[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 46 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2114-H2135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  VA ACCOUNTABILITY FIRST ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Banks of Indiana). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1259.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1518


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1259) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 
removal or demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Rogers of Kentucky in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Walz) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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

[[Page H2115]]

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.

                              {time}  1530

  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.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: In reference to your letter on 
     March 10, 2017 I write to confirm our mutual understanding 
     regarding H.R. 1259, the ``VA Accountability First Act of 
     2017.''
       I appreciate the House Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform's waiver of consideration of provisions 
     under its jurisdiction and its subject matter as specified in 
     your letter. I acknowledge that the waiver was granted only 
     to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1259, and does not in 
     any way waive or diminish the House Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform's jurisdictional interests over this 
     legislation or similar legislation. Iwill support a request 
     from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     for appointment to any House-Senate conference on H.R. 1259. 
     Finally, I will also support your request to include a copy 
     of our exchange of letters on this matter in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration.
       Again, thank you for your assistance with these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                David P. Roe M.D.,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1259. Let me be clear that I rise in 
opposition not after serving this Nation in uniform for 24 years; not 
after serving on this committee longer than anyone else on the 
committee; and not with serving honorably with my friend, the chairman, 
who--I want to be clear, first of all, where the commonality lies 
around this issue, about 95 percent of it, you are not going to find 
daylight between us.
  The idea that anyone would put a special interest ahead of the care 
of a veteran is not only distasteful, it is wrong to assume that. There 
are legitimate differences on how to get accountability in the VA, and 
we have come to some conclusions that get us pretty close. This piece 
of legislation--and I do not condemn the committee because this is 
truly a bipartisan committee, but, for whatever reason, for the first 
time in the decade-plus that I have served on this committee, we have 
brought a bill to the floor without a hearing.
  We held a markup and brought it to the floor. The majority has the 
right to do as they please. What that deprives us of is the ability to 
build consensus around issues we know we share. I know the chairman's 
heart is providing absolute best care to every single veteran. I also 
know the chairman's heart is to make sure that every employee who is 
doing their job is respected the way they are supposed to be. There is 
not disagreement on that.
  This piece of legislation, and framing it as a false choice between 
veterans and the employees, the majority of whom are veterans, in many 
cases, serving other veterans, is a false choice. The chart that was 
put up, I belong to half those organizations. There is also an 
organization that is on there that differs from the others because it 
is a 501(c)(4) with the sole purpose of political attack ads on Members 
of the opposing party. Leave them off the sheet. The other ones I agree 
with. The others are 501(c)(3)s advocating for veterans, but for us to 
pretend this isn't a

[[Page H2116]]

proxy fight for outside groups on something bigger is disingenuous and 
moves us away from the place we should have gotten.
  To show you the comity, my friend from Tennessee gave an impassioned, 
logical, and, in my opinion, correct assessment on the Veterans 2nd 
Amendment, H.R. 1181. I agree with the chairman on this. I believe we 
could have built consensus by bringing that through the committee, but 
it doesn't change the fact that I think the chairman eloquently got to 
the heart of that. I know what the heart of that was because the 
majority side used the term over two dozen times, ``due process.'' It 
matters. These are veterans working in the VA who should have due 
process to their Second Amendment rights and to their employment 
rights. It ensures that the working environment attracts and retains 
the best and brightest.
  So let's go through a little bit of what is here. One of the things 
is, we talk about going back and breaking a sacred pledge. You can 
disagree what is in the collective bargaining that was done between the 
administrations, Republican and Democrat, and those employees who work 
there, but to go in and arbitrarily change that from Congress, how is 
that due process? How about in the next bargaining agreement you make 
the case that those things need to be there. I will stand there with 
you and tell you this: The public sector unions need to give more, 
because you know what happens if they don't? They get painted with 
those examples.
  I hear some people say there are 350,000 employees in the VA, and 
they gave five examples of five bad people. You should give those 
examples. That is unacceptable, horrid, and should never be agreed to. 
This is a zero sum proposition. If one bad employee gives substandard 
care, Mr. Chairman, to one veteran, that is a failure, and the majority 
and the minority are in absolute agreement on that.
  But here is what I fear. We have had legislation--and I will offer up 
an amendment to do this--that has bipartisan support, that has Senate 
support. We will see if I am right or wrong on this, but I am almost 
certain--and it is our responsibility in this House not to message 
things for those outside groups to run attack ads, it is to get things 
that actually get through.
  I am saying today--and I will be the first to come back and tell you 
I was wrong on this--the process of getting legislation into law to be 
enacted by the agencies means compromise must be there. I think we come 
back here in October, this isn't done yet. Why don't we give on the 5 
percent that is not agreed upon and get the 95 percent right so we can 
act to enact it? This is going to be the perfect getting in the way of 
the good, and I would argue the zeal to get it done in the way of due 
process.
  I do not question the heart of any of my colleagues to get this 
right. I do not question--I hope it would not come back to me--the 
outrage I feel when I hear the story--and I know when the chairman 
tells me it, it is true--of someone showing up intoxicated trying to 
provide care to a veteran. How in goodness name is that person not 
done, not removed, and not moved forward? I will have to tell you this: 
I have been there on this. I am a public schoolteacher. Do you know who 
hates a bad public schoolteacher the most? A good public schoolteacher. 
What really angers me is when management doesn't do their dang job, 
follow the law and remove those people, and give the due process to 
them.
  The same thing happens in the VA. Management needs to do their job. 
We have issued subpoenas for Phoenix, we have issued subpoenas for 
Philadelphia, we have issued subpoenas for St. Paul of people doing 
egregious things, not caring for veterans. They should come here, and 
they should lose their jobs. In some cases, they did. Do you know what 
they all did have in common? None of them were part of a collective 
bargaining agreement. They were the management. My fear on this is you 
have bad managers making bad decisions, and if someone speaks up, Mr. 
Chairman, who is a lower ranking member, their only protection to 
improve the system is by collectively bargained grievance processes to 
make sure their due process is heard. That is all we are asking for.
  I do not deny there are going to be proxy fights on this. I will not 
deny that I believe the public sector unions need to be in a 
partnership with this. I believe we should have had them in a hearing 
and set those union members down there and asked them: How in God's 
name can you justify this? Ask them and say: What would help so that we 
can do this?

  I have witnessed this as a public schoolteacher. Beating up on public 
schoolteachers all the time is not the best way to entice good people 
to go into public school teaching. I ask people, whether it be teachers 
or the veterans--go ask your veterans, how many have received quality 
care at the VA? How many really appreciate that floor nurse who did 
what he or she was supposed to do? How many are grateful that their 
cardiac surgeon is one of the best in the world and is choosing to make 
less money to serve there?
  But I won't deny this. We have managers who are unaccountable. This 
piece of legislation does not get at the heart of it because the teeth 
are saved for the rank-and-file members. I agree. I think the gentleman 
is exactly right.
  I want to read something. You tell me if this is okay. We had a VA 
employee who was written up and subsequently fired because they were 
practicing medicine without a license. That is outrageous. Outrageous 
that you would go there and you don't have the license, and you are 
practicing medicine. That person was fired. If we pass this piece of 
legislation, they are done and they are not coming back.
  But there is a little bit different story to this. This was a Navy 
veteran in Arkansas, and you know what they got it for? Not picking up 
a scalpel and doing something that a doctor should do, not writing a 
prescription for an opioid and trying to steal medicine, which does 
happen. What they did was, they entered the wrong code on a chart, and 
that got them for practicing medicine without a license.
  When they went through the approved negotiated grievance process, not 
only did they find out that this was wrong to this combat Navy veteran 
trying to serve other veterans who was discharged by a manager, it 
turns up the lack of management oversight. It was the entire system was 
flawed and the chart was wrong. So the grievance process not only 
returned the employee back to their rightful job, it fixed the system 
guaranteeing better care for veterans going forward.
  So I don't disagree. When we try and make it, the big scary thing is, 
oh, we have unions that don't care about veterans, don't care about 
what the care is, and what we need to do is fire those people 
immediately. Well, you know what? Some of them do need to be fired. But 
if there is not a process in place--this Navy veteran caring for other 
veterans was released without due process--we don't find out about a 
broken system putting veterans' care at risk. That is what is at stake 
here.
  My point is not to disagree. The chairman has insights into veterans 
that I think are second to none. The committee works together on this. 
Once again, when you gain the most votes, you get the majority, and I 
respect that. But I would also say that if we want to build consensus 
around this, I am going to offer up a piece of legislation that was 
written by a Republican Senator that has the ability to pass, be signed 
into law, and will get at the heart of this by going after the 
managers.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to me, and I know it is important to my 
chairman, a Vietnam veteran himself, it is important to the staff 
sitting behind, veterans ourselves, that we not allow what has happened 
in this country to get into the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to 
divide us over talking points when our goals are exactly the same.
  When we have legitimate differences, again, I don't think it is fair 
to me, as a veteran and a union member, to put something up that says 
you are choosing sides. I am not choosing sides. We are all in this 
together. What I disagree with is it is my opinion--and I wish I would 
have had experts testify to this, employment law people, bring the 
union folks in there, have us have this debate so that we can say: you 
know what, these changes are good, these won't make a difference.
  I respectfully oppose the way this legislation is written. I 
respectfully totally associate myself with the chairman on why he wants 
to do it and why he believes that this is best. I only ask,

[[Page H2117]]

take a look at some of the improving amendments that can get us all to 
the same point, and give us the benefit of the doubt that we are not 
assuming the worst. And I don't--as some have said, this is an attempt 
to bust unions or bust the civil service system. That is the farthest 
thing from the chairman's mind. I know that because never, in my 
experience, has he done anything to disprove that veterans' care comes 
first, quality of care at the VA comes first, and accountability must 
go with that. My concern is, this doesn't get us there nor does it have 
a chance to become into law. With those things, let's come back at it, 
let's approach it a little differently, and let's find the common 
ground that is there.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I thank our chairman for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  The way that a grateful nation shows its appreciation to those who 
have served is to make sure that they get the care that they need when 
the time comes. Every day, veterans contact my office seeking help to 
address their concerns and help them navigate the VA.

