened for years in the VA? The overprescription of opioids
and the Tomah case in Wisconsin. This bill reforms opioid treatment in
the Veterans' Administration. It moves away from handing out opioids
like candy. Instead, it addresses the real problems of mental health
and PTSD and TBI.
We go through all of those issues that have confronted the Veterans'
Administration that serves our veterans.

[[Page S4462]]

We do everything we can to improve it, but first and foremost, we have
accountability.
The VA doesn't lack for money. They have averaged 9.2 percent more
money every year in appropriations over the last 4 years. That is
bigger than any agency of government. They are not short of employees.
It is the second largest agency of the Federal Government, with 414,000
employees. They have a singular mission, and that is to take care of
the veterans who have taken care of us. We need to see to it that they
do it and if they don't, that they are held accountable.
The VA is full of employees who do a great job. In fact, I will tell
you from having run a company myself, it is always the 99 percent who
do a good job; it is the 1 percent who do a bad job, and they give us a
bad name. But if you have a system to hold that 1 percent accountable
when they fall and don't do well, you have a system that works together
and you create teamwork.
We are all about creating a change in the culture of the Veterans'
Administration, so we improve the Veterans' Administration for its
service to our veterans. The Veterans First Act, which is now pending
and will soon come to the floor, hopefully under a UC, is an act that
does exactly that.
So when you go home to your constituents who say, What is it is about
these bonuses going to people who aren't doing their job? What is it
about veterans waiting longer than 30 days for an appointment? What is
it about a Veterans' Administration job scam getting overturned by a
judge to get their job back? What is it about an agency that can't seem
to enforce discipline and have accountability in the agency? You tell
them that is no more because this Senate, this Congress, this country
is going to see to it that our veterans get the service they deserve
and that our Veterans' Administration has the accountability it needs
and must have.
With that said, I would like to take a second, if I can, and yield to
the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Rounds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, it is truly an honor to work with the
Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
I can tell you that on behalf of the 72,000 veterans from South Dakota,
it is work that needs to be done. We appreciate the service of the
chairman and the service of the ranking member in making this a
bipartisan effort.
Unfortunately, many of our Nation's heroes aren't receiving the
quality of health care they have been promised due to decades of
mismanagement and ongoing problems with the VA. It is not acceptable,
as the chairman has pointed out. In fact, of all the calls we receive
in my State asking for help with Federal agencies, over half of all of
those calls are coming from veterans seeking help with VA issues. These
veterans in South Dakota and across the entire country continue to
experience problems with health care delivery at the VA, including
backlogs, long wait times, and frequent billing errors.
As we seek to address these issues within the entire VA system,
accountability is as important as it has ever been. The Veterans First
Act takes meaningful steps to hold the VA accountable and in turn
improve the care for our veterans, which is the most important priority
of all.
This legislation, the Veterans First Act, puts the needs of our
veterans first by addressing the lack of accountability at the VA.
Unfortunately, the administration last week announced that it would not
defend a provision of the Veterans Choice Act, which was passed with
strong majorities in both Chambers of Congress in 2014 and was signed
by the President. In response, the VA announced last week it would no
longer use its expedited removal authority to hold VA senior executives
accountable, given this Justice Department decision. Regardless of the
legal arguments surrounding this issue, the fact is that as a result of
the VA's decision, we are now back to pre-Phoenix scandal
accountability at the VA.
We owe it to our veterans to make certain they receive the best care
possible and not have the agency responsible for that care refuse to
remove nonperforming or even criminally acting officials from important
positions, as Congress granted the VA the right to do in the Veterans
Choice Act 2 years ago.
This is also important given that until recently, the VA didn't have
a permanent inspector general, or IG, in the last 2 years. Inspectors
general are impartial and independent units within most Federal
agencies whose duty it is to provide accountability and oversight to
combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the government. During that same
timeframe, the VA has been plagued with some of the worst scandals and
mismanagement in the agency's history, and our veterans have paid the
price. Some have even died.
While I am glad that Inspector General Missal is now in office and
can begin to address some of the VA's fraud and waste allegations, it
is still too little too late.
That is why the bipartisan Veterans First Act is so important. Our
bill will take strong, definitive, immediate steps to hold VA employees
accountable for their actions.
Let me give some examples of what this bill includes. It will shorten
the grievance process, making it easier to dismiss VA officials who
breached the trust of the veterans they are supposed to serve. It will
remove the Merit Systems Protection Board from the appeal process for
senior executives, and it expedites, when necessary, the removal of any
employees at the--executives and rank-and-file employees alike.
You don't have to take my word for it, and you don't have to take the
word of any Senator in this body; you can simply listen to the words of
Secretary McDonald himself. On Monday he stated--this is a quote from
Secretary McDonald of the VA:

The answer to the whole thing in my opinion is the Veterans
First Act. The provisions that Senator Isakson and Senator
Blumenthal have put in the Veterans First Act we all support.
VA supports them. The Republican party in the Senate supports
them. The Democratic party in the Senate supports them. We
really think that this is the ultimate answer. I'm hoping the
Veterans First Act will get passed soon.

