[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3261-S3281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION ACT OF 2017
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S. 1094,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1094) to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the accountability of employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been
reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, with an amendment to
strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department
of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection Act of 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
Sec. 101. Establishment of Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection.
Sec. 102. Protection of whistleblowers in Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Sec. 103. Report on methods used to investigate employees of Department
of Veterans Affairs.
TITLE II--ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES
Sec. 201. Improved authorities of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
improve accountability of senior executives.
Sec. 202. Improved authorities of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
improve accountability of employees.
Sec. 203. Reduction of benefits for Department of Veterans Affairs
employees convicted of certain crimes.
Sec. 204. Authority to recoup bonuses or awards paid to employees of
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 205. Authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf
of employees of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Time period for response to notice of adverse actions against
supervisory employees who commit prohibited personnel
actions.
Sec. 207. Direct hiring authority for medical center directors and VISN
directors.
Sec. 208. Time periods for review of adverse actions with respect to
certain employees.
Sec. 209. Improvement of training for supervisors.
Sec. 210. Assessment and report on effect on senior executives at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 211. Measurement of Department of Veterans Affairs disciplinary
process outcomes and effectiveness.
TITLE I--OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 323. Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Department an office to be known as the `Office of
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection' (in this section
referred to as the `Office').
``(b) Head of Office.--(1) The head of the Office shall be
responsible for the functions of the Office and shall be
appointed by the President pursuant to section 308(a) of this
title.
``(2) The head of the Office shall be known as the
`Assistant Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection'.
``(3) The Assistant Secretary shall report directly to the
Secretary on all matters relating to the Office.
``(4) Notwithstanding section 308(b) of this title, the
Secretary may only assign to the Assistant Secretary
responsibilities relating to the functions of the Office set
forth in subsection (c).
``(c) Functions.--(1) The functions of the Office are as
follows:
``(A) Advising the Secretary on all matters of the
Department relating to accountability, including
accountability of employees of the Department, retaliation
against whistleblowers, and such matters as the Secretary
considers similar and affect public trust in the Department.
``(B) Issuing reports and providing recommendations related
to the duties described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Receiving whistleblower disclosures.
``(D) Referring whistleblower disclosures received under
subparagraph (C) for investigation to the Office of the
Medical Inspector, the Office of Inspector General, or other
investigative entity, as appropriate, if the Assistant
Secretary has reason to believe the whistleblower disclosure
is evidence of a violation of a provision of law,
mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a
substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
``(E) Receiving and referring disclosures from the Special
Counsel for investigation to the Medical Inspector of the
Department, the Inspector General of the Department, or such
other person with investigatory authority, as the Assistant
Secretary considers appropriate.
``(F) Recording, tracking, reviewing, and confirming
implementation of recommendations from audits and
investigations carried out by the Inspector General of the
Department, the Medical Inspector of the Department, the
Special Counsel, and the Comptroller General of the United
States, including the imposition of disciplinary actions and
other corrective actions contained in such recommendations.
``(G) Analyzing data from the Office and the Office of
Inspector General telephone hotlines, other whistleblower
disclosures, disaggregated by facility and area of health
care if appropriate, and relevant audits and investigations
to identify trends and issue reports to the Secretary based
on analysis conducted under this subparagraph.
``(H) Receiving, reviewing, and investigating allegations
of misconduct, retaliation, or poor performance involving--
``(i) an individual in a senior executive position (as
defined in section 713(d) of this title) in the Department;
``(ii) an individual employed in a confidential, policy-
making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating position in
the Department; or
``(iii) a supervisory employee, if the allegation involves
retaliation against an employee for making a whistleblower
disclosure.
``(I) Making such recommendations to the Secretary for
disciplinary action as the Assistant Secretary considers
appropriate after substantiating any allegation of misconduct
or poor performance pursuant to an investigation carried out
as described in subparagraph (F) or (H).
``(2) In carrying out the functions of the Office, the
Assistant Secretary shall ensure that the Office maintains a
toll-free telephone number and Internet website to receive
anonymous whistleblower disclosures.
``(3) In any case in which the Assistant Secretary receives
a whistleblower disclosure from an employee of the Department
under paragraph (1)(C), the Assistant Secretary may not
disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of
the employee, except in accordance with the provisions of
section 552a of title 5, or as required by any other
applicable provision of Federal law.
``(d) Staff and Resources.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the Assistant Secretary has such staff, resources, and access
to information as may be necessary to carry out the functions
of the Office.
``(e) Relation to Office of General Counsel.--The Office
shall not be established as an element of the Office of the
General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary may not report to
the General Counsel.