                              {time}  1545

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, the VA has one job. Its sole 
mission is to serve our veterans--our heroes. But it is clear that too 
often this agency has become disconnected from its mission. When a 
veteran contacts the VA, they should have the red carpet rolled out for 
them and treated like heroes. Instead, they feel like they are a 
burden.
  The VA Accountability First Act is one of many needed reforms. And it 
is common sense, if you are involved in misconduct, you should be 
demoted, suspended, or fired. You shouldn't get a pay raise or a bonus. 
If you are a whistleblower, you should be protected. And the Secretary 
of the VA should have the flexibility to hold staff accountable.
  I thank the chairman and the committee for their work to create a 
culture of accountability at the VA. With his leadership and with our 
partners, I am confident that we will see some positive disruption that 
puts our veterans first.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend, the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt many of the premises 
that my friend, Mr. Walz, adopted.
  I also adopt the premise of Dr. Roe, who is a really dear friend of 
mine, that Tim Walz is the kind of guy you wouldn't mind riding across 
the country with. That is because he is honest, he is knowledgeable, 
and he is sincere. Frankly, I attribute all of those same 
characteristics to Dr. Roe.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Everybody on 
this floor agrees that our veterans deserve the best care possible. 
There is no debate about that. All of us in this House are focused on 
that goal. But this bill does nothing to meet that goal, in my view. 
This bill is part of--and I do not ascribe it to Dr. Roe--a 
significantly long history of a partisan effort to scapegoat Federal 
civil servants that has been going on for decades, long before Dr. Roe 
got in it or Mr. Walz got in it.
  It is a follow-on to the dangerous hiring freeze the Trump 
administration imposed in January and the repeated attempts over the 
last several years to extract more and more cuts from Federal 
employees' pay and benefits, which contributed over $150 billion in 
cuts in pay and benefits over the last 6 years. Stripping away the 
rights of VA employees to work in a nonpartisan, professional 
environment will not improve the care our veterans and their families 
deserve and expect from the VA medical system.
  This bill, in my view, would undermine the collective bargaining 
rights--I am a very strong supporter of collective bargaining rights--
of VA employees serving as doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and 
others in critical jobs, and disrupt the collaborative relationship 
between VA managers and employees that is essential to a successful 
workplace environment.
  Many years ago--almost 100 years ago--we adopted a civil service 
system. The premise of that system is we ought to have professional 
employees--not political employees, not political appointees--not 
subject to change because of the political whims that may be blowing 
one way or the other. This bill risks demoralizing those who have 
tirelessly been working to help our veterans reintegrate into civilian 
life in communities across this country.
  Let me make it clear--and I am sure Dr. Roe is not surprised when I 
say this--that I agree with Mr. Walz. If there is an employee who is 
not performing well, that employee ought not to be kept on. But this 
bill removes the process that was negotiated, or could be negotiated, 
in a collective bargaining way. And if, by the way, it takes 300-plus 
days, then perhaps this legislation could deal with that to shorten it. 
There are ways this could be dealt with that, in my view, will not 
undermine the civil service protections that are important not only for 
the employees, but for the system itself.
  I have no doubt there are measures that can be adopted to improve VA 
performance and effectively and fairly discipline employees who engage 
in misconduct. We ought not to tolerate that. But this bill does not 
include them. I have not read Senator Isakson's bill, but perhaps that 
is closer, and I look forward to reviewing it with both the chairman 
and the ranking member.
  This bill goes too far, shreds basic due process rights, in my view, 
and punishes even model employees. And let me say as an aside, when I 
say it undermines basic due process rights, part of those rights are to 
have some time to get representation, to thoughtfully respond, to have 
some discovery as to what is going on here, what is being alleged, why 
is it being alleged, and who is alleging it. This bill eviscerates 
that, in some respects.
  I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees in Maryland's Fifth 
District, including many who work at the VA's clinic in Charlotte Hall 
and in Camp Springs in the neighboring Fourth District. We ought to 
remember, Mr. Chairman, that when we undermine our Federal workforce 
and our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest, we 
undermine our government's ability to serve the American people. So 
this is not just about present employees. It is about those who might 
consider employment in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't make the mistake of, in effect, 
throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let's not take away the 
rights and protections of those who serve us so ably.
  But, yes, I agree with Dr. Roe and with Ranking Member Walz. If there 
are those who are not serving us well, yes, there ought to be a 
process; it ought to be fair, it ought to provide time in which to 
respond, not interminable time, so that we can have an agency of which 
we can be proud and does what we all want--serve our veterans in a way 
that we would expect,

[[Page H2118]]

demand, and that we are morally obligated to give.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with my chairman, 
and, of course, our ranking member, on behalf of our true American 
heroes over the years, and we have got much more good work to do for 
our heroes.
  Mr. Chairman, too often, the VA has failed to hold employees 
accountable when they do not uphold their duty to care for those who 
served.
  The vast majority, as has been said by our chairman, are hardworking 
and dedicated to our Nation's heroes. But those bad actors are harmful 
to veterans and the VA's reputation as a whole. They must be fired. If 
a VA employee fails in their duty to care for veterans, they should be 
removed, as I said, from their post swiftly, no matter how senior their 
position.
  It is unacceptable that it can take a year, or even longer, to 
remove, demote, or suspend a VA employee. The VA Accountability First 
Act would remove those bureaucratic roadblocks and rid the agency of 
its toxic culture of mediocrity.
  The bill would also safeguard whistleblowers--that is necessary--from 
retaliation and protect employees' due process rights.
  I am proud to cosponsor the VA Accountability First Act, and I 
strongly urge passage.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano), my good friend, the vice ranking member of the 
full Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, Sergeant Major Walz 
from the State of Minnesota, for yielding me time.
  I also would like to say to the chairman, we had a wonderful time 
traveling to Afghanistan to pay respect to our troops during 
Thanksgiving. I don't have to travel across the country with him, but I 
did travel halfway around the world with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1259.
  Every Member of Congress supports accountability for employees at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs--everybody. Building a culture of 
excellence at the VA is critical to providing veterans the care and 
support they deserve.
  However, H.R. 1259 does not further this goal, or improve outcomes at 
the VA. We are not going to be able to fire our way to better outcomes 
at the VA.
  The question posed by the VA Accountability First Act is whether 
accountability or workers' rights are mutually exclusive. I, along with 
many of my colleagues, believe we can respect VA employees--a third of 
whom are veterans themselves--while also ensuring that poor-performing 
employees are held accountable.
  This legislation violates workers' rights in two very specific ways:
  First, it would erode due process protections by giving employees too 
little time--just 10 days--to prepare for a disciplinary hearing, and 
then just 7 days to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection 
Board.
  Second, it goes much further than past accountability bills by 
eliminating the use of collectively bargained grievance procedures for 
frontline VA employees. Not only do collectively bargained procedures 
often lead to quicker and simpler solutions, but they also give added 
protection to potential whistleblowers by acting as a check against 
managers who may retaliate against an employee who raises an issue.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question that we have workforce challenges 
at the VA, but this bill does not solve them. Instead, it eschews the 
Senate's bipartisan accountability legislation in favor of a much more 
one-sided bill.
  To my colleagues who voted on VA accountability legislation in the 
past: This is not the same bill. It goes much further. And I ask you to 
join me in opposing it.
  This is the first time the majority has targeted collective 
bargaining at the VA in this way. Your vote against this bill today 
will show that you oppose this very tactic.
  If we are serious about providing veterans the best care possible, we 
should focus on removing the Federal hiring freeze, advancing the 
appeals modernization bill, and other bipartisan efforts that will 
immediately improve veterans' access to high-quality care and support.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in opposition to 
this bill, a letter from the American Federation of Government 
Employees, as well as a letter from the American Federation of Labor 
and Congress of Industrial Organizations.


                                                       AFSCME,

                                                   March 15, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I'm writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 
     1259, which would eliminate collective bargaining rights and 
     fundamental due process rights of employees at the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (VA).
       The bill makes it easier to fire people for a good reason 
     or a bad reason. By eliminating merit-based principles for 
     workers facing a removal, demotion or suspension, the bill 
     makes it easier for management or political appointees to 
     scapegoat employees that advocate strongly for the veteran 
     patients they serve. Basic civil service due process rights 
     are necessary to block corruption, patronage, discrimination, 
     and political pressure to cover up problems in the delivery 
     of services to veterans.
       The bill destroys the right of registered nurses and other 
     front-line VA employees to use a union grievance procedure to 
     efficiently and fairly address proposed adverse employment 
     actions. This is union busting.
       This bill will not help improve the care to veterans from 
     the VA but rather make such care politicized and subject to 
     corrupting and corrosive influences unrelated to quality. 
     Moreover, this bill sets a dangerous precedent that could 
     subsequently harm more than one million additional federal 
     workers in other agencies and occupations, and the public 
     they serve. We urge you to vote against H.R. 1259.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                         AFGE,

                                                    March 7, 2017.
     Re AFGE Opposition to H.R. 1259.
     Hon. Phil Roe,
     Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Walz,
     Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz: I am writing on 
     behalf of nearly 700,000 federal employees represented by the 
     American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), 
     including 230,000 employees of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) to urge you to oppose H.R. 1259, a bill 
     introduced by Representative Phil Roe (R-TN) to eliminate 
     collective bargaining rights and significantly cut the due 
     process rights of employees facing a proposed removal, 
     demotion, or suspension (adverse action).
       H.R. 1259 is a direct assault on the union rights of every 
     VA employee, including more than 120,000 veterans within the 
     VA workforce. This bill will hurt, not fix, the VA. It will 
     reverse the significant improvements made over the past two 
     years, and will make it harder for veterans to get the 
     veteran-centric medical care and benefits on which they rely.
       In addition to punitive, counterproductive due process 
     attacks recycled from earlier bills, H.R. 1259 breaks new 
     ground by union-busting. The bill destroys the right of every 
     VA front line employee to use union grievance procedures to 
     efficiently and fairly address proposed adverse actions. The 
     grievance procedure is not only part of the law but also part 
     of the contract negotiated between labor and management. The 
     only avenue that VA front line employees will have left is a 
     rushed management-run appeals process that does not allow 
     good employees enough time to gather the evidence they

[[Page H2119]]

     need to defend their jobs. For medical professionals facing 
     proposed adverse actions related to professional conduct or 
     competence, the reductions in the timeframe for the agency 
     review process are more severe, even though their cases 
     typically involve complex medical issues.
       In addition, all front-line employees and managers will 
     have weaker rights to appeal to the Merit System Protection 
     Board (MSPB), their first chance at an independent review. 
     They will only have seven days to appeal to the MSPB after 
     they are fired (and off the payroll), and the bill ties the 
     hands of the MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ) with the recycled 
     ``one-size-fits-all'' prohibition against mitigating the 
     penalty, regardless of the facts of the individual case.
       When the employee loses at the MSPB (which happens in 80% 
     of cases now), he would have only seven days to prepare an 
     appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit.
       How does this impact the life of a veteran working in a VA? 
     What if a veteran working in a regional office processing 
     claims is trying to do his job in the face of unfair 
     allegations of poor performance by a manager who did not want 
     to hire a veteran and did not train him properly before 
     rushing him onto the job? It means that he only has ten days 
     to gather all the evidence he needs to respond to a proposed 
     removal and his manager only has five days to decide whether 
     to go ahead and fire him. Therefore, 15 days after learning 
     that he may be fired, he has no job and no paycheck. Then he 
     has one week to get his appeal to the MSPB, during which he 
     must hire an attorney if he can afford one, where the AJ 
     cannot give him a suspension or demotion even if the judge 
     believes that the facts dictate a less severe punishment than 
     removal. When the MSPB upholds the decision to fire him, he 
     has just one week to prepare his appeal to a federal appeals 
     court (and again, hire an attorney if he can afford one), 
     while he is without a job and without a paycheck.
       Just last month, Chairman Roe stated that ``the men and 
     women who have fought for our great nation should never have 
     to struggle to find a job,'' but his bill attacks every 
     option that veterans in the VA workforce have to save their 
     jobs in the face of unjustified firings.
       Chairman Roe has also expressed his intentions to reduce 
     mismanagement at the VA, but his bill weakens the critical 
     protections that VA employees need to speak up against 
     mismanagement and patient harm. Every day, employees 
     throughout the VA report concerns to management that directly 
     impact patient safety, health care access, processing of 
     disability claims, and many other functions essential to the 
     agency mission.
       Chairman Roe opposes the hiring freeze because he 
     understands how critical it is for veterans who depend on the 
     VA to have a ``robust clinical workforce.'' Yet his bill 
     singles out VA employees, including every clinician caring 
     for veterans, for worse treatment than other federal 
     employees through recoupment of compensation already earned, 
     including pensions, relocation bonuses, and performance 
     bonuses. These provisions are unnecessary and violate due 
     process. There are already ample safeguards in the law 
     against retention of improper relocation and performance 
     bonuses, and the VA has already dismantled the relocation 
     bonus program that was the subject of abuse allegations. In 
     addition, this bill directly contradicts private sector law 
     that forbids the recoupment of pensions.
       Thank you for considering the views of AFGE. If you need 
     more information, please contact Marilyn Park of my staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                J. David Cox, Sr.,
     National President.
                                  ____