This bill also includes a number of provisions that I have offered to
improve accountability and care at the VA, such as the Veterans Choice
Equal Cost for Care Act, which amends the Choice Act by eliminating the
secondary payer clause to make certain veterans do not pay more for
private care under the Choice Act than they would have if they were
seen at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facility.
The key to that is right now we have veterans going in and getting
care at a private facility and assuming that the VA is going to pick up
the cost for them, and then they find out that under the current plan
where the VA is a secondary payer only, they have to pick up their own
deductibles, which they are not being reimbursed for, because the VA is
secondary, not primary. That is wrong. That was not the intent of the
Choice Act in the first place. The Veterans First Act takes care of
that issue and will take care of a huge amount of the challenges we
have right now with the Choice Act.
Also, the Veterans Health Administration Spending and Transparency
Oversight Act is legislation that requires the Veterans Health
Administration, or VHA, to produce an annual report to Congress
detailing the cost of the health care that it provides to our veterans.
Having accurate cost accounting by the VHA will help Congress identify
legislation options aimed at better health care for our Nation's
veterans.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Veterans First Act, and
I thank the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, especially
Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and all the Members here
today for working together to produce meaningful bipartisan reforms at
the VA.
Our Nation's veterans, who are now defending and have selflessly
defended and protected our freedoms, deserve that same commitment from
the country they so proudly fought for and defended.
With that, Mr. President, I would like to yield back to the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. I
appreciate his commitment to the committee and to the many men and
women of the armed services from the

[[Page S4463]]

Dakotas and from all the United States of America.
I am pleased to recognize Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina--
the home of Camp Lejeune and the home of many military installations,
such as Fort Bragg--and I am proud to have him as one of the cosponsors
of the Veterans First bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President.
I am proud to represent North Carolina. North Carolina has nearly 1
million veterans in the State. When you add to that the members of the
armed services inactive and in the Reserve and the National Guard, we
are over 1.2 million people. They, too, will become veterans someday.
We need to fix this so that the problems our veterans are experiencing
today are not experienced by the men and women who are fighting for our
freedom wherever we ask them to go.
Mr. President, I know you know a lot about the lack of accountability
in the VA within your great State of Colorado. We have problems. We
have to increase the accountability in the VA. In 2014, in the wake of
the Phoenix wait list scandal, Congress came together and demanded
accountability. That is why they passed the Veterans Choice Act. When
the President signed the bill into law, he stated:

If you engage in unethical practice, if you cover up a
serious problem, you should be fired. Period. It shouldn't be
that difficult.