``(f) Reports.--(1)(A) Not later than June 30 of each
calendar year, beginning with June 30, 2017, the Assistant
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives a report on the activities of the
Office during the calendar year in which the report is
submitted.
``(B) Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
include, for the period covered by the report, the following:
``(i) A full and substantive analysis of the activities of
the Office, including such statistical information as the
Assistant Secretary considers appropriate.
``(ii) Identification of any issues reported to the
Secretary under subsection (c)(1)(G), including such data as
the Assistant Secretary considers relevant to such issues and
any trends the Assistant Secretary may have identified with
respect to such issues.
``(iii) Identification of such concerns as the Assistant
Secretary may have regarding the size, staffing, and
resources of the Office and such recommendations as the
Assistant Secretary may have for legislative or
administrative action to address such concerns.
[[Page S3262]]
``(iv) Such recommendations as the Assistant Secretary may
have for legislative or administrative action to improve--
``(I) the process by which concerns are reported to the
Office; and
``(II) the protection of whistleblowers within the
Department.
``(v) Such other matters as the Assistant Secretary
considers appropriate regarding the functions of the Office
or other matters relating to the Office.
``(2) If the Secretary receives a recommendation for
disciplinary action under subsection (c)(1)(I) and does not
take or initiate the recommended disciplinary action before
the date that is 60 days after the date on which the
Secretary received the recommendation, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a detailed justification for not taking or
initiating such disciplinary action.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `supervisory employee' means an employee of
the Department who is a supervisor as defined in section
7103(a) of title 5.
``(2) The term `whistleblower' means one who makes a
whistleblower disclosure.
``(3) The term `whistleblower disclosure' means any
disclosure of information by an employee of the Department or
individual applying to become an employee of the Department
which the employee or individual reasonably believes
evidences--
``(A) a violation of a provision of law; or
``(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse
of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 308(b) of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(12) The functions set forth in section 323(c) of this
title.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 3 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``323. Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection.''.
SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS IN DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by--
(1) striking sections 731, 732, 734, 735, and 736;
(2) by redesignating section 733 as section 731; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sections:
``Sec. 732. Protection of whistleblowers as criteria in
evaluation of supervisors
``(a) Development and Use of Criteria Required.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, shall develop
criteria that--
``(1) the Secretary shall use as a critical element in any
evaluation of the performance of a supervisory employee; and
``(2) promotes the protection of whistleblowers.
``(b) Principles for Protection of Whistleblowers.--The
criteria required by subsection (a) shall include principles
for the protection of whistleblowers, such as the degree to
which supervisory employees respond constructively when
employees of the Department report concerns, take responsible
action to resolve such concerns, and foster an environment in
which employees of the Department feel comfortable reporting
concerns to supervisory employees or to the appropriate
authorities.
``(c) Supervisory Employee and Whistleblower Defined.--In
this section, the terms `supervisory employee' and
`whistleblower' have the meanings given such terms in section
323 of this title.
``Sec. 733. Training regarding whistleblower disclosures
``(a) Training.--Not less frequently than once every two
years, the Secretary, in coordination with the Whistleblower
Protection Ombudsman designated under section 3(d)(1)(C) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), shall
provide to each employee of the Department training regarding
whistleblower disclosures, including--
``(1) an explanation of each method established by law in
which an employee may file a whistleblower disclosure;
``(2) the right of the employee to petition Congress
regarding a whistleblower disclosure in accordance with
section 7211 of title 5;
``(3) an explanation that the employee may not be
prosecuted or reprised against for disclosing information to
Congress, the Inspector General, or another investigatory
agency in instances where such disclosure is permitted by
law, including under sections 5701, 5705, and 7732 of this
title, under section 552a of title 5 (commonly referred to as
the Privacy Act), under chapter 93 of title 18, and pursuant
to regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-191);
``(4) an explanation of the language that is required to be
included in all nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements
pursuant to section 115(a)(1) of the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 (5 U.S.C. 2302 note); and
``(5) the right of contractors to be protected from
reprisal for the disclosure of certain information under
section 4705 or 4712 of title 41.
``(b) Manner Training Is Provided.--The Secretary shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that training
provided under subsection (a) is provided in person.
``(c) Certification.--Not less frequently than once every
two years, the Secretary shall provide training on merit
system protection in a manner that the Special Counsel
certifies as being satisfactory.
``(d) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish on the
Internet website of the Department, and display prominently
at each facility of the Department, the rights of an employee
to make a whistleblower disclosure, including the information
described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a).