                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                                    March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Phil Roe,
     Chair, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Walz,
     Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz: On behalf of the 
     AFL-CIO, I urge you to reject the VA Accountability First Act 
     (H.R. 1259), introduced by Chairman David Roe. H.R. 1259 is a 
     thinly veiled effort to destroy union rights and shift the 
     blame for management failures at the VA onto the backs of 
     front line employees.
       The bill severely truncates the appeals process in current 
     law and destroys grievance procedures that have been 
     successfully used throughout the federal government to 
     provide stability and protection against arbitrary treatment, 
     and with it any guarantee that employees will feel safe 
     speaking out against mismanagement or to protect patient 
     safety.
       Rather than building a culture of trust at the VA, H.R. 
     1259 would turn back the clock to an era when employees could 
     be fired with the slightest justification and almost no 
     opportunity to mount an effective defense. Worse, the bill 
     would single out VA employees for harsher treatment than 
     other federal workers, including the recoupment of 
     compensation already earned without adequate due process, 
     including pension benefits, and relocation and performance 
     bonuses.
       The Roe bill reflects the Chairman's opposition to 
     collective bargaining and the crucial role labor 
     organizations play in giving federal workers a voice on the 
     job. For the 120,000 veterans who work at the VA, this bill 
     is not only a slap in the face but a betrayal of the promise 
     that they would be guaranteed fair treatment if they came to 
     work for the federal government.
       We urge you to reject H.R. 1259.
           Sincerely,
                                         William Samuel, Director,
                                    Government Affairs Department.

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Today, as a veteran of both the Army and the United States Marine 
Corps, I rise on behalf of all those who have called, written, and 
stopped by my office seeking reform and accountability of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  I, along with the chairman and my colleagues on the House Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, introduced H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First 
Act of 2017. Today the House will vote to ensure the VA can hold its 
employees accountable for their actions and make sure that this agency 
remains committed and connected to its sole mission of serving our 
Nation's veterans.
  Additionally, this bill would provide improved protections for 
whistleblowers to ensure those brave enough to tell Congress and the 
American people what is really happening at the VA are protected.
  After the wait-time scandal in Phoenix and the over $1 billion cost 
overrun at the Aurora VA hospital, it is time that we reform the VA's 
culture of corruption and bureaucratic incompetence. This legislation 
will help the VA meet our Nation's obligations to the men and women who 
have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our freedom.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Minnesota has 
10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, you are hearing it here, and these are folks, we work 
together. This idea of accountability matters deeply to all of us. We 
know when you are in any business, this business--we have had 
colleagues of ours in here be arrested for buying cocaine from 
undercover police officers in Washington, D.C.
  Well, that brings great discredit to every single one of us, but I 
certainly don't think it requires all of us, then, to go through the 
same thing that person is going through or deprive us our rights of 
where we are at. This idea of due process, and what we are asking 
about, is not something meant to protect a bad employee. In fact, it is 
just the opposite. It is meant to improve the workforce.
  My plea on this is--much of this bill, there is agreement on, Mr. 
Takano was right--it went a step further. Having been a rank-and-file 
person in a collectively bargained unit, my goal was to provide the 
best quality education so our students could learn--an environment, 
quality teachers, and all of those things.
  I am at a loss for the desire to come here and decide that, and 
again, we say it in passing: Well, I don't want to deride all of those 
really good employees who are there. I just want to take away their 
collectively bargained right that was there.
  Even though we can give example after example, like Robert. He was a

[[Page H2120]]

service-connected disabled Navy veteran with over a decade of 
experience at the Veterans Benefits Administration. He was demoted 
after consistently, every single year, receiving highly satisfactory or 
top-rated performance reviews. Robert volunteered to be part of a 
quality review team to get rid of the backlog, and he had the audacity 
to tell his manager that there were better ways we could do this. 
Perhaps all of this overtime pay and consolidating all of these claims 
to one place was not in the best interest of that. That manager, on the 
way out the door, demoted and tried to remove Robert from that 
position.
  Now, keep in mind, that same manager, all of those years before, had 
rated him well. Well, maybe something happened. Maybe Robert started 
doing something wrong. Maybe Robert wasn't that good an employee.
  But again, under this piece of legislation, Robert's collectively 
bargained right--which he used and grieved it and got back his job, and 
subsequently, the manager had problems on their performance reviews, 
where it came from.
  So again, don't set this up as if everything is wrong.
  And I would make note of this: We are doing our best to attract the 
best and brightest to the VA. Nobody is defending the bad. But when I 
hear folks come to the floor and it is nothing but what a horrific 
place this is, I leave this for you, Mr. Chairman.
  I also have the privilege of representing America's premier medical 
institution in the Mayo Clinic, and I look at what they do. Folks at 
Mayo Clinic will tell me some of the finest cardiac surgeons in the 
world are at the Minneapolis VA.
  I will also tell you this. If you, in America, go to any hospital--
Dr. Roe can attest to this--the thing that you should probably be most 
worried about and the thing that kills most people--over 90,000 a 
year--is hospital-acquired infections.
  Do you know who does it better and has the lowest rate, better than 
Mayo Clinic, better than Johns Hopkins? The VA. So somebody among those 
rank-and-file members who is cleaning the operating rooms and cleaning 
the equipment is doing so in a manner that is better than any other.
  What message are we sending them today? If a manager doesn't do their 
job and decides they want to fire you, we are going to lump everybody 
together. I just ask, once again, to my colleagues, to this body, these 
are things that should have been debated in a hearing. We should have 
brought in the experts.
  Here is what I think. I think you would build a broader coalition--
because I have to be very honest with you. I think our public sector 
unions could help us and step up and say: What was the real situation 
here? How do you respond to this egregious breach of trust? And what do 
you think would be a better way?
  I am not saying they would give us a suggestion. I want to be very 
honest and not disingenuous. They may not answer us. We should have at 
least asked them: What would you do to make this better? What could 
speed it up, and what could protect them?
  We didn't do that because we didn't have a hearing, and I think that 
stops building the consensus. I think it makes it harder to get this.

  I will tell you this. The bill I keep referencing that was over in 
the Senate had 45 Senate cosponsors. Good luck getting 45 of them to 
agree today. It is Thursday, and we did it on an accountability plea 
that also had the support of every single one of those groups on there, 
except one, to support that piece of legislation.
  So we went a step further. We didn't have a hearing. We tried to let 
outside groups frame this as a veterans versus public sector union 
folks, who were also veterans. That is not what it is. We just need to 
get it right.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1259, the VA 
Accountability First Act of 2017.
  President Lincoln reminds us of our duty ``to care for him who shall 
have borne the battle,'' and, frankly, our government has done a 
miserable job of it.
  While a large number of VA employees honorably serve our veterans, 
that is not always the case. In the real world, if you don't do your 
job, you get fired. Yet we have employees at the VA who are guilty of 
gross misconduct, even major felonies, and they are still on the job.
  ``Why is this?'' you ask. Because the process to fire them is too 
arduous. The VA system that lives up to our veterans' sacrifices starts 
with personnel. The VA Accountability First Act is a great first step 
in addressing poor performance and misconduct at the VA. It will allow 
Secretary Shulkin to make substantive changes as he works to improve 
veterans' care.
  We need to make the VA work for our veterans instead of our 
bureaucrats.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we are not going to find a lot of disagreement.
  I will tell you what a good first step would be: hire some surgeons. 
There are openings there. This is our first salvo at trying to fix the 
VA. We have an appeals bill that every single veterans service 
organization agrees: appeals modernization. We have worked that thing 
through. We have had the language. It is not here.
  We have a Choice bill that is expiring August 7. We have had a 
hearing with the VA Secretary, and that is the way it should have been. 
It is not here today.
  What we have is a bill that did not go through regular order, a bill 
that obviously didn't build a consensus, and this is very unusual to 
have a bill from the VA Committee. I bet you 90 to 95 percent of the 
time when one hits this floor, it gets 300 to 400 votes up on that 
board, but this one is not.
  So, again, if the contention is that Members of this House don't care 
if there is a bad employee working there, that is disingenuous and 
wrong. But if we do believe, putting it in place--and again, the 
example I gave, the chairman is right. It took Robert 6 weeks to get 
all of the information gathered together because the manager who left 
was holding on to it and had to get the union to force the release of 
that information. His 14 days would have come and gone, and that is it.
  This is why, sometimes, I am not going to defend 400 days. That is 
ridiculous. I am not going to spend--if they are dragging their feet. 
But this guy got fired by a manager, got demoted down, wanted to get 
the information. The outgoing manager said, ``It isn't my problem.'' 
The union had to go--and had to go, in this case, almost to court--to 
get the information back to them so he could present a case that said 
exactly what was ruled upon: You got fired illegally by a bad manager.
  I am telling people, if you are angry when things go wrong at the VA, 
you have got 330 million Americans who are with you. We have subpoenaed 
them. None of them were collectively bargained. The problem is in 
management and middle management not doing their job.
  Do your work.
  You know what would be great is if the management actually did what 
they are supposed to do and improved bad performance before it gets to 
a point where it causes problems and you actually improve that 
employee, which saves us money from having to go out and hire someone 
else and you have the system working better. But to watch something go 
wrong, not do your due diligence, not follow the law, then fire someone 
and then complain that it takes too long to fix it, how about we figure 
out what really gets, keeps, retains, and makes the VA better?
  There are other places that we could work on. Ninety percent of it, 
you have got my agreement. I think you are going to see that 10 percent 
is going to ensure this does not get into law; and that, in itself, is 
simply wrong because

[[Page H2121]]

no one disagrees. We could make this system work better.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for 
this opportunity.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, in support of H.R. 1259, the VA 
Accountability First Act, because our veterans deserve to receive the 
best care possible, and our VA personnel deserve to work alongside only 
the best qualified and professional caregivers.