Now we are hearing just recently that apparently in consultation with
the President, Attorney General Lynch and the Justice Department have
decided not to defend the Veterans Choice Act against the
constitutional challenge from Sharon Helman, the former director of the
Phoenix VA who sat on top of this scandal and was fired for her role
denying veterans' access. This same disgraced VA executive also pled
guilty to hiding more than $50,000 in gifts from lobbyists. She
embodies the very worst of the worst of the small percentage of the VA
who need to be held to a higher standard of accountability.
Then we add insult to injury. The VA decided not to use its expedited
removal authority to hold VA executives accountable. Because of these
actions, we are now back to square one, as if the President did not
even sign that bill.
Now, I should have started at the beginning, though, to thank Senator
Isakson for his yeoman's work in support of veterans. He is a fantastic
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He brings people together.
That is why the Veterans First Act was unanimously supported in the
committee. It is bipartisan on steroids. Everybody thinks that this
bill needs to go into law and that the VA needs to be held accountable.
We need to pass the Veterans First Act.
There are a number of things in this act that even go beyond
accountability, and I note in the colloquy that other elements of this
act will be brought up. I will bring up a few of them. One of them has
to do with the opioid safety act. What we are trying to do is improve
the safety and supervision of treatment plans for veterans who
legitimately need some sort of pain medication, possibly an opioid
prescription regimen.
As to the Whistleblower Protection Act, we need more people with
their eyes and ears in the VA who are comfortable saying: Something
isn't right here, and I need to be able to report up and know my job is
not at risk because I am doing the right thing.
That is in the Veterans First Act.
The other thing we need to do is to get back to what we tried to
accomplish in the 2014 bill--fire people who are not doing their job,
fire people who are being unethical, fire people who are not putting
veterans at the very top of the list. That is why the VA exists.
The VA doesn't exist for their own sake. The VA exists for providing
the care that the veterans deserve. They should get it on a timely
basis. When there are no reasonable excuses for some of these wait
times and we find that it is the people who are causing the problem,
those people should be held accountable. The senior members should be
held accountable, and they should be able to be terminated without any
sort of review subject to the discretion of the Secretary of the VA.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to act on the Veterans First
Act. It is time for us to get back to fulfilling the promise that this
President made just a couple of years ago. It is time to put veterans
first.
I want to thank all of my colleagues here. I want to thank my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who I know share this view.
We need to get this bill out of the Senate, to the House, and to the
President's desk with the promise this time that the President will
stand with us and with the veterans to do what we need to do, and that
is to put veterans first.
I urge all the Members' support, and I appreciate again Senator
Isakson's work to get it to this point, but now we need to get it done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Tillis for his dedicated work and
representation for the people of North Carolina and the veterans of
America.
I am pleased now to yield to the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator withhold for just 1 minute?
Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question? This is not
to hold you up, but I do have a question for the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is it
the desire of the other party to be doing, like, a colloquy--an
extensive colloquy--dealing with the Veterans First Act?
I am trying to get the lay of the land here on the floor, because the
Commerce-Justice act--this is really a parliamentary question to you.
The pending business is the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations
bill. We are now debating the Veterans First Act. I am not objecting to
that, but could you tell me what the lay of the land is here?
Mr. ISAKSON. Happily. The lay of the land is that we asked for 45
minutes for a colloquy to discuss the Veterans First bill, which we are
in the process of doing now. Senator Blumenthal, the ranking member,
will join us in a minute, and we should be completed by 5:15, and that
was the time we asked for.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, thank you, to the Senator. I, in no way,
want to impede this conversation. I didn't realize that you had asked
for 45 minutes, and I really found these comments by the supporters of
the bill really quite instructive, and I appreciate the discussion and
the debate.
Why don't you proceed. I would just like to bring to the
distinguished chairman's attention, though, that we are trying to get
the VA-MILCON bill conference done--real money and the real checkbook--
to support the great work this authorizing committee is doing.
I don't know if you know that the House is proposing a $500 million
cut below the Senate level. So you and I should talk about that.
I thank the Senator from Alaska, and please proceed with your
colloquy.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and I
am always interested in discussing the best interests of veterans in
Maryland and in Georgia any time the Senator would like.
I yield to Senator Sullivan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to rise to also support my
colleagues on the Veterans Affairs' Committee. It is an honor to serve
with the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senior Senator
from Georgia, and the ranking member from Connecticut, Senator
Blumenthal.
One of the great honors about being on that committee is not just
serving our veterans but that it is a committee that gets a lot of work
done. It is a very bipartisan committee, and that is why so many of us
are coming to the Senate floor to talk about this important issue--
accountability for the VA.
I was home in Alaska this past weekend, and as I often do, I ran into
veterans. Every State in the Union likes to talk about their veterans
and brag a little bit. Well, in my State we have more veterans per
capita than any State in the Union. We are very proud of that.

[[Page S4464]]