``(e) Whistleblower Disclosure Defined.--In this section,
the term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning given
such term in section 323 of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended--
(1) by striking the items relating to sections 731 through
736; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new items:
``731. Adverse actions against supervisory employees who commit
prohibited personnel actions relating to whistleblower
complaints.
``732. Protection of whistleblowers as criteria in evaluation of
supervisors.
``733. Training regarding whistleblower disclosures.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 731 of such title, as
redesignated by subsection (a)(2), is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the
following:
``(A) making a whistleblower disclosure to the Assistant
Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection,
the Inspector General of the Department, the Special Counsel,
or Congress;''; and
(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by clause (ii),
by striking ``complaint in accordance with section 732 or
with'' and inserting ``disclosure made to the Assistant
Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection,'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``through (F)'' and
inserting ``through (E)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Whistleblower Disclosure Defined.--In this section,
the term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning given
such term in section 323(g) of this title.''.
SEC. 103. REPORT ON METHODS USED TO INVESTIGATE EMPLOYEES OF
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 540 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary
for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection shall submit
to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on
methods used to investigate employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and whether such methods are used to
retaliate against whistleblowers.
(b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the use of administrative
investigation boards, peer review, searches of medical
records, and other methods for investigating employees of the
Department.
(2) A determination of whether and to what degree the
methods described in paragraph (1) are being used to
retaliate against whistleblowers.
(3) Recommendations for legislative or administrative
action to implement safeguards to prevent the retaliation
described in paragraph (2).
(c) Whistleblower Defined.--In this section, the term
``whistleblower'' has the meaning given such term in section
323 of title 38, United States Code, as added by section 101.
TITLE II--ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES
SEC. 201. IMPROVED AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR
EXECUTIVES.
(a) In General.--Section 713 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 713. Senior executives: removal, demotion, or
suspension based on performance or misconduct
``(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) advance notice of the action;
``(B) be represented by an attorney or other representative
of the covered individual's choice; 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 aggregate period for notice, response, and
decision on an action under subsection (a) may not exceed 15
business days.
``(B) The period for the response of a covered individual
to a notice under paragraph (1)(A) of an action under
subsection (a) shall be 7 business days.
``(C) A decision under this paragraph on an action under
subsection (a) shall be issued not
[[Page S3263]]
later than 15 business days after notice of the action is
provided to the covered individual under paragraph (1)(A).
The decision shall be in writing, and shall include the
specific reasons therefor.
``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the grievance process
established under paragraph (1)(C) takes fewer than 21 days.
``(4) A decision under paragraph (2) that is not grieved,
and a grievance decision under paragraph (3), shall be final
and conclusive.
``(5) A covered individual adversely affected by a decision
under paragraph (2) that is not grieved, or by a grievance
decision under paragraph (3), may obtain judicial review of
such decision.
``(6) In any case in which judicial review is sought under
paragraph (5), 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.--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), section 7401(1), or section 7401(4) 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.''.
(b) 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''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 713 and inserting the following
new item:
``713. Senior executives: removal, demotion, or suspension based on
performance or misconduct.''.
SEC. 202. IMPROVED AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 713
the following new section:
``Sec. 714. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based
on performance or misconduct
``(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary may remove, demote, or
suspend a covered individual who is an employee of the
Department if the Secretary determines the performance or
misconduct of the covered individual warrants such removal,
demotion, or suspension.
``(2) If the Secretary so removes, demotes, or suspends
such a covered individual, the Secretary may--
``(A) remove the covered individual from the civil service
(as defined in section 2101 of title 5);
``(B) demote the covered individual by means of a reduction
in grade for which the covered individual is qualified, that
the Secretary determines is appropriate, and that reduces the
annual rate of pay of the covered individual; or
``(C) suspend the covered individual.
``(b) Pay of Certain Demoted Individuals.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any covered
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)(A) A covered 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 covered individual reports for duty or is
approved to use accrued unused annual, sick, family medical,
military, or court leave.
``(B) If a covered individual so demoted does not report
for duty or receive approval to use accrued unused leave,
such covered individual shall not receive pay or other
benefits pursuant to subsection (d)(5).
``(c) Procedure.--(1)(A) The aggregate period for notice,
response, and final decision in a removal, demotion, or
suspension under this section may not exceed 15 business
days.
``(B) The period for the response of a covered individual
to a notice of a proposed removal, demotion, or suspension
under this section shall be 7 business days.
``(C) Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of section 7513 of
title 5 shall apply with respect to a removal, demotion, or
suspension under this section.
``(D) The procedures in this subsection shall supersede any
collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such
agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.