  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to serve almost 100,000 veterans in 
northeast Florida, and this important bill will ensure that veterans 
throughout the Nation get the care and respect that they have earned.
  In addition, thousands of good and caring VA employees dedicate their 
lives to serving our veterans in some of their greatest times of need. 
But it is unfair--unfair--to these many hardworking VA employees when 
those working alongside of them engage in misconduct and they are not 
held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, our veterans deserve better, and our caring, 
hardworking VA employees deserve better. As has been stated multiple 
times, this bill does not eliminate employee due process. My colleagues 
and I in Congress carry a sacred obligation to our veterans, have a 
sacred obligation to our Nation to improve accountability at our VA.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, after the gentleman finishes with his speakers, 
I will close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I would like to inquire as to the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate what Chairman Roe of 
Tennessee is doing. He pours his heart and soul into one of the most 
important issues and things we can deal with here in Congress and, that 
is, helping our veterans.
  Veterans step up and serve in our military. I stand in awe. They do 
the heavy lifting. They run through the fire. They engage. Then they 
come home, and we have got to do a better job of taking care of those 
people who take care of us.
  The Veterans Administration, just like the rest of Federal 
Government, has a lot of good people who actually work there, do care, 
and have big hearts. With a government of more than 2 million people, 
every once in a while you come across some bad apples. They may be a 
poor performer, or they may just have their heart in a different place, 
and we have got to deal with these bad apples.
  While you have a whole set of people who are actually trying to do 
the right thing, you are going to run into some people every once in a 
while who aren't doing the right thing, and you have to be able to 
dismiss them.
  Now, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction 
on the Federal civilian workforce, and we have worked closely with 
Chairman Roe of Tennessee to help make this possible.
  Through the last couple of years that I have been chairman of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have heard a number of 
accounts where Federal employees couldn't be disciplined fast enough. 
It was obvious what they had done, but they had run into roadblocks in 
being able to dismiss people.
  We heard horror stories from the Environmental Protection Agency 
where there was a sexually harassed intern that lasted for 3 years. It 
took 5 weeks to process the harasser's removal proceedings.
  We heard the Government Accountability Office come and testify before 
our committee that it can take 6 months to a year to remove a Federal 
employee for poor performance. You know what? That isn't good enough. 
When you have a bad apple and somebody is misusing the system and they 
are not performing, they are hurting our veterans. And when they are 
hurting our veterans, I take that personally. Everybody should take 
that personally. Nobody wants to see that happen.
  So this bill, H.R. 1259, is a very important bill to accelerate that 
process. Again, let's remember that most of the people who work there 
are good, hardworking, patriotic people who care. But when you do have 
a bad apple and you do need to get rid of that person, we have to have 
an expedited removal proceeding.
  I know this bill does a number of things, but I can tell you, having 
heard testimony time and time and time again in a variety of Federal 
agencies, especially the VA, this is a much-needed bill.
  We are going to work as a committee to implement reforms like this 
governmentwide. To put the Veterans Administration first and deal with 
this first, I think, is the right priority of this Congress.
  Again, hats off to Chairman Roe of Tennessee and the committee as a 
whole for addressing this so aggressively and so early in the 115th 
Congress.
  I urge passage of H.R. 1259.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) is going to use the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee to provide oversight of this 
administration. I welcome it. I have some suggestions for some other 
oversight of the administration, and I would be glad to share them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) for his leadership on this issue and 
so many others on behalf of our veteran population.
  As a veteran myself of the war in Afghanistan, I have a deep 
commitment to ensuring that my fellow veterans receive the proper care 
and treatment that they have earned by serving our country. That is why 
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the VA Accountability First 
Act.
  This bipartisan legislation will give Secretary Shulkin the tools 
that he needs to change the dysfunctional culture of the VA. It has 
been 3 years since the wait list at VA facilities became public, yet 
too many of our veterans deal with VA employees who engage in 
misconduct that could endanger their lives.
  Too often, it takes months or even years to remove those employees. 
Worse still, sometimes these employees are not removed at all. Most VA 
employees, though, are hardworking and dedicated people, which makes it 
that much more unfair when the VA can't or won't hold bad employees 
accountable.
  We can and must do better, and this bill is a first step in that 
process.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. The bill would shorten the time it takes to 
fire a VA employee for misconduct, give the Secretary the discretion to 
both revoke bonuses previously paid to employees engaging in misconduct 
and reduce pensions of employees found guilty of felonies while on the 
job, and provide improved protections for whistleblowers.
  These are commonsense proposals supported by many veterans' groups. 
This bill is also supported by Secretary Shulkin. It is a no-brainer, 
and that is why I support it.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Roe of Tennessee for

[[Page H2122]]

his leadership on this legislation and also for letting me speak.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability 
First Act. For years, my colleagues and I have fought hard to hold VA 
bureaucrats accountable. The VA still lacks the ability to take swift 
action against employees who prevent veterans from getting the benefits 
that they have earned.
  We should be able to terminate senior executives at failing hospitals 
that force veterans to languish on secret wait lists. We should not 
award bonuses to poorly performing employees who engage in misconduct, 
and we shouldn't provide full retirement benefits to convicted 
criminals whose crime harmed veterans.
  We can't stop there. We must go further to pursue bold reform at the 
VA. I look forward to working with Chairman Roe of Tennessee, 
Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, and others to pass the Caring for Our 
Heroes in the 21st Century Act, which would finally empower veterans, 
including the almost 100,000 in my congressional district in Colorado, 
to make their own healthcare decisions.
  Let's pass H.R. 1259 today. It is a good piece of legislation.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, I am glad we got an opportunity to debate this, 
which is what we should do. There is no disagreement that we need to 
hold folks accountable. We need to get the best people at the VA. We 
need to commit to improving the VA the best we can.
  My respect and admiration for the chairman is as it has always been, 
the highest it can be. I know his heart and his intellect is aimed at 
that. We have some legitimate differences on this. I don't believe they 
are so big they can't be overcome. I do believe we should try and keep 
this away from the partisanship that so often engulfs this House.
  My commitment to Chairman Roe of Tennessee is to do the best I can to 
continue to try and improve upon these. We have a lot more work to do 
that will be happening together to improve the care of our veterans.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-7. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1259

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``VA 
     Accountability First Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. References to title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 3. Removal, demotion, and suspension of employees based on 
              performance or misconduct.
Sec. 4. Reduction of benefits for Department of Veterans Affairs 
              employees convicted of certain crimes.
Sec. 5. Authority to recoup bonuses or awards paid to employees of 
              Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 6. Authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of 
              employees of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 7. Time period for response to notice of adverse actions against 
              supervisory employees who commit prohibited personnel 
              actions.
Sec. 8. Direct hiring authority for medical center directors and VISN 
              directors.
Sec. 9. Time periods for review of adverse actions with respect to 
              certain employees.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. REMOVAL, DEMOTION, AND SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES BASED 
                   ON PERFORMANCE OR MISCONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 719. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based 
       on performance or misconduct

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may remove, demote, or 
     suspend an individual who is an employee of the Department if 
     the Secretary determines the performance or misconduct of the 
     individual warrants such removal, demotion, or suspension. If 
     the Secretary so removes, demotes, or suspends such an 
     individual, the Secretary may--
       ``(1) remove the individual from the civil service (as 
     defined in section 2101 of title 5);
       ``(2) demote the individual by means of a reduction in 
     grade for which the individual is qualified, that the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate, and that reduces the 
     annual rate of pay of the individual; or
       ``(3) suspend the individual.
       ``(b) Pay of Certain Demoted Individuals.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any individual 
     subject to a demotion under subsection (a)(2) shall, 
     beginning on the date of such demotion, receive the annual 
     rate of pay applicable to such grade.
       ``(2) An individual so demoted may not be placed on 
     administrative leave during the period during which an appeal 
     (if any) under this section is ongoing, and may only receive 
     pay if the individual reports for duty or is approved to use 
     accrued unused annual, sick, family medical, military, or 
     court leave. If an individual so demoted does not report for 
     duty or receive approval to use accrued unused leave, such 
     individual shall not receive pay or other benefits pursuant 
     to subsection (e)(5).
       ``(c) Notice to Congress.--(1) Not later than 30 days after 
     removing, demoting, or suspending an individual employed in a 
     senior executive position under subsection (a) or after 
     removing, demoting, or suspending an individual under chapter 
     74 of this title, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives and to each Member of Congress representing a 
     district in the State or territory where the facility where 
     the individual was employed immediately before being removed, 
     demoted, or suspended is located notice in writing of such 
     removal, demotion, or suspension. Such notice shall include 
     the job title of the individual, the location where the 
     individual was employed immediately before being removed, 
     demoted, or suspended, the proposed action, and the reason 
     for such removal, demotion, or suspension.
       ``(2) Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives 
     a report listing all removals, demotions, and suspensions 
     under this section or under chapter 74 of this title during 
     such fiscal year. Each such report shall include the job 
     title of each individual removed, demoted, or suspended, the 
     location where the individual was employed immediately before 
     being so removed, demoted or suspended, the proposed action, 
     and the reason for such removal, demotion, or suspension.
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `senior executive 
     position' means, with respect to a career appointee (as that 
     term is defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5), a Senior 
     Executive Service position (as such term is defined in 
     section 3132(a)(2) of title 5).
       ``(d) Procedure.--(1) Subsection (b) of section 7513 of 
     title 5 shall apply with respect to a removal, demotion, or 
     suspension under this section, except that the period for 
     notice and response, which includes the advance notice period 
     required by paragraph (1) of such subsection and the response 
     period required by paragraph (2) of such subsection, shall 
     not exceed a total of 10 business days. Subsection (c) of 
     such section and section 7121 of such title shall not apply 
     with respect to such a removal, demotion, or suspension.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall issue a final decision with 
     respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 
     section--
       ``(A) in the case of a proposed removal, demotion, or 
     suspension to which an individual responds under paragraph 
     (1), not later than five business days after receiving the 
     response of the individual; or
       ``(B) in the case of a proposed removal, demotion, or 
     suspension to which an individual does not respond, not later 
     than 15 business days after the Secretary provides notice to 
     the individual under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The procedures under chapter 43 of title 5 shall not 
     apply to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 
     section.
       ``(4)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (e), 
     any removal, demotion, or suspension under subsection (a) may 
     be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which 
     shall refer such appeal to an administrative judge pursuant 
     to section 7701(b)(1) of title 5.

[[Page H2123]]