I was talking to a Vietnam veteran on Friday in Anchorage, a combat
veteran corpsman. He saved a lot of marines during his time. He had
such deep frustration about this issue of accountability with the VA.
As a matter of fact, he used to work at the VA. The one issue he raised
with me was this: How can we do more with regard to accountability? He
reads about it in the paper.
The key here to that conversation and to so many conversations I had
with veterans back home is that we must restore the bond of trust
between the VA and the veterans that the VA serves because we all know
that bond of trust has eroded. Trust is eroded when no one is
accountable.
Trust is eroded when no one is accountable. My colleagues have
already talked about it, but once again, it is very disappointing to
see the VA walking away from accountability as opposed to embracing it.
Senator Tillis did a great job of describing the bill that was signed
by the President in 2014, the Choice Act, which had some strong
accountability measures. Yet, just recently, the Attorney General of
the United States sided with the argument of a former Phoenix VA
director who was at the helm when as many as 40 veterans died waiting
for health care. The Attorney General of the United States sided with
her argument and is not even testing the accountability provisions in
this new law that was passed by this body and signed by the President.
She just quit and didn't even let the courts declare that this law is
unconstitutional. She just quit and sided with that argument. I think
that is an outrage. What it does is undermine the issue of trust. It is
also a dangerous precedent by allowing the head of the VA and the
Attorney General of the United States to substitute the judgment of the
Congress of the United States in a law, saying we are not even going to
defend this issue anymore. It is a precedent that I don't think anyone
in this body would agree with--essentially gutting the accountability
provisions in a recently enacted law signed by President Obama and not
even trying to defend them. This is exactly the kind of action that
further erodes the trust between the VA and our veterans.
Yesterday, in a hearing chaired by the senior Senator from Georgia,
we demanded a bipartisan approach and that the Attorney General or her
representative get before the VA committee very soon and explain what
she is up to, because I don't think anyone in this body is agreeing
with the actions they are taking.
While we are waiting for answers from the Attorney General, we are
not going to give up on the critically important issue of VA
accountability, which is why moving forward on the Veterans First Act,
which does focus on accountability, is so important, and why we are on
the floor making the case for this.
This bill which I cosponsor currently has 44 cosponsors and has
support from multiple veterans service organizations. You have heard
about some of the important accountability measures that are in this
bill.
I want again to thank the great leadership of Chairman Isakson and
Ranking Member Blumenthal on this. What we need to do is move forward
on this bill and restore this issue of trust. The best way we can
restore trust is to let our veterans know that the leadership of the VA
is accountable.
Remember, the leadership of the VA works for our veterans, and when
they see people getting away with malfeasance and incorrect behavior,
that trust is further eroded.
I yield the floor back to Chairman Isakson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I see the ranking member, Senator
Blumenthal, has joined us on the floor. I might, with your permission,
pose a question: If the Senator would not mind Senator Boozman making
his remarks, and then Senator Blumenthal and I will close the debate;
would that be OK?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That would be fine.
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to Senator Boozman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to come down to the floor.
Right now we are in the midst of discussing a very important bill, the
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations act, funding law enforcement.
We all know that we are in troubled times, and we are trying to get
things sorted out in that regard. So why take 45 minutes to come down
and speak on the Senate floor about such an important subject as what
is going on in the VA?
Last week the Secretary of the VA decided that he would no longer
support the expedited removal authority that we allowed him when we
passed the Choice Act. There was a case and the Attorney General
decided that she felt like it might be unconstitutional. So the
Secretary of the VA took it upon himself to no longer use that
authority. The way that I found out, and I think the way the rest of
the members of the committee found out, was to read this in the press.
The Secretary didn't have the courtesy to contact us and tell us what
was going on. He arbitrarily decided it was unconstitutional.

I voted for it. Most of the Members in this body voted it. Most of
the Members of the House of Representatives voted for it. If I thought
it was unconstitutional, I certainly would not have voted for it--
again, acknowledging the duties of being a U.S. Senator.
We passed it overwhelmingly and, as my colleague from Alaska has
commented, the Secretary has set dangerous precedent by simply ignoring
it.
He went on to say on Monday that the accountability procedures we
have had in place are working fine. If that is true, then why has the
VA chronically had an issue with lackluster and negligent employees? He
was very supportive of this authority until this case came up. In light
of the VA's decision last week, it is even more imperative that this
body move to pass the Veterans First Act, which will significantly
improve accountability at the VA. This was a bipartisan, comprehensive
initiative.
The American Legion said: ``This legislation will shorten the
grievance process, make it easier to dismiss VA officials that breach
the trust of the veterans that they are supposed to serve.''
For those of us on the committee, my only concern is that the
Secretary at some point will decide this is unconstitutional and do his
own thing.
Again, this is such an important issue. It is something that the
committee is working so hard on, but it is wrong. We have a situation
now where we have employees who we know have abused their power.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the people of the VA--the
vast, vast majority--are hard-working and do a tremendous job. I am so
proud of the VAs that I have in Arkansas, our facility in Little Rock,
our facility in Fayetteville. There are no finer hospitals in the
country.
On the other hand, when people act up and they don't do what they are
supposed to, we need to hold them accountable. We certainly need a
Secretary of the VA who is more concerned about veterans than he is
about labor issues.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
I yield to the distinguished Senator of Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal,
the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He has been an
invaluable partner with me in the development of this legislation, the
management of the committee, and he deserves tremendous credit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. First, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson of Georgia. To say that he
has been a leader is certainly an understatement. He has devoted
countless hours to forging a coalition in the best tradition of the
U.S. Senate, a bipartisan coalition that enabled us to unanimously
bring together Republicans and Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs
Committee in approving the Veterans First Act for consideration by this
body.
My reason for being here today is to say to our colleagues that we
must move forward. We must seize this opportunity--no matter which side
of the aisle we sit on--to move this bill forward, keep faith with our
veterans,