``(2) The Secretary shall issue a final decision with
respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this
section not later than 15 business days after the Secretary
provides notice, including a file containing all the evidence
in support of the proposed action, to the covered individual
of the removal, demotion, or suspension. The decision shall
be in writing and shall include the specific reasons
therefor.
``(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 (d),
any removal or demotion under this section, and any
suspension of more than 14 days under this section, 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.
``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal,
demotion, or suspension may only be made if such appeal is
made not later than 10 business days after the date of such
removal, demotion, or suspension.
``(d) Expedited Review.--(1) Upon receipt of an appeal
under subsection (c)(4)(A), the administrative judge shall
expedite any such appeal under section 7701(b)(1) of title 5
and, in any such case, shall issue a final and complete
decision not later than 180 days after the date of the
appeal.
``(2)(A) 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.
``(B) Notwithstanding title 5 or any other provision of
law, 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) Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, the
Merit Systems Protection Board 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.
``(C) Notwithstanding title 5 or any other provision of
law, if the decision of the Secretary is supported by
substantial evidence, the Merit Systems Protection Board
shall not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.
``(4) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot
issue a decision in accordance with the 180-day requirement
under paragraph (1), the Merit Systems Protection Board
shall, not later than 14 business days after the expiration
of the 180-day period, submit to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the 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 or to any court of appeals of competent
jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(B) of such
section.
``(B) 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 or demotion under this section, except as provided in
section 1214(b) of title 5.
``(7) During the period beginning on the date on which a
covered individual appeals a removal from the civil service
under subsection (c) and ending on the date that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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 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) If an employee who is subject to a collective
bargaining agreement chooses to grieve an action taken under
this section through a grievance procedure provided under the
collective bargaining agreement, the timelines and procedures
set forth in subsection (c) and this subsection shall apply.
``(e) Whistleblower Protection.--(1) In the case of a
covered 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 covered individual under
subsection (a) without the approval of the Special Counsel
under section 1214(f) of title 5.
``(2) In the case of a covered individual who has made a
whistleblower disclosure to the Assistant Secretary for
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, the Secretary
may not remove, demote, or suspend such covered individual
under subsection (a) until--
``(A) in the case in which the Assistant Secretary
determines to refer the whistleblower disclosure under
section 323(c)(1)(D) of this title to an office or other
investigative entity, a final decision with respect to the
whistleblower disclosure has been made by such office or
other investigative entity; or
``(B) in the case in which the Assistant Secretary
determines not to the refer the whistleblower disclosure
under such section, the Assistant Secretary makes such
determination.
``(f) Termination of Investigations by Office of Special
Counsel.--(1) 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
[[Page S3264]]
Counsel provides to the employee or former employee a written
statement of the reasons for the termination of the
investigation.
``(2) Such statement may not be admissible as evidence in
any judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent
of such employee or former employee.
``(g) Vacancies.--In the case of a covered 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.
``(h) 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 occupying a senior executive position
(as defined in section 713(d) of this title);
``(B) an individual appointed pursuant to sections 7306,
7401(1), 7401(4), or 7405 of this title;
``(C) an individual who has not completed a probationary or
trial period; or
``(D) 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, Code of Federal Regulations, or successor
regulation.
``(6) The term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning
given such term in section 323(g) of this title.''.
(b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 713 the following new item:
``714. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based on performance
or misconduct.''.
(2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) any removal or demotion under section 714 of title
38.''.
SEC. 203. 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 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 719. 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 713, 714, 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 (and the conviction is final) that
influenced the individual's performance while employed in the
position; and
``(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) Any individual with respect to whom an annuity is
reduced under this subsection may appeal the reduction to the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to
such regulations as the Director may prescribe for purposes
of this subsection.
``(b) Reduction of Annuity for Retired Employee.--(1) The
Secretary may order that the covered service of an individual
who the Secretary proposes to remove for performance or
misconduct under section 713, 714, 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 individual is convicted
of a felony (and the conviction is final) that influenced the
individual's performance while employed in the position; and
``(B) before such order is made, the individual is
afforded--
``(i) notice of the proposed order;
``(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 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) with respect to an individual, 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.--(1) The Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of 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.
``(2) Regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall be
consistent with the requirements of section 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 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 717 the following new
item:
``719. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of certain
crimes.''.
(b) Application.--Section 719 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 such title or
any other provision of law, commencing on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. AUTHORITY TO RECOUP BONUSES OR AWARDS PAID TO
EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by section 203, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 721. 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 chapters 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; and
``(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 10 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) Appeal of Order of Secretary.--(1) Upon the issuance
of an order by the Secretary under subsection (a) with
respect to an individual, 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.