       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal, 
     demotion, or suspension may only be made if such appeal is 
     made not later than 7 days after the date of such removal, 
     demotion, or suspension.
       ``(e) Expedited Review.--(1) Upon receipt of an appeal 
     under subsection (d)(4)(A), the administrative judge shall 
     expedite any such appeal under such section and, in any such 
     case, shall issue a final and complete decision not later 
     than 45 business days after the date of the appeal.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, the 
     administrative judge shall uphold the decision of the 
     Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend an employee under 
     subsection (a) if the decision is supported by substantial 
     evidence. If the decision of the Secretary is supported by 
     substantial evidence, the administrative judge shall not 
     mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(3)(A) The decision of the administrative judge under 
     paragraph (1) may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board.
       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a decision of an 
     administrative judge may only be made if such appeal is made 
     not later than 7 business days after the date of the decision 
     of the administrative judge.
       ``(4) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot 
     issue a decision in accordance with the 45-day requirement 
     under paragraph (1), the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     shall, not later than 14 business days after the expiration 
     of the 45-day period, submit to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
     that explains the reasons why a decision was not issued in 
     accordance with such requirement.
       ``(5)(A) A decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     under paragraph (3) may be appealed to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to section 
     7703 of title 5.
       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a decision of the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board may only be made if such 
     appeal is made not later than 7 business days after the date 
     of the decision of the Board.
       ``(C) Any decision by such Court shall be in compliance 
     with section 7462(f)(2) of this title.
       ``(6) The Merit Systems Protection Board may not stay any 
     removal, demotion, under this section.
       ``(7) During the period beginning on the date on which an 
     individual appeals a removal from the civil service under 
     subsection (d) and ending on the date that the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a final 
     decision on such appeal, such individual may not receive any 
     pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, differentials, 
     student loan repayments, special payments, or benefits 
     related to the employment of the individual by the 
     Department.
       ``(8) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall provide to the Merit Systems Protection Board such 
     information and assistance as may be necessary to ensure an 
     appeal under this subsection is expedited.
       ``(9) If an employee prevails on appeal under this section, 
     the employee shall be entitled to backpay (as provided in 
     section 5596 of title 5).
       ``(10) This subsection shall supercede any collective 
     bargaining agreement to the extent that such an agreement 
     conflicts with this subsection.
       ``(f) Whistleblower Protection.--(1) In the case of an 
     individual seeking corrective action (or on behalf of whom 
     corrective action is sought) from the Office of Special 
     Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice 
     described in section 2302(b) of title 5, the Secretary may 
     not remove, demote, or suspend such individual under 
     subsection (a) without the approval of the Special Counsel 
     under section 1214(f) of title 5.
       ``(2) In the case of an individual who has filed a 
     whistleblower complaint, as such term is defined in section 
     731 of this title, the Secretary may not remove, demote, or 
     suspend such individual under subsection (a) until a final 
     decision with respect to the whistleblower complaint has been 
     made.
       ``(g) Termination of Investigations by Office of Special 
     Counsel.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Special Counsel (established by section 1211 of title 5) may 
     terminate an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice 
     alleged by an employee or former employee of the Department 
     after the Special Counsel provides to the employee or former 
     employee a written statement of the reasons for the 
     termination of the investigation. Such statement may not be 
     admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative 
     proceeding without the consent of such employee or former 
     employee.
       ``(h) Vacancies.--In the case of an individual who is 
     removed or demoted under subsection (a), to the maximum 
     extent feasible, the Secretary shall fill the vacancy arising 
     as a result of such removal or demotion.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `individual' means an individual occupying a 
     position at the Department but does not include--
       ``(A) an individual appointed pursuant to section 7306, 
     7401(1), or 7405 of this title;
       ``(B) an individual who has not completed a probationary or 
     trial period; or
       ``(C) a political appointee.
       ``(2) The term `suspend' means the placing of an employee, 
     for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without 
     duties and pay for a period in excess of 14 days.
       ``(3) The term `grade' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 7511(a) of title 5.
       ``(4) The term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.
       ``(5) The term `political appointee' means an individual 
     who is--
       ``(A) employed in a position described under sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5 (relating to the Executive Schedule);
       ``(B) a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), 
     respectively, of section 3132(a) of title 5; or
       ``(C) employed in a position of a confidential or policy-
     determining character under schedule C of subpart C of part 
     213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superceded Provision of Law.--
       (1) In general.--Section 713 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 713.
       (c) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     chapter 7 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 717 the following new item:

``719. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based on performance 
              or misconduct.''.

       (2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any removal or demotion under section 719 of title 
     38.''.
       (d) Temporary Exemption From Certain Limitation on 
     Initiation From Removal From Senior Executive Service.--
     During the 120-day period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, an action to remove an individual from the 
     Senior Executive Service at the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs pursuant to this section may be initiated, 
     notwithstanding section 3592(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, or any other provision of law.

     SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF BENEFITS FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.

       (a) Reduction of Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 is further 
     amended by inserting after section 719, as added by section 
     3, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 721. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of 
       certain crimes

       ``(a) Reduction of Annuity for Removed Employee.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall order that the covered service of an employee 
     of the Department removed from a position for performance or 
     misconduct under section 719 or 7461 of this title or any 
     other provision of law shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of calculating an annuity with respect to such 
     individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the individual is 
     convicted of a felony that influenced the individual's 
     performance while employed in the position;
       ``(B) before such order is made, the individual is 
     afforded--
       ``(i) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 
     not later than ten business days following receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(C) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later 
     than five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(2) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the individual shall have an opportunity to 
     appeal the order to the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management before the date that is seven business days after 
     the date of such issuance.
       ``(3) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall make a final decision with respect to an appeal under 
     paragraph (2) within 30 business days of receiving the 
     appeal.
       ``(b) Reduction of Annuity for Retired Employee.--(1) The 
     Secretary may order that the covered service of an individual 
     who is removed for performance or misconduct under section 
     719 or 7461 of this title or any other provision of law but 
     who leaves employment at the Department prior to the issuance 
     of a final decision with respect to such action shall not be 
     taken into account for purposes of calculating an annuity 
     with respect to such individual under chapter 83 or chapter 
     84 of title 5, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the individual is 
     convicted of a felony that influenced the individual's 
     performance while employed in the position;
       ``(B) before such order is made, the individual is 
     afforded--
       ``(i) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(ii) opportunity to respond to the proposed order by not 
     later than ten business days following receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(C) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later 
     than five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(2) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the individual shall

[[Page H2124]]

     have an opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of 
     the Office of Personnel Management before the date that is 
     seven business days after the date of such issuance.
       ``(3) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall make a final decision with respect to an appeal under 
     paragraph (2) within 30 business days of receiving the 
     appeal.
       ``(c) Administrative Requirements.--Not later than 37 
     business days after the Secretary issues a final order under 
     subsection (a) or (b), the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall recalculate the annuity of the 
     individual.
       ``(d) Lump-Sum Annuity Credit.--Any individual with respect 
     to whom an annuity is reduced under subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's 
     lump-sum credit as is attributable to the period of covered 
     service.
       ``(e) Spouse or Children Exception.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall 
     prescribe regulations that may provide for the payment to the 
     spouse or children of any individual referred to in 
     subsection (a) or (b) of any amounts which (but for this 
     subsection) would otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of 
     such subsections. Any such regulations shall be consistent 
     with the requirements of sections 8332(o)(5) and 8411(l)(5) 
     of title 5, as the case may be.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered service' means, with respect to an 
     individual subject to a removal for performance or misconduct 
     under section 719 or 7461 of this title or any other 
     provision of law, the period of service beginning on the date 
     that the Secretary determines under such applicable provision 
     that the individual engaged in activity that gave rise to 
     such action and ending on the date that the individual is 
     removed from or leaves a position of employment at the 
     Department prior to the issuance of a final decision with 
     respect to such action.
       ``(2) The term `lump-sum credit' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 8331(8) or section 8401(19) of title 5, as 
     the case may be.
       ``(3) The term `service' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 8331(12) or section 8401(26) of title 5, as the case 
     may be.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 719, as added by section 3, the following 
     new item:

``721. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of certain 
              crimes.''.

       (b) Application.--Section 721 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply to any 
     action of removal of an employee of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs under section 719 or 7461 of this title or 
     any other provision of law, commencing on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO RECOUP BONUSES OR AWARDS PAID TO 
                   EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 is further 
     amended by inserting after section 721, as added by section 
     4, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 723. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees 
       of Department

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may issue an order directing an employee 
     of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the 
     amount, of any award or bonus paid to the employee under 
     title 5, including under chapter 45 or 53 of such title, or 
     this title if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that the individual engaged 
     in misconduct or poor performance prior to payment of the 
     award or bonus, and that such award or bonus would not have 
     been paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor 
     performance been known prior to payment;
       ``(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded--
       ``(A) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 
     not later than ten business days after the receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(3) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than 
     five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(b) Appeals.--Upon the issuance of an order by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a), the individual shall have an 
     opportunity to appeal the order to another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government before the date that is 
     seven business days after the date of such issuance.
       ``(c) Final Decisions.--The head of the applicable 
     department or agency of the Federal Government shall make a 
     final decision with respect to an appeal under subsection (b) 
     within 30 business days after receiving such appeal.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 4, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 721, 
     as added by section 4(a)(2), the following new item:

``723. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of 
              Department.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Section 723 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
     an award or bonus paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     to an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act may be construed to modify the certification 
     issued by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office 
     of Management and Budget regarding the performance appraisal 
     system of the Senior Executive Service of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO RECOUP RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO OR ON 
                   BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 725. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf 
       of employees of Department

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may issue an order directing an employee 
     of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the 
     amount, paid to or on behalf of the employee under title 5 
     for relocation expenses, including any expenses under section 
     5724 or 5724a of such title, or this title if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that relocation expenses 
     were not lawfully authorized or that the employee committed 
     an act of fraud, waste, or malfeasance that influenced the 
     authorization of the relocation expenses;
       ``(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded--
       ``(A) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order not 
     later than ten business days following the receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(3) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than 
     five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(b) Appeals.--Upon the issuance of an order by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a), the individual shall have an 
     opportunity to appeal the order to another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government before the date that is 
     seven business days after the date of such issuance.
       ``(c) Final Decisions.--The head of the applicable 
     department or agency of the Federal Government shall make a 
     final decision with respect to an appeal under subsection (b) 
     within 30 days after receiving such appeal.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is further amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 723, as added by section 
     5(b), the following new item:

``725. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of 
              employees of Department.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Section 725 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
     an amount paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to or on 
     behalf of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     for relocation expenses on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 7. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ADVERSE ACTIONS 
                   AGAINST SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHO COMMIT 
                   PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTIONS.

       Section 733(a)(2)(B) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``14 days'' and inserting 
     ``10 days''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``14-day period'' and 
     inserting ``10-day period''.

     SEC. 8. DIRECT HIRING AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTORS 
                   AND VISN DIRECTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Medical center directors and directors of Veterans 
     Integrated Service Networks with demonstrated ability in the 
     medical profession, in health care administration, or in 
     health care fiscal management.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7404(a)(1) is amended by 
     inserting ``and 7401(4)'' after ``7306''.

     SEC. 9. TIME PERIODS FOR REVIEW OF ADVERSE ACTIONS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Physicians, Dentists, Podiatrists, Chiropractors, 
     Optometrists, Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and 
     Expanded-Function Dental Auxiliaries.--Section 7461(b)(2) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) In any case other than a case described in paragraph 
     (1) that involves or includes a question of professional 
     conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was not 
     taken, such an appeal shall be made through Department 
     grievance procedures under section 7463 of this title.''.
       (b) Major Adverse Actions Involving Professional Conduct or 
     Competence.--Section 7462 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``At least 30'' and 
     inserting ``Ten business''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``A reasonable time, but not less than 
     seven days'' and inserting ``The opportunity, within the ten-
     day notice period''; and
       (II) by striking ``orally and'';

       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``(A) If a proposed adverse action covered 
     by this section is not withdrawn'' and inserting ``After 
     considering the employee's answer, if any'';
       (ii) by striking ``21 days'' and inserting ``5 business 
     days'';
       (iii) by striking ``answer. The decision shall include a 
     statement of'' and inserting ``answer stating''; and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``(A) The Secretary'' and all that follows 
     through ``(B) The Secretary'' and inserting ``The 
     Secretary''; and

[[Page H2125]]

       (ii) by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``7 business 
     days'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``the hearing must be 
     concluded not later than 30 business days after the date on 
     which the appeal is filed, and'' after ``If such a hearing is 
     held,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``45 days'' and inserting ``15 business 
     days''; and
       (ii) by striking ``120 days'' and inserting ``45 business 
     days''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``90 days'' and 
     inserting ``15 business days''.
       (c) Other Adverse Actions.--Section 7463 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c) through (e) as subsections (b) through (d), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), as so redesignated--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``an advance'' and 
     inserting ``ten business days''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``a reasonable time'' and inserting ``the 
     opportunity, within the ten business day notice period,''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``orally and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 115-39. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Roe of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 20, line 15, insert ``to or'' after ``paid''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just a simple technical 
correction. It does not change my concerns with the underlying bill on 
H.R. 1259, but I am not opposed to the technical corrections.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Walz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3 and insert the following new section 3:

     SEC. 3. IMPROVED AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES.