[[Page S4465]]

leave no veteran behind, and make sure we honor their service by
fulfilling our obligations to our job. Our job now is to make sure we
pass the Veterans First Act.
I have listened with interest to some of my colleagues' comments on a
decision by the Attorney General of the United States, and then the
Secretary of the Veterans Administration, to decline to defend a part
of the Choice statute. Quite frankly, I share their questions and a
number of their concerns. I want to know from the Attorney General of
the United States why the decision was made to decline enforcement of
this statute on constitutional grounds, saying that it violated the
appointments clause of the Constitution.
After 40 years of practicing law, I can say I have done very little
litigation involving the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
It is seemingly an arcane and abstruse section of law. I say that with
great humility in light of the experience of the Presiding Officer. He
and I may have a discussion away from the floor about the merits of
this decision.
The point is that we must look forward. We need to demand those
answers--and I expect the Attorney General of the United States will be
forthcoming--but let's look forward to the central task right now and
avoid being distracted by what happened in the past and move forward on
the Veterans First bill. This measure imposes accountability lacking
for too long, laggard in too many instances. We saw it dramatically and
tragically in Phoenix and many other areas around the country where
still there has been inadequate or completely absent discipline and
accountability imposed.
This measure makes it easier for the VA to both hire and remove
senior executives, giving the Secretary much needed flexibility in
hiring and firing, improving the training of managers, and implementing
an outside review.
Yesterday we heard from an outstanding nominee, a veteran of years of
leadership in the Marine Corps. That kind of quality person ought to be
in the VA more commonly.
This legislation also protects whistleblowers. In my view, that is
critically important. They are the brave employees who see something
wrong and say something, at risk to themselves. That risk should be
eliminated. In this new proposal, the Veterans First Act, we create an
office of accountability and whistleblower protection and require that
the VA take the necessity of listening and protecting whistleblowers
into account in its training and evaluation of supervisors.
This measure goes well beyond accountability, although accountability
is central to this bill. It also helps veterans of all eras who may
have been exposed to toxic substances in their service. There are so
many more unknowns on the battlefield now that can do harm to our
soldiers--chemicals, radiation, and other toxic substances--so we can
better understand and address the long-term effects of that toxic
exposure. That is why the Vietnam Veterans of America fully supports
this measure.
Thanks to the work of Senator Baldwin, the Veterans First Act also
addresses the opioid overprescription crisis among veterans. All too
often and for far too long, the VA doctors have relied on powerful
opioid painkillers when other kinds of medical care are more
appropriate. This legislation will reduce the overuse and, thereby, the
addiction of our veterans to these powerful painkiller.
As I know from having spoken to Sarah Greene, a constituent of mine
who lives in Branford, CT, whose husband perished in the post-9/11 wars
while in combat, and her State Representative Lonnie Reed, this bill
expands the GI benefits to surviving spouses and their dependents who
lost a servicemember after 9/11.
It also reinstates those benefits to veterans who attended a school
that permanently closed, such as Corinthian Colleges. These predatory
schools should not be permitted to deprive our veterans of those
benefits that they need and deserve.
This measure also provides support for caregivers, the moms, dads,
brothers, sisters, and children who give of themselves and give up
livelihoods and careers to care for their veteran family members. They
should receive the kind of support they need and deserve. Their service
is no less worthy and worthwhile than that of their family veteran
members.
The measure also includes important provisions to address the scourge
of homelessness among veterans. I was pleased to work with Lisa Tepper
Bates of the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness; and Margaret
Middleton, leader of the veterans programs in Connecticut, principally
the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, to create more permanent housing
opportunities and provide legal services to homeless veterans.
Finally, most important, this bill enhances programs to prepare
veterans for careers through licensure, certification programs, and
other programs to make sure that veterans have jobs. They need and
deserve jobs.
As a Member of the Senate, my priority has been jobs and economic
progress for our veterans--for all the people of Connecticut. That is
why I am pleased that this measure will help veterans find employment
as they transition home with employers such as Frontier
Communications--very proudly doing business in Connecticut--which is
looking to make veterans 15 percent of its new hires.
This measure includes many other provisions that are worthy of
passage. The point is that we must pass it. I challenge my colleagues
to do this bill before July 4, to move forward before we recess for the
summer, to address the challenge of providing veterans what they have
earned.
We are not talking about handouts; we are talking about something
veterans have earned--that we keep faith with them.
This measure is bipartisan. Nothing stands in its way. There is no
reason that merits its being stopped or blocked. I challenge my
colleagues to move forward with this measure.
I again thank my colleague from Georgia, who is not only a fellow
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee but also a friend of mine and
truly a friend of all veterans, the senior Senator from Georgia, Johnny
Isakson.
I yield the floor to Senator Isakson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his kind
remarks and his steadfast, hard work on developing this legislation
over the last 18 months. I thank all the members of the Committee,
everyone who is a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the 44 Members of the
Senate who have already cosponsored it and ask the remaining 56 to
consider being a part of it.
We owe our veterans no less than the absolute commitment that matches
the commitment they made to us. It is time they had accountability for
the benefits they have earned, the health care they deserve, and a VA
that means what it says when it tells them it is going to take care of
the veterans of the United States.
I thank the Chair for giving us the time to bring out these issues
today.
I urge all our Members to contact either Senator Blumenthal or the
committee staff or me if they have questions as we move forward before
July 4 to make the Veterans First Act a reality, and once and for all
put our veterans first, as always they should be and always they will
be.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we just heard a very instructive
discussion on legislation proposed by the veterans authorizing
committee.
I wish to compliment both the chair and the ranking member on the
debate. It was content rich, it was civil, and there were moments where
we learned things about what was going on at the VA that were new to
many of us.
What was so impressive was the fact that they worked together on a
bipartisan basis. They saw that their first duty was a patriotic duty,
which was to serve veterans. You just heard the distinguished chair and
ranking member