``(2) The Director shall make a final decision with respect
to an appeal under paragraph (1)
[[Page S3265]]
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 203(a)(2),
is further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 719 the following new item:
``721. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of
Department.''.
(c) Effective Date.--Section 721 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. 205. 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 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by section 204, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 723. 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 paid following an act of fraud 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) Appeal of Order of Secretary.--(1) Upon the issuance
of an order by the Secretary under subsection (a) with
respect to an individual, 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.
``(2) The Director shall make a final decision with respect
to an appeal under paragraph (1) 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 721, as added by section
204(b), the following new item:
``723. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf of 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 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. 206. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ADVERSE
ACTIONS AGAINST SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHO
COMMIT PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTIONS.
Section 731(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, as
redesignated by section 102(a)(2), 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. 207. DIRECT HIRING AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL CENTER
DIRECTORS AND VISN DIRECTORS.
(a) In General.--Section 7401 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Directors of medical centers 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 Amendments.--Section 7404(a)(1) of such
title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``The annual''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``and 7401(4)'' after ``7306''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Section 5377 of title 5 shall apply to a position
under section 7401(4) of this title as if such position were
included in the definition of `position' in section 5377(a)
of title 5.''.
SEC. 208. 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.--Paragraph (2) of
section 7461(b) of title 38, United States Code, 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(b) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``, within the aggregate time period specified in paragraph
(5)(A),'' after ``is entitled'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``At least 30 days advance written notice''
and inserting ``Advance written notice'';
(ii) by striking ``and a statement'' and inserting ``a
statement''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and a file containing all the evidence
in support of each charge,'' after ``with respect to each
charge,''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``A reasonable time,
but not less than seven days'' and inserting ``The
opportunity, within the time period provided for in paragraph
(4)(A)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph (3):
``(3) After considering the employee's answer, if any, and
within the time period provided for in paragraph (5)(B), the
deciding official shall render a decision on the charges. The
decision shall be in writing and shall include the specific
reasons therefor.'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) The period for the response of an employee under
paragraph (1)(B) to advance written under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be seven business days.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``30 days'' and
inserting ``seven business days''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5)(A) The aggregate period for the resolution of charges
against an employee under this subsection may not exceed 15
business days.
``(B) The deciding official shall render a decision under
paragraph (3) on charges under this subsection not later than
15 business days after the Under Secretary provides notice on
the charges for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
``(6) The procedures in this subsection shall supersede any
collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such
agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.''.
(c) Other Adverse Actions.--Section 7463(c) of such title
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the same notice and
opportunity to answer with respect to those charges as
provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 7462(b)(1)
of this title'' and inserting ``notice and an opportunity to
answer with respect to those charges in accordance with
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 7462(b)(1) of this
title, but within the time periods specified in paragraph
(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``, within the aggregate time period specified in paragraph
(3)(A),'' after ``is entitled'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``an advance written
notice'' and inserting ``written notice''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a reasonable time''
and inserting ``time to answer''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (3):
``(3)(A) The aggregate period for the resolution of charges
against an employee under paragraph (1) or (2) may not exceed
15 business days.
``(B) The period for the response of an employee under
paragraph (1) or (2)(B) to written notice of charges under
paragraph (1) or (2)(A), as applicable, shall be seven
business days.
``(C) The deciding official shall render a decision on
charges under paragraph (1) or (2) not later than 15 business
days after notice is provided on the charges for purposes of
paragraph (1) or (2)(A), as applicable.''.
SEC. 209. 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.
(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.
SEC. 210. ASSESSMENT AND REPORT ON EFFECT ON SENIOR
EXECUTIVES AT DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Not later than two years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall--
(1) measure and assess the effect of the enactment of this
title on the morale, engagement,
[[Page S3266]]
hiring, promotion, retention, discipline, and productivity of
individuals in senior executive positions at the Department
of Veterans Affairs; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the findings of the Secretary
with respect to the measurement and assessment carried out
under paragraph (1).
(b) Elements.--The assessment required by subsection (a)(1)
shall include the following:
(1) With respect to engagement, trends in morale of
individuals in senior executive positions and individuals
aspiring to senior executive positions.
(2) With respect to promotions--
(A) whether the Department is experiencing an increase or
decrease in the number of employees participating in
leadership development and candidate development programs
with the intention of becoming candidates for senior
executive positions; and
(B) trends in applications to senior executive positions
within the Department.
(3) With respect to retention--
(A) trends in retirement rates of individuals in senior
executive positions at the Department;
(B) trends in quit rates of individuals in senior executive
positions at the Department;
(C) rates of transfer of--
(i) individuals from other Federal agencies into senior
executive positions at the Department; and
(ii) individuals from senior executive positions at the
Department to other Federal agencies; and
(D) trends in total loss rates by job function.