       (a) Accountability of Senior Executives.--
       (1) In general.--Section 713 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 713. Accountability of senior executives

       ``(a) Authority.--(1) The Secretary may, as provided in 
     this section, reprimand or suspend, involuntarily reassign, 
     demote, or remove a covered individual from a senior 
     executive position at the Department if the Secretary 
     determines that the misconduct or performance of the covered 
     individual warrants such action.
       ``(2) If the Secretary so removes such an individual, the 
     Secretary may remove the individual from the civil service 
     (as defined in section 2101 of title 5).
       ``(b) Rights and Procedures.--(1) A covered individual who 
     is the subject of an action under subsection (a) is entitled 
     to--
       ``(A) be represented by an attorney or other representative 
     of the covered individual's choice;
       ``(B) not fewer than 10 business days advance written 
     notice of the charges and evidence supporting the action and 
     an opportunity to respond, in a manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary, before a decision is made regarding the action; 
     and
       ``(C) grieve the action in accordance with an internal 
     grievance process that the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Assistant Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower 
     Protection, shall establish for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall ensure that the grievance 
     process established under paragraph (1)(C) takes fewer than 
     21 days.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall ensure that, under the process 
     established pursuant to paragraph (1)(C), grievances are 
     reviewed only by employees of the Department.
       ``(3) A decision or grievance decision under paragraph 
     (1)(C) shall be final and conclusive.
       ``(4) A covered individual adversely affected by a final 
     decision under paragraph (1)(C) may obtain judicial review of 
     the decision.
       ``(5) In any case in which judicial review is sought under 
     paragraph (4), the court shall review the record and may set 
     aside any Department action found to be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with a provision of law;
       ``(B) obtained without procedures required by a provision 
     of law having been followed; or
       ``(C) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Provisions of Law.--(1) The 
     authority provided by subsection (a) is in addition to the 
     authority provided by section 3592 or subchapter V of chapter 
     75 of title 5.
       ``(2) Section 3592(b)(1) of title 5 and the procedures 
     under section 7543(b) of such title do not apply to an action 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered individual' means--
       ``(A) a career appointee (as that term is defined in 
     section 3132(a)(4) of title 5); or
       ``(B) any individual who occupies an administrative or 
     executive position and who was appointed under section 
     7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title.
       ``(2) The term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.
       ``(3) The term `senior executive position' means--
       ``(A) with respect to a career appointee (as that term is 
     defined in section 3132(a) of title 5), a Senior Executive 
     Service position (as such term is defined in such section); 
     and
       ``(B) with respect to a covered individual appointed under 
     section 7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title, an 
     administrative or executive position.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 7461(c)(1) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``employees in senior executive 
     positions (as defined in section 713(d) of this title) and'' 
     before ``interns''.
       (b) Performance Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish a performance management system for employees in 
     senior executive positions, as defined in section 713(d) of 
     title 38, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), 
     that ensures performance ratings and awards given to such 
     employees--
       (A) meaningfully differentiate extraordinary from 
     satisfactory contributions; and
       (B) substantively reflect organizational achievements over 
     which the employee has responsibility and control.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     to carry out paragraph (1).
       Strike section 9 and insert the following new section 9:

     SEC. 9. REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS BASED ON PERFORMANCE OR MISCONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is further amended by inserting after 
     section 713 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 714. Employees: removal based on performance or 
       misconduct

       ``(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary may remove a covered 
     individual who is an employee of the Department if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the performance or misconduct of the covered 
     individual warrants such removal; and
       ``(B) in the case of removal for performance, a portion of 
     such performance occurred during the two-year period ending 
     on the date of the determination.
       ``(2) If the Secretary removes a covered individual under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may remove the covered 
     individual from the civil service (as defined in section 2101 
     of title 5).
       ``(3) Nothing in this section may be construed to authorize 
     a finalized performance appraisal of an employee to be 
     retroactively amended.

[[Page H2126]]

       ``(b) Notice to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     removing a covered individual under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives notice in writing 
     of such removal and the reason for such removal.
       ``(c) Procedure.--(1) An employee removed under subsection 
     (a) is entitled, before removal, to--
       ``(A) at least 10 business days written notice (which, in 
     the case of removal for performance, shall identify specific 
     instances as described in clause (i) of section 4303(b)(1)(A) 
     of title 5 and critical elements as described in clause (ii) 
     of such section), unless there is reasonable cause to believe 
     that the employee committed a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment can be imposed--
       ``(i) stating the specific reasons for the proposed action; 
     and
       ``(ii) including a file containing all evidence in support 
     of the proposed action;
       ``(B) 10 business days to answer the charges orally and in 
     writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary 
     evidence in support of the answer;
       ``(C) be represented by an attorney or other 
     representative;
       ``(D) a review of the case by the Secretary before a 
     decision adverse to the employee is made final;
       ``(E) as soon as practicable, a decision of the Secretary 
     with respect to the charges of the employee; and
       ``(F) a written statement of the decision of the Secretary 
     that--
       ``(i) includes the specific reasons of the decision; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a removal based on performance, 
     complies with section 4303(b)(1)(D) of title 5.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (e), 
     any final decision of the Secretary regarding removal under 
     subsection (a) may be appealed to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board.
       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal may 
     only be made if such appeal is made not later than 10 
     business days after the date of such removal.
       ``(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the decision of the 
     Secretary shall be sustained under subparagraph (A) only if 
     the Secretary's decision--
       ``(I) in the case of an action based on performance, is 
     supported by substantial evidence; or
       ``(II) in any other case, is supported by a preponderance 
     of the evidence.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the Secretary's decision 
     may not be sustained under subparagraph (A) if the covered 
     individual--
       ``(I) shows harmful error in the application of the 
     Secretary's procedures in arriving at such decision;
       ``(II) shows that the decision was based on any prohibited 
     personnel practice described in section 2302(b) of title 5; 
     or
       ``(III) shows that the decision was not in accordance with 
     law.
       ``(3) The procedures under section 7513(b) of title 5 and 
     chapter 43 of such title shall not apply to a removal under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Expedited Review.--(1) The Merit Systems Protection 
     Board shall promulgate such rules as the Board considers 
     appropriate to expedite appeals under subsection (c)(2).
       ``(2) The Board shall ensure that a final decision on an 
     appeal described in paragraph (1) is issued not later than 90 
     days after the appeal is made.
       ``(3) During the period beginning on the date on which a 
     covered individual appeals a removal from the civil service 
     under subsection (c)(2) and ending on the date that the Board 
     issues a final decision on such appeal, such covered 
     individual may not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, 
     incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan 
     repayments, special payments, or benefits.
       ``(4) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall provide to the Merit Systems Protection Board such 
     information and assistance as may be necessary to ensure an 
     appeal under subsection (c)(2) is expedited.
       ``(e) Relation to Title 5.--The authority provided by this 
     section is in addition to the authority provided by 
     subchapter V of chapter 75 of title 5 and chapter 43 of such 
     title.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered individual' means an individual 
     occupying a position at the Department but does not include--
       ``(A) an individual, as that term is defined in section 
     713(d); or
       ``(B) a political appointee.
       ``(2) The term `misconduct' includes a violation of 
     paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) of title 5, neglect 
     of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed 
     reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of 
     function.
       ``(3) The term `political appointee' means an individual 
     who is--
       ``(A) employed in a position described under sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5 (relating to the Executive Schedule);
       ``(B) a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), 
     respectively, of section 3132(a) of title 5; or
       ``(C) employed in a position of a confidential or policy-
     determining character under schedule C of subpart C of part 
     213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 713 the following new item:

``714. Employees: removal based on performance or misconduct.''.

       (2) Conforming.--
       (A) Title 5.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any removal under section 714 of title 38.''.
       (B) Title 38.--Subchapter V of chapter 74 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in section 7461(b)(1), by striking ``If the'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 714 of this title, 
     if the''; and
       (ii) in section 7462--

       (I) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``Disciplinary'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 714 of this title, 
     the Disciplinary''; and
       (II) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``In any case'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 714 of this title, 
     in any case''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Roe of Tennessee and 
Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee for making this amendment in 
order. I have voiced my concern with the regular order. I think it is 
important to note that we are given the opportunity here to offer 
amendments in good faith, and I am grateful for that.
  This amendment to H.R. 1259 would replace sections 3 and 9 of the 
underlying bill with bipartisan legislation from the Veterans First Act 
that was first introduced by Senator Isakson last Congress. This is a 
piece of legislation I have been talking about.
  It is supported from both sides of the aisle, as well as those 
veterans service organizations, with the exception of one, that was 
shown earlier.
  If we hope to reach any compromise with the Senate on accountability, 
I believe this amendment could be made in order, be voted on, debated, 
and passed into it.
  The amendment specifically targets senior executives. It has been the 
senior executives, not the frontline employees, who we have subpoenaed 
before our committee, and who the VA has failed to hold accountable.
  Like H.R. 1259, it provides an expedited process for the VA Secretary 
to hold senior executives and VA employees accountable.
  For a senior executive employee, the employee would get 10 business 
days' notice. The employee subject to an adverse action would be able 
to grieve the action through an internal grievance process that would 
take no longer than 21 days. The employee would also be permitted to 
appeal an adverse action to court. It would also require the VA 
Secretary to develop a performance management system for SES employees. 
Do your job. Have the management do their job.
  For VA employees, the employee would be removed from misconduct or 
poor performance that took place within the previous 2 years before the 
proposed removal. The employee would get 10 business days' notice. The 
employee would get 10 business days to respond to the charges. The VA 
Secretary would be required to provide the employee a decision in a 
reasonable period of time, and the employee would have 10 days to 
appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This takes a 
little time.
  The Merit Systems Protection Board would have 90 days to issue a 
decision. During that time, the employee would receive no pay and no 
benefits.
  My amendment would also leave in place sections 4 through 8 of H.R. 
1259 because I agree employees convicted of felonies connected to their 
jobs should not receive pensions, and poor-performing employees should 
not receive bonuses. No disagreement.
  Most importantly, my amendment provides a fair process that protects 
whistleblowers. By allowing our frontline employees to use arbitration 
and grievance procedures under collective bargaining agreements, these 
frontline employees remain protected from bad managers who want to 
retaliate against them for speaking out when something is wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.

[[Page H2127]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.

                              {time}  1630

  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. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, the choice is not as easy as that. Do you 
want to stand with Robert, the good employee who was fired by a bad 
manager who used the process to get their job back, or do we want to 
just hurry it?
  It is better to get it right than get it done. And I will point out, 
AFGE, the union you keep hearing about, Mr. Chairman, does not endorse 
my amendment. They do not endorse my amendment, nor do I care about 
that.
  What I do believe is that this amendment has the opportunity to 
improve upon on a bill that we 90 percent agree upon, taking out the 
piece that is going to make it difficult and not improve care for our 
veterans. And I guess the thing that I would hope matters, I believe--
and we will come back here and see. We will see. That is the good part 
about this place. If this piece of legislation is passed by October, by 
Halloween, we should have this bill through and it should be done, and 
we should be seeing changes.
  If we don't, perhaps we do this exercise again, through regular 
order, taking some of these suggestions that make it possible to get it 
done.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this change that makes sure we 
can get accountability. Let's agree where we know we agree. It is not 
picking one over the other. It is deciding how you give due process, 
encouraging good employees to have the rights that they have earned to 
improve that care and workplace while at the same time removing those 
that don't.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  Mr. WALZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ. This is not the Veterans First Act. It is pieces from the 
Veterans First Act, but changes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 3 will not be offered.