[[Page S4466]]

speak to that. I thought it was terrific. They took about 45 minutes
off because the bill pending is the Commerce-Justice-Science bill.
Because I knew compromises were being worked on, this was time we were
more than willing to share with them. So I want to compliment them.

That also happened in the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Kirk,
who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on MILCON-VA, and the
ranking member, Senator Jon Tester, have worked hard too. Right now we
are trying to get a conference report done so there are the financial
resources to help implement the policy objectives my colleagues so
eloquently and instructively presented to us just now. I would hope we
have a conference that is worthy of the authorization that is being
presented. I can assure you--again, in the spirit my colleagues
represented here--our patriotic responsibility comes before personality
or party, which is the way to go. That is what our team did in the
Appropriations Committee under the very able chairmanship of Senator
Thad Cochran and I hope the tone I have set as the vice chair. So stay
tuned for this conference because we want to match the appropriations
with the authorizing.
I think this is the way we ought to be operating. Take our patriotic
duty first, over party, over personality, over ego or party logo. I
just want to say that as I sat here hoping to get compromises achieved
on gun control, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from
Maine, I think this is what the American people want: civility,
intellectual rigor, commitment to responsibility, and fiscal
responsibility.
I would like to salute my colleagues. It was an excellent debate. I
wish more could be like this. I thank my colleagues very much.
Mr. President, as we are waiting on the Commerce-Justice-Science
bill, this is what I hope is going on behind the scenes. I know we have
had a spirited debate--at times quite tense and at times even terse on
the issue of gun control--but for us it is not about gun control. It is
about violence control. It is not about gun control because then people
want to immediately grab their gun and say: What are you trying to do
to us? Nobody is trying to do anything to any law-abiding citizen, but
we are trying to control violence.
Violence is a national epidemic. It has been a national epidemic for
some time, and there are many reasons for it. This is not the day to
talk about root causes, but it is time to talk about the mood and tone
of the institution. Right now, the House is engaged in a sit-in. Can
you believe that, a sit-in? Why would the House be sitting in? Well, it
is not the House. It is the House Democrats. Why are they doing that?
They are doing it simply because they cannot get a vote on the no-fly,
no-buy. What does that mean? If you are on the no-fly list, you
shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
There are many different solutions to this problem. I am the first to
recognize that. In our own institution, we had an amendment offered by
the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that was
rejected. There was an amendment offered on the other side of the
aisle, and that was rejected. Now the Senator from Maine and Senators
on both sides of the aisle are meeting to see if they can fashion a
compromise.
We believe ``compromise'' is not a word to be dismissed or
denigrated. Compromise does not mean capitulation on principle. I can
assure you, from those of us who want to control violence, we in no way
want to impinge upon Second Amendment rights, but we do want to do what
we can to curb violence in our country.
In the spirit offered by the Senator from Maine, which she has done
before, I hope we can achieve this. I think we ought to give her a
chance, and I think that is happening now. I sure hope we give her idea
a vote. I am not sure how I will vote on it until I know the substance,
but I sure have an open mind on it.
What I would like to do, using the words of my colleague from
Maryland, Congressman Elijah Cummings--and we have just lived through
quite a turmoil in Baltimore--is seek not only common ground but we