(4) With respect to disciplinary processes--
(A) regarding individuals in senior executive positions at
the Department who are the subject of disciplinary action--
(i) the length of the disciplinary process in days for such
individuals both before the date of the enactment of this Act
and under the provisions of this Act described in subsection
(a)(1); and
(ii) the extent to which appeals by such individuals are
upheld under such provisions as compared to before the date
of the enactment of this Act;
(B) the components or offices of the Department which
experience the greatest number of proposed adverse actions
against individuals in senior executive positions and
components and offices which experience the least relative to
the size of the components or offices' total number of senior
executive positions;
(C) the tenure of individuals in senior executive positions
who are the subject of disciplinary action;
(D) whether the individuals in senior executive positions
who are the subject of disciplinary action have previously
been disciplined; and
(E) the number of instances of disciplinary action taken by
the Secretary against individuals in senior executive
positions at the Department as compared to governmentwide
discipline against individuals in Senior Executive Service
positions (as defined in section 3132(a) of title 5, United
States Code) as a percentage of the total number of
individuals in senior executive positions at the Department
and Senior Executive Service positions (as so defined).
(5) With respect to hiring--
(A) the degree to which the skills of newly hired
individuals in senior executive positions at the Department
are appropriate with respect to the needs of the Department;
(B) the types of senior executive positions at the
Department most commonly filled under the authorities in the
provisions described in subsection (a)(1);
(C) the number of senior executive positions at the
Department filled by hires outside of the Department compared
to hires from within the Department;
(D) the length of time to fill a senior executive position
at the Department and for a new hire to begin working in a
new senior executive position;
(E) the mission-critical deficiencies filled by newly hired
individuals in senior executive positions and the connection
between mission-critical deficiencies filled under the
provisions described in subsection (a) and annual performance
of the Department;
(F) the satisfaction of applicants for senior executive
positions at the Department with the hiring process,
including the clarity of job announcements, reasons for
withdrawal of applications, communication regarding status of
applications, and timeliness of hiring decision; and
(G) the satisfaction of newly hired individuals in senior
executive positions at the Department with the hiring process
and the process of joining and becoming oriented with the
Department.
(c) Senior Executive Position Defined.--In this section,
the term ``senior executive position'' has the meaning given
such term in section 713 of title 38, United States Code.
SEC. 211. MEASUREMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DISCIPLINARY PROCESS OUTCOMES AND
EFFECTIVENESS.
(a) Measuring and Collecting.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
measure and collect information on the outcomes of
disciplinary actions carried out by the Department of
Veterans Affairs during the three-year period ending on the
date of the enactment of this Act and the effectiveness of
such actions.
(2) Elements.--In measuring and collecting pursuant to
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall measure and collect
information regarding the following:
(A) The average time from the initiation of an adverse
action against an employee at the Department to the final
resolution of that action.
(B) The number of distinct steps and levels of review
within the Department involved in the disciplinary process
and the average length of time required to complete these
steps.
(C) The rate of use of alternate disciplinary procedures
compared to traditional disciplinary procedures and the
frequency with which employees who are subject to alternative
disciplinary procedures commit additional offenses.
(D) The number of appeals from adverse actions filed
against employees of the Department, the number of appeals
upheld, and the reasons for which the appeals were upheld.
(E) The use of paid administrative leave during the
disciplinary process and the length of such leave.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2017, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on the disciplinary procedures and actions
of the Department.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) The information collected under subsection (a).
(B) The findings of the Secretary with respect to the
measurement and collection carried out under subsection (a).
(C) An analysis of the disciplinary procedures and actions
of the Department.
(D) Suggestions for improving the disciplinary procedures
and actions of the Department.
(E) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Appropriate committees of congress.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee-
reported substitute amendment to S. 1094 is agreed to.
Under the previous order, there will now be 3 hours of debate,
equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today on the 73rd
anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, Omaha Beach, and Sword Beach
by 156,000 brave Americans who saved our freedom and liberty, for the
American people as well as all of Europe, who put an end to the reign
of Adolph Hitler, and remind me every day as chairman of the Veterans'
Committee why I am here in the U.S. Senate--and that is to see to it
that we take care of those who have taken care of us.
Somebody asked me this morning: Is it coincidence that D-day was 73
years ago today? I said: It is Divine providence that we are on the
floor today paying back those brave 156,000 who invaded those beaches
to make the Veterans' Administration a more favorable agency than it is
already.
I am proud to be on the floor to lead a part of the debate with
Senator Tester--my ranking member on the committee and my dear friend--
on a bill that I think is of great significance. It is the Veterans
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act.