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 20, insert ``or section 733(c) of this title'' 
     after ``title 5''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, today I speak on behalf of 
my amendment, Kuster amendment No. 4. I firmly believe that my 
amendment will improve accountability at the Veterans Administration.
  One of my concerns with the bill before us is that it will 
inadvertently hurt whistleblowers through retaliation and other 
discriminatory practices. Whistleblowers are vital for our mission to 
ensure accountability at the VA.
  As the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee, I know that whistleblowers provide the VA and our 
committee with information of misconduct before it goes too far or 
before those responsible can deflect blame or otherwise hide 
incriminating details. We must ensure that these folks are protected in 
any bill that seeks to streamline the VA's ability to release 
employees.
  I appreciate the inclusion of whistleblower protections within 
section 3 of the bill. We understand the importance of protecting 
whistleblowers, and my amendment would improve upon this language.
  Last year's MILCON-VA appropriations bill included what is now 
section 733 of title 38. This title clarifies and further specifies 
prohibited personnel actions as they relate to VA whistleblowers. For 
example, section 733 explicitly prohibits the denial of an otherwise 
meritorious promotion because that employee filed a whistleblower 
complaint. The bill currently only references more generic protections 
found within title 5.
  Section 733 was added because of concerns that title 5 was not 
specific enough to the issues that face the VA. This amendment will 
ensure that an employee is protected if they help the GAO or the VA 
Office of Inspector General in any investigations.

[[Page H2128]]

  This language is bipartisan in nature, and my amendment is supported 
by the Project on Government Oversight, an independent nonprofit that 
seeks to improve accountability.
  My amendment aligns with the spirit of this bill. It protects those 
who virtuously serve our Nation's veterans, and punishes those who do 
wrong by them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, 
Kuster No. 4, because it is common sense and the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to rise 
in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have learned one thing 
in 4 years: quit while I am ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not 
be offered.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Taylor

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(i) Semi-annual Report on Transferred Employees.--The 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives semi-annual 
     reports on senior executive employees who are transferred 
     within the Department. Each such report shall include, for 
     each such senior executive employee transferred during the 
     period covered by the report, the reason for the transfer and 
     any costs associated with the transfer.''.
       Page 9, line 20, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment to the VA 
Accountability First Act. This amendment would require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to submit a semi-annual report to Congress on the 
reasons and costs of the transfer of any senior executive employees 
within the Department.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district and the surrounding area, we have the 
fastest-growing veterans' population in the Nation, specifically, with 
women veterans, Operation Enduring Freedom veterans, and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom veterans. I am honored to serve in the district that has 
the largest population of Active Duty and veterans in the country.
  Our own VA center, where I personally receive care, was previously 
rated as a one-star facility, the lowest rating available; this, by the 
VA's own rating system. Now, I am pleased to say the center has made 
strides and progress in many areas. However, the director in charge 
during the time of poor performance was simply moved to another 
facility to be a director there. We have to do better. We will do 
better. The VA Accountability First Act of 2017 is a wonderful and 
great start.
  This amendment will contribute to more transparency, accountability, 
and oversight. We must continually and consistently hold the VA 
accountable for underperformance. Our veterans are sacred and deserve 
the same commitment to high standards they upheld as servicemembers.
  We should never defend mediocrity at the VA; rather, strive for 
better service, care, and excellence.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment and, in fact, I am enthusiastically supportive 
of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
forward. This amendment addresses an issue that we dealt with in our 
committee last Congress, where senior executives are transferred to 
different positions around the country, receive pay increases and 
relocation incentives.
  We subpoenaed two senior executives. In fact, the first subpoenas 
ever issued out of the VA Committee, I asked for them to get there; and 
they were backed by Mr. Roe, backed by our chairman and ranking member. 
And to refresh people's minds, these were folks that took positions of 
lesser power, used their positions to negotiate to get there, and then, 
in some cases, took $129,000 moving expenses.
  You cannot find anyone more outraged than me. And I will tell you, 
because it was not done correctly, and we didn't focus on this, I still 
work with some of those very same people. They have their jobs back.
  Now, the debate that the gentleman may have heard earlier is we don't 
disagree at all that we should get rid of these people. This amendment 
will focus on the right things, that is what we have been making the 
case of.
  So I applaud the gentleman. I am glad he is here. His military 
service is greatly appreciated. The statistics he gave on veterans 
shows that he will be there. I support this amendment, and I certainly 
believe that my colleagues should all support it.
  It is this type of work that improves upon a bill, as I say, once 
again, 90 percent of what is in this bill is in absolute agreement. 
This just makes the bill better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state I thank the gentleman, 
and I thank the gentleman on the other side, as well, for his support. 
I think this is the right thing to do for transparency and for 
accountability for our veterans in the VA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Tenney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 10. ANNUAL REPORT ON PERFORMANCE AWARDS AND BONUSES 
                   AWARDED TO CERTAIN HIGH-LEVEL EMPLOYEES OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 723, as added 
     by section 5, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 724. Annual report on performance awards and bonuses 
       awarded to certain high-level employees

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report that contains,

[[Page H2129]]

     for the most recent fiscal year ending before the submittal 
     of the report, a description of the performance awards and 
     bonuses awarded to Regional Office Directors of the 
     Department, Directors of Medical Centers of the Department, 
     Directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks, and any 
     other individual employed in a senior executive position.
       ``(b) Elements.--Each report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following with respect to each performance 
     award or bonus awarded to an individual described in such 
     subsection:
       ``(1) The amount of each award or bonus.
       ``(2) The job title of the individual awarded the award or 
     bonus.
       ``(3) The location where the individual awarded the award 
     or bonus works.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       ``(2) The term `individual' means--
       ``(A) a career appointee (as that term is defined in 
     section 3132(a)(4) of title 5); or
       ``(B) any individual who occupies an administrative or 
     executive position and who was appointed under section 
     7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title.
       ``(3) The term `senior executive position' means--
       ``(A) with respect to a career appointee (as that term is 
     defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5), a Senior Executive 
     Service position (as such term is defined in section 
     3132(a)(2) of title 5); and
       ``(B) with respect to an individual appointed under section 
     7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title, an administrative 
     or executive position.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 723, as added by section 
     5, the following new item:

``724. Annual report on performance awards and bonuses awarded to 
              certain high-level employees.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1259, 
which would require the VA to submit a report to Congress at the end of 
each fiscal year listing the bonuses that were awarded to senior-level 
executives.
  In 2015, VA employees received more than $177 million in bonuses, 
which was 24 percent more than they received in 2014. The average bonus 
for a senior executive was $10,000.
  I have no doubt that the men and women of the VA serve our veterans 
admirably each day. In my own district, I have spoken with veterans who 
are grateful for the compassionate care that they receive from local VA 
clinics throughout upstate New York. VA employees should be fairly 
compensated for their work and awarded for their achievement.
  It is also clear to me that there is more work to be done. Just this 
month, an audit of several VA facilities in North Carolina and Virginia 
revealed that wait times continue to be misrepresented and that nearly 
14,000 veterans were denied access to timely care. The audit also found 
that veterans were waiting an average of 26 days to see mental health 
specialists, while the VA falsely reported average wait times of 6 
days. In light of this information, the American people are right to 
wonder who at the VA may be receiving a bonus this year.
  My amendment adds a simple reporting requirement to the bill that 
will streamline oversight of bonuses at the VA by requiring the agency 
to proactively provide information to Congress that details the amount 
of each bonus awarded to senior executives as well as the job titles of 
the individuals and the location of their employment. Given the 
patterns of mismanagement at the VA, the American people deserve to 
know how bonuses are being awarded at the agency. This bill increases 
transparency over the bonus process without placing any undue burdens 
on the agency.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support it, and I thank the 
committee for the opportunity to offer this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, once again, I am not only not opposed, I am 
enthusiastically supportive of the gentlewoman's commonsense, 
absolutely important piece of legislation. It improves upon the bill. I 
am glad we had a rule that brought it here, something we have worked on 
in our committee. I will make note of this.
  The gentlewoman is absolutely right. The people we just talked about 
in the last amendment received bonuses also, but the bulk of this bill 
also deals with kitchen staff, janitorial staff, and rank-and-file 
members on the floor that we are working to go after their agreed-upon 
grievance process to keep their jobs. So this amendment is absolutely 
something that will get total approval from certainly, I believe, all 
Members of the House. This should be in the bill and will be in the 
bill.
  This is how bills get better, address real issues, and take on the 
issue of accountability in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Chairman, I would 
encourage all my colleagues to support the gentlewoman. We have more 
work, as the gentlewoman said in this, but this is how it is done to 
get it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), who is the chairman.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 10. ACCOUNTABILITY OF SUPERVISORS AT DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR ADDRESSING PERFORMANCE OF 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     ensure that, as a part of the annual performance plan of a 
     supervisor in the Department, the supervisor is evaluated on 
     the following:
       (1) Taking action to address poor performance and 
     misconduct among the employees that report to the supervisor.
       (2) Taking steps to improve or sustain high levels of 
     employee engagement.
       (3) Promoting a positive culture of service that--
       (A) reflects the mission of the Department and the values 
     of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence; 
     and
       (B) emphasizes the greatest degree of performance and 
     conduct.
       (b) Supervisor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``supervisor'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     7103(a) of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 11. IMPROVEMENT OF TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     provide to each employee of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs who is employed as a supervisor periodic training on 
     the following:
       (1) The rights of whistleblowers and how to address a 
     report by an employee of a hostile work environment, 
     reprisal, or harassment.
       (2) How to effectively motivate, manage, and reward the 
     employees who report to the supervisor.
       (3) How to effectively manage employees who are performing 
     at an unacceptable level and access assistance from the human 
     resources office of the Department and the Office of the 
     General Counsel of the Department with respect to those 
     employees.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Supervisor.--The term ``supervisor'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 7103(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code.