seek higher ground. How can we kind of get above the muck and mire of
partisan politics or personality, strutting or whatever, and focus on
the issue of the day?
I know people on both sides of the aisle want to curb violence. We
have a set of solutions. They were rejected. Could we now, in the tone
we just heard here, try to find this? What I do hope is that we don't
block attempts to find solutions to parliamentary procedures.
Too many people think about the Congress and the Senate, that when
all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. This is what they
are frustrated about. They are frustrated about many things--their
future, their hope for their children, the safety and security of our
country. This is what Senators should be thinking and talking about,
and as we think and talk about it, though, we should do more thinking
and less talking. In our thinking and doing less talking, maybe we can
find this common ground and higher ground.
I look forward to continuing to move the Commerce-Justice-Science
bill. I so much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Shelby. We have put together a very good bipartisan bill. We would
hope, as we move our bill forward--and we have done our best to fund
the Justice Department, science, and technology, to talk about jobs
today and the kind of research that will give us the jobs of tomorrow--
that we also now seriously take a deep breath and a deep dive into
policy alternatives and come up with a compromise to curb violence in
our country.
Once again, I thank the Senator from Maine for taking the diplomatic
role she has undertaken. I wish her well. I support all my colleagues
involved in it. They will find no obstructionism in Barbara Mikulski.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues--both Republican
and Democratic--from the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee were on the
floor just a few moments ago, and I wish to join them in expressing
genuine concern about continued developments at the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Many of us remember the tremendous circumstances our veterans found
themselves in at hospitals across the country, with long waiting lines,
with lists that were inappropriate and didn't really exist--I suppose
in an effort to camouflage the delay veterans were experiencing across
the country. At the same time, to demonstrate that veterans were being
cared for, the VA wanted to show that things were fine, and yet we saw
that was not the case.
Unfortunately, those headlines continue about the Department of
Veterans Affairs. For years, we have heard reports of long wait lines,
privacy issues, and failure to remove employees whose actions endanger
the health and safety of our veterans. Many of us have worked to try to
give the leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs greater
authority to discipline and to discharge wrongdoers who are at the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Generally, my focus has been on the
upper echelon leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
generally considered to be the top 400 executives at the VA. I am
always nervous about the issue of employees and staff who are actually
providing care for our veterans in the hospital. I don't want them to
be a scapegoat for problems at the hospital when I think the most
serious challenge the VA faces is its leadership.
Those stories are continuing, and we keep waiting for accountability
to occur. It has been something the current Secretary of the Department
of Veterans Affairs has said he cares greatly about, but even when it
comes to the circumstances we found, particularly at the VA hospital in
Phoenix, we still have yet to see disciplinary action take place. It is
too long. It is 2 years. It seems to me 2 years is too long to see any
real concrete effort to discharge those who wrongfully use their
position and fail to provide the necessary care and treatment for
veterans.
In a ``60 Minutes'' interview back in November of 2014, which I
happened to watch, the Secretary of the Department referred to a report
generated in

[[Page S4467]]