The best quote is not one I could come up with or I doubt that Jon
could come up with. The best quote really was come up with by the Iraq
and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the IAVA. When asked, they said:
``This is the strongest VA accountability measure that can be signed
into law.'' I want to reiterate that: the strongest accountability
measure of the VA that can be signed into law. Which means we are
reaching into every corner of problems in the VA which have existed
over the last years. We are making sure we make the corrections
necessary to make the VA an accountable organization, and we are doing
it in a bipartisan fashion together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
As I have said very often, there aren't Republican casualties and
Democratic casualties on the battlefield. They are American citizens
who have fought and died for this country. So there is no room for
partisanship when it comes to providing them with the benefits that are
necessary and seeing to it that they get what they deserve.
I thank all the members of the committee; in particular, Ranking
Member Tester for his work; Senator Moran, who did such great work for
us on the accountability measure; Senator Rubio, who is not a member of
the committee but did a great job in terms of accountability, and he
will speak later on the floor--as I am sure others will--about this.
We have had a great committee working for a long period of time. We
passed a bill--almost--last year and then failed at the last few
moments of the session to get it done. So we are back a second time,
but we are back
[[Page S3267]]
with a bill that has come unanimously from the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs and I hope will leave this Senate floor unanimously so we send
a clear signal to our veterans: We will hold ourselves accountable to
you.
What specifically does the legislation do that is important? One, it
makes what President Trump referred to in an Executive order about 3
weeks ago, the veterans whistleblower protection act, a reality and
codifies it into law. Second, it removes many of the bureaucratic
hurdles currently in place, making it easier for the VA Secretary to
remove employees of all departments in the VA who are found guilty of
wrongdoing or misconduct, and I underscore found guilty of wrongdoing
or misconduct.
The bill shortens the removal process for employees of the VA and
ensures an individual appealing removal from the VA is not kept on VA's
payroll indefinitely while they appeal. The Department of Veterans
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act also prohibits
the VA from awarding bonuses to employees found guilty of misconduct.
The bill would remove the bureaucratic Merit System Protection Board
from appeals by the senior management--top management--of the Veterans'
Administration.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection Act establishes the Office of Accountability and
Whistleblower Protection to make it permanent in the United States of
America.
In essence, and very simply, this bill ensures and codifies into law
the accountability of this agency and its operation to the American
people and to the veterans of the United States of America for all they
have done for each and every one of us.
It is very important to appreciate that this does not come to us by
some Senator or some Representative coming up with a bunch of crazy
ideas at the last minute. This is a response to what we have seen
happen over and over again over the past few years. Most, if not all,
of the employees in the Veterans' Administration are hard-working,
dedicated, committed individuals, but there have been, from time to
time, questions that have arisen about the handling of certain
situations: the situation that took place in Phoenix, AZ, in terms of
appointments; the rash number of suicides and mishandling of
pharmaceuticals in the Atlanta office of Clairmont, near where I am in
my office in Atlanta, GA; the situation of transfers in Philadelphia,
PA, where people were transferred rather than disciplined and were paid
their moving expenses and cost-of-living adjustments upward--all to get
rid of somebody in one office but move them to another, instead of
handling them in the way in which they should have been, which holds
them accountable, rather than making sure they work somewhere else. We
took instances where people themselves were breaking the law and
violating the law, and we are now holding them accountable because of
what is written into the VA accountability and whistleblower act.
Simply put, we have taken the worst performance, in isolated cases in
the past few years, and did what was right. We have corrected it where
it needed to be corrected, we have eliminated it where it needed to be
eliminated, and we have given the authority to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs and employees under the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to discipline people who work for them and hold them accountable for
doing the wrong thing and encourage them to do the right thing.
I reiterate, though, that we are not singling out an agency which has
a large number of people who are not performing. We are singling out an
agency which has had some situations where a few employees have done
some egregious things that need to be addressed. They were addressed
but couldn't be addressed under the current status of the law, which
now will be able to be addressed under the status of the new law and
held accountable for their actions.
Nothing happens when one person does it. Everything happens when
people come together as a team. It has been a pleasure for me to have a
great teammate in this effort; that is, Jon Tester from Montana. I have
been on the committee 12 years, and I think Jon has been on the
committee 8 or 9 years.
You are on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, first of all, because you
want to be on it. It is what we refer to as a B committee, which means
it is a second tier. A lot of times it is a fill-in committee for
Members of the Senate or the House, but for me and for Jon, it is our
principal and primary responsibility. We know to whom we owe
everything, and that is our veterans to whom we owe everything.
Jon Tester has been a great teammate. He has been great to work with.
He has helped us get through some times of difficulty and some good
times of common understanding and settlement, and I appreciate that
very much.
I want Jon to tell me what the people of Montana are telling him
about our Veterans' Administration and the need for stronger
accountability in the VA of Montana. Tell us what they are saying in
Montana, Jon.
Mr. TESTER. I thank Chairman Isakson.
Before I answer the question, I want to echo and say thank you very
much for your leadership on this committee. It has been great to work
with you. You have a reputation of being a man of honesty, integrity,
and fair dealing, and you have once again lived up to that reputation.
I could not ask for a better chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee than you. I very much appreciate the work you have done on
this bill.
I, too, want to thank Senators Rubio, Moran, Shaheen, Blumenthal,
Angus King, Donnelly, Baldwin, and Duckworth. There are a number of
folks on both sides of the aisle who have stepped up--some on the
committee, some off the committee--who have done such a great job
making sure we ended up here today.
Chairman Isakson knows this. We got a bill over from the House, we
sat down together, and we negotiated. We gave and took and massaged the
bill. We ended up with a bill that probably Johnny would not have
written and probably I wouldn't have written, but it is a bill that is
going to work, and it is going to give the VA what they need to hold
people accountable.
I also echo what Johnny said. Veterans across this country are very
happy with the care they get at the VA, and it is because of the great
people on the ground within the VA, but every once in a while we get a
bad apple, and the VA needs to be able to remove that bad apple because
that bad apple reflects poorly on everybody within the VA. So this bill
is about making sure the VA has the tool it needs to hold itself
accountable and hold itself accountable to the veterans.
What I hear from the folks in Montana is: How come it took so long?
We have been at this for a while, and I hope it is worth the wait. I
think we have a good bill here. I think we have a bill that really
holds folks accountable while protecting workers' rights moving
forward.
The VA is a different kind of animal than any other agency. We owe it
to the people who put it on the line for this country. When things
don't go just right, we have a problem, and we have a problem that
needs to be fixed and not fixed yesterday--fixed today. These folks
have given their all to this country, and they have earned these
healthcare benefits. We need to make sure that when they need them,
they have them and there aren't any mistakes made.
What I also hear from veterans in Montana, other than it took so
long, is: How can we rebuild the VA to make it all it can be? I think
this bill is going to help with that, too, by making sure we have the
best of the best there, by making sure we have training for our
hospital administrators and being able to hire hospital
administrators--that is part of this bill, too--while holding the VA
accountable when folks screw up in areas of misconduct.
So there is a bunch in this bill. I think this bill will fit the
needs, not only of veterans in a rural or frontier State like Montana
but in more populated areas like Atlanta, GA. I think it gives the
Secretary of the VA the tools at his disposal to be able to make the VA
as strong as it can possibly be.
I will say that this bill would not have happened without the good
work of Johnny and his staff and my staff coming together and getting
stuff done. I think this is one of the days in the Senate where we can
look back and
[[Page S3268]]
say that folks came together as Democrats and Republicans and did the
right thing for the veterans of this country.
Johnny, I am curious to know from you what kind of stuff you are
hearing in Georgia about this bill and bringing accountability to the
VA.
Mr. ISAKSON. Senator Tester, like you, I get my best information at
the Legion, the IAVA, and from folks around my State. I am a member of
the American Legion post at Loganville, GA, and go every once in a
while to the bar and get a drink just to find out what is going on. I
find out more there in an hour socializing than I find out by reading
every newspaper in the United States of America.
Let me tell you what some of the organizations are saying--because
these veterans service organizations are the voice of the American
people who served in our military, and they are the people who
communicate to us in committee.
The VFW wants the Secretary to weed out misperformers and especially
the criminals, regardless of whether the crime was committed on or off
duty.
The VFW wants a bill passed because maintaining the status quo does
not work for those who have borne the battle and borne the fight.
They want to make sure the VA holds their employees to the standards
the veterans of America feel they have committed themselves to as
veterans serving in our military.
The American Legion applauds the bipartisan effort to provide
Secretary Shulkin the additional tools to increase accountability and
address poor performance within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I underscore this, because in the bill Jon and I ensure we motivate
management to understand it is their job to seek out nonperformance and
correct it before it runs amuck. So this bill incentivizes management
of the Veterans' Administration to find those employees who are not
performing well and turn them around and reward those employees who are
turned around to be an example they set for all the rest of the
employees.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection Act will give Secretary Shulkin the authority he needs to
hold Department employees responsible for their actions. ``We strongly
agree with the Senate to take the bill immediately and pass it