[[Page H2130]]

       (2) Whistleblower.--The term ``whistleblower'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 323(g) of title 38, United 
     States Code, as added by section 101.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on my second amendment to H.R. 1259, 
Kuster amendment No. 8. I am concerned that an unintended consequence 
of the bill before us would be retaliation against whistleblowers at 
the VA.
  After my 4 years on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and my time 
as ranking member of its Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I 
know that whistleblower protections are a bipartisan issue for our 
committee, and I know that this Congress recognizes the incredible 
importance of whistleblowers at the VA.
  Whistleblowers provided many details that made Congress and the 
public aware of the Phoenix scandal. They provided valuable information 
in uncovering the Aurora construction debacle. Whistleblowers save 
lives and save taxpayer money. Unfortunately, whistleblowers are 
sometimes targeted for retaliation by their supervisors. My amendment 
seeks to address this.
  My amendment requires supervisors to detail their efforts to correct 
poor performance and misconduct, efforts that come before the 
procedures outlined by this bill. It requires supervisors to detail the 
efforts they have made to improve their work environment and ensure 
that employees of their team uphold the primary mission of the VA: to 
serve and to honor our Nation's veterans.
  The amendment will also improve training of supervisors to ensure 
they are equipped to be leaders that improve employee performance and 
the quality of care at the VA. More importantly, this enhanced training 
will include instruction on the rights of whistleblowers and how to 
address concerns or complaints raised by them.
  These provisions could help to protect those whistleblowers who are 
actually experiencing retaliation because it would provide evidence of 
the past actions a supervisor has taken to address alleged misconduct, 
and it will highlight leadership shortfalls that could implicate 
attempted actions taken against an employee.
  Together, these provisions will proactively improve the culture of 
management at the VA so it reflects the virtue and quality that 
Congress has strived to achieve for so many years. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, Kuster No. 8.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comment 
other than to thank Dr. Roe for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment, 
and I urge support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 115-39.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1 through 9 and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES FOR PERFORMANCE OR MISCONDUCT 
                   THAT IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after section 713 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 715. Employees: suspension and removal for performance 
       or misconduct that is a threat to public health or safety

       ``(a) Suspension and Removal.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), the Secretary may--
       ``(1) suspend without pay an employee of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs if the Secretary determines the performance 
     or misconduct of the employee is a threat to public health or 
     safety, including the health and safety of veterans; and
       ``(2) remove an employee suspended under paragraph (1) 
     when, after such investigation and review as the Secretary 
     considers necessary, the Secretary determines that removal is 
     necessary in the interests of public health or safety.
       ``(b) Procedure.--An employee suspended under subsection 
     (a)(1) is entitled, after suspension and before removal, to--
       ``(1) within 30 days after suspension, a written statement 
     of the specific charges against the employee, which may be 
     amended within 30 days thereafter;
       ``(2) an opportunity within 30 days thereafter, plus an 
     additional 30 days if the charges are amended, to answer the 
     charges and submit affidavits;
       ``(3) a hearing, at the request of the employee, by a 
     Department authority duly constituted for this purpose;
       ``(4) a review of the case by the Secretary, before a 
     decision adverse to the employee is made final; and
       ``(5) written statement of the decision of the Secretary.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Disciplinary Rules.--The authority 
     provided under this section shall be in addition to the 
     authority provided under section 713 and title 5 with respect 
     to disciplinary actions for performance or misconduct.
       ``(d) Back Pay for Whistleblowers.--If any employee of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs is subject to a suspension or 
     removal under this section and such suspension or removal is 
     determined by an appropriate authority under applicable law, 
     rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement to be a 
     prohibited personnel practice described under section 
     2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, such employee shall receive 
     back pay equal to the total amount of basic pay that such 
     employee would have received during the period that the 
     suspension and removal (as the case may be) was in effect, 
     less any amounts earned by the employee through other 
     employment during that period.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term `employee' 
     means any individual occupying a position within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs under a permanent or 
     indefinite appointment and who is not serving a probationary 
     or trial period.''.
       (b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 713 the following new item:

``715. Employees: suspension and removal for performance or misconduct 
              that is a threat to public health or safety.''.

       (2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any suspension or removal under section 715 of title 
     38.''.
       (c) Report on Suspensions and Removals.--Not later than one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall 
     submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report on suspensions and 
     removals of employees of the Department made under section 
     715 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (a). Such report shall include, with respect to the period 
     covered by the report, the following:
       (1) The number of employees who were suspended under such 
     section.
       (2) The number of employees who were removed under such 
     section.
       (3) A description of the threats to public health or safety 
     that caused such suspensions and removals.

[[Page H2131]]

       (4) The number of such suspensions or removals, or proposed 
     suspensions or removals, that were of employees who filed a 
     complaint regarding--
       (A) an alleged prohibited personnel practice committed by 
     an officer or employee of the Department and described in 
     section 2302(b)(8) or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of 
     title 5, United States Code; or
       (B) the safety of a patient at a medical facility of the 
     Department.
       (5) Of the number of suspensions and removals listed under 
     paragraph (4), the number that the Inspector General 
     considers to be retaliation for whistleblowing.
       (6) The number of such suspensions or removals that were of 
     an employee who was the subject of a complaint made to the 
     Department regarding the health or safety of a patient at a 
     medical facility of the Department.
       (7) Any recommendations by the Inspector General, based on 
     the information described in paragraphs (1) through (6), to 
     improve the authority to make such suspensions and removals.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike 
the text of H.R. 1259 and insert a new provision allowing the Secretary 
to suspend, without pay, any VA employee whose performance or 
misconduct threatens public health or safety, including the health and 
safety of veterans. It would give the Secretary the authority to remove 
a suspended employee after an investigation and review if the Secretary 
determines removal is in the interests of public health and safety.
  Both parties share the desire to protect veterans from mistreatment 
or harm, especially when they are seeking medical care at a VA 
facility, but the language in my amendment would be more likely to 
achieve the majority's stated outcome of removing VA employees whose 
misconduct harms veterans.
  We have voted on similar accountability bills before, but I want to 
point out that this bill goes much further in the wrong direction. 
While in the past we have had disagreements on procedure and the amount 
of time an employee is given to file an appeal, for the very first 
time, this version of the accountability bill is attempting to 
undermine VA employees' collective bargaining rights.
  Buried in this bill is a new provision that would take away the 
rights of frontline VA employees to use collectively bargained 
agreements for settling grievances. This has not been a part of past 
negotiations, and the vote that Members take on the underlying bill 
should not be based solely on their votes on previous accountability 
bills.
  Collectively bargained grievance settlement procedures often lead to 
quicker and simpler solutions, and they give added protection to 
potential whistleblowers. When these basic protections are undermined, 
we give too much power to managers whose goal may be to retaliate 
against someone who called out a mistake.
  The bill, as it is currently being offered, does not provide enough 
time for an employee to get their case together to file an appeal. It 
undermines collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith 
between management and employees. It doesn't do enough to protect 
whistleblowers.
  My amendment addresses our shared goal to create accountability at 
the VA. It would ensure that the Secretary has the authority to 
immediately suspend any VA employee whose behavior threatens the health 
and safety of veterans, and that the suspended employee does not accrue 
pay while the investigation is being carried out.
  I hope that Members will join me and vote in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.

                              {time}  1700

  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. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the underlying bill and 
support my amendment.
  I would assert that my amendment would apply to many of the employees 
in the scandals who were cited by our esteemed chairman.
  I want to remind the body that several Republican speakers this 
afternoon repeated a phrase that the vast majority of employees at the 
VA are doing a good job. My amendment really does address those few 
employees who really do pose a threat to veterans' safety or health.
  I would also say that I want to remind also the chairman and inform 
the body that we heard testimony from the bipartisan Commission on Care 
established through the Choice Act. They were charged with the 
responsibility of reviewing VA health care.
  One of the co-chairs was appointed by a Republican--I believe the 
Senate majority leader--and the other by the White House. They both 
reported back that we cannot create excellence at the VA through 
enhancing the firing process.
  They were astounded that more effort and resources have not been 
invested in the personnel function of the VA to better train our 
managers in progressive discipline and to do the kind of documentation 
that really will bring about effective accountability.
  By the way, both of these co-chairs led, and do still, large, private 
sector healthcare organizations. They pushed back on a suggestion that 
we needed to enhance our dismissal process, our accountability process.

[[Page H2132]]

  I do agree with the chairman and the ranking member that we have an 
opportunity to work together as Democrats and Republicans. We are not 
far apart on the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
115-39 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Takano of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Walz

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Walz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 223, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--194

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Beyer
     Collins (NY)
     Davis, Danny
     Deutch
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Marino
     Payne
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)

                              {time}  1729

  Messrs. GROTHMAN, MITCHELL, COSTELLO of Pennsylvania, WILSON of South 
Carolina, ZELDIN, McHENRY, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. DENT changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KILDEE and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 232, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano

[[Page H2133]]


     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Beyer
     Black
     Collins (NY)
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Deutch
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Marino
     Payne
     Pearce
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1733

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Olson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1259) to 
amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the removal or 
demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on 
performance or misconduct, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 198, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is the gentleman opposed 
to the bill?
  Mr. KIHUEN. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kihuen moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1259 to the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 8, line 19, insert ``or an individual who makes a 
     whistleblower disclosure to the central whistleblower office, 
     including anonymous whistleblower disclosures made through a 
     toll-free telephone number or Internet website'' after 
     ``Special Counsel''.
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 10. TREATMENT OF VETERANS, MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES, AND WHISTLEBLOWERS.

       The amendments made by sections 3 and 9 of this Act shall 
     not apply to any individual who is--
       (1) preference eligible under section 2108(3) of title 5, 
     United States Code;
       (2) a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has 
     performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to 
     perform service in a uniformed service (as such term is 
     defined in section 4303(16) of title 38, United States Code); 
     or
       (3) seeking corrective action (or on behalf of whom 
     corrective action is sought) from the Office of Special 
     Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice 
     described in section 2302(b) of title 5, United States Code.

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to suspend with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, as a nation, we have the moral responsibility for 
providing for the men and women who have served our country. One of my 
highest priorities in Congress is ensuring that our veterans receive 
the care and benefit they have earned.
  It has been almost 3 years since a whistleblower shocked the Nation 
by disclosing 1,400 veterans languish without care at the Phoenix VA. 
Since then, many others have come forward to report excessive wait 
times, substandard care, and dirty facilities in VA hospitals all 
across the country.

[[Page H2134]]

  The issues we have seen at different VA hospitals have been 
completely disgraceful. However, what is even more shocking is that 
many of these whistleblowers have reported some sort of retaliation 
from hospital directors or the VA's Office of Inspector General, even 
though Federal law specifically prohibits harassment or retaliation of 
Federal employees who bring wrongdoing to light.
  The recent reports about VA employees facing retaliation is 
disheartening and it is unacceptable. We need to protect these 
employees who are trying to ensure that the VA is transparent and 
accountable to all of our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple and commonsense. It merely 
builds upon existing language in the bill seeking to protect 
whistleblowers.
  Under the bill, a whistleblower can still be fired during the 
expedited procedure with limited recourse. This amendment would close 
that loophole.
  This amendment would also cover those who come forward to a central 
whistleblower office instead of just a special counsel.
  And, as my colleagues have noted numerous times on the floor today, 
one-third of our VA employees are veterans. This amendment also works 
to protect them from unjust firings without due process.
  We should never tolerate fraud, waste, or abuse on our Federal 
agencies. This is especially true when it comes to caring for our 
Nation's veterans. The brave men and women who have put their lives on 
the line should be provided with the best quality of care, and it is 
imperative that the whistleblowers who have stood up to protect our 
veterans should be fully protected from retaliation.
  We should provide whistleblowers with the confidence to step up and 
help make a change. Helping improve our veterans' health care is 
dependent in part on the encouragement and protection of whistleblowers 
within the VA.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I say this. No one in this body wants to 
vote on a bill that may give potential whistleblowers doubt about 
coming forward. Let's give them the assurance they deserve by voting 
for this motion to recommit, which will strengthen the whistleblower 
protection language in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and passage of H.R. 
1181.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 229, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey

[[Page H2135]]


     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Beyer
     Collins (NY)
     Davis, Danny
     Deutch
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Marino
     Payne
     Rush
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1751

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 178, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Beyer
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Collins (NY)
     Davis, Danny
     Deutch
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Marino
     Payne
     Rush
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1758

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________