2014 that listed more than 1,000 VA employees who should be removed
from the VA for violations: ``people who violated our values . . . its
integrity, its advocacy, its respect, its excellence.'' He also
described, with multiple news outlets, that he would be taking
``aggressive, expeditious, disciplinary action'' to address the
wrongdoers who violated VA values.
It was made abundantly clear that Congress needed to give him the
necessary tools to discipline VA employees because he was ``hamstrung''
by the current process with the Merit Systems Protection Board and the
appeals process. Congress did that. While we may not remember the
provisions of the Choice Act--because it was known for the efforts to
provide veterans across the country who live long distances from a VA
facility or who can't get the services they need within 30 days from
the VA, it gave them hometown local options. That is what this Choice
Act was known for, but the Choice Act also included important
accountability provisions. The Secretary has those provisions now with
the passage of the Choice Act that occurred in August of 2014. Those
authorities seemingly are the ones the Secretary has been reluctant to
use. We have complained about the reluctance at the VA to use those
authorities and to discipline members of the leadership, employees at
the Department of Veterans Affairs, but now we just learned, as my
colleagues earlier indicated, that the leadership of the VA refuses to
use the authorities at all. So it is not just a reluctance. It is now
an admission that we are not going to use them.
As disappointed as I am, as a Member of Congress--as my colleagues
are who spoke earlier in this VA decision, our frustration has to be
nothing--nothing--compared to what our Nation's veterans experience in
their dissatisfaction with a VA that declines to hold accountable those
who work in leadership positions. We ought to be honoring their
service. What Department would we expect to care for, to treat, to love
and show compassion for more than our Department of Veterans Affairs?
Whom would we expect to receive that kind of noble treatment? It would
be those who serve us in our military. Americans--both veterans and
nonveterans--are waiting for the VA to step up and do what is right by
removing those who have no place within the VA system.
I also would say, as I talk to employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs--those who actually work in the hospitals, provide the
benefits, man the computers--they are dissatisfied too. They want to
see change at the VA. So many employees are looking for leadership at
the VA that holds accountable those in leadership who have failed to
bring about the necessary change, and to have that necessary change
takes discipline of those who are wrongdoers.
I want to make certain people understand this is not an attack on
those who work at the VA. They, too, want a VA system they can be proud
to work for. I acknowledge and pay my respect and regard to the many,
many, many employees of the Department who work every day to make
certain that good things happen and that care is provided for those who
served our Nation.
It seems to me, it is unfortunate the VA blames everybody but
themselves for the problems at the VA. In fact, earlier this year, a
couple months ago, April of 2016, the Secretary indicated that the
fault--the inability to fix these problems--lies with Congress for not
giving the VA enough money. He said budgetary failure led to the
crisis. We have worked hard to make certain--in fact, I have indicated
that if you can show a demonstrated need for more money at the
Department of Veterans Affairs to take care of those who served our
country, I am one who will vote for that. No one asked those who served
our country about what it was going to cost to go to war. We ought not
be unwilling to pay the price for those who did go to war on our
behalf.

I would say the VA's problems are not budgetary. President Obama
himself stated that the VA is the most funded agency across the Federal
Government, with an increase of more than 80 percent in resources since
2009. I remember reading this quote. The President said that the most
resourced agency in his administration, in his time in office, was the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
The blame for the VA's inadequacies have nothing to do with the
demand or insufficient funds but the management and lack of leadership.
In fact, according to the VA's own data, veterans are waiting 50
percent longer to receive health care services than they were in 2014
when we realized the crisis existed. At the height of the crisis, we
had a waiting list. That waiting list is now 50 percent longer than it
was at that time. It has become clear that the VA seemingly is more
concerned with protecting those who work there within their ranks and
the leadership than protecting the veteran who has sacrificed so much
for our Nation. The VA was created to serve veterans, not to serve the
VA.
Today my colleagues from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs were here
raising their desire to give the Secretary even more authority and
expressing their frustration, which I share, with the lack of urgency
to hold bad actors accountable. In that process of the conversation
that took place earlier, they were advocating for legislation that is
pending before the Senate called the Veterans First Act that was passed
by our Committee on Veterans' Affairs weeks ago, and they believe that
legislation will give the Secretary even additional authorities. That
is true.
The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, the ranking member of
the committee, and I worked to include in the Veterans First Act a
number of accountability provisions to try to fix the VA at the root of
its problem at the top.
So while I agree with the desire to see the Veterans First Act passed
into law and while I agree that it will give the Secretary and others
at the Department of Veterans Affairs more authority to hold
accountable bad actors at the VA, I think what we really need to make
certain happens is that the Secretary and the leadership of the
Department of Veterans Affairs use the authority they already had
provided them by Congress in August of 2014 to hold people accountable.
If actions this week tell us anything, we must push the VA to use the
authorities they already have, and we would have cause, reason to be
skeptical that even giving them greater authorities would result in a
better outcome.
Our Nation's veterans deserve better, and they deserve a VA in which
those who do wrong pay a consequence for that bad behavior.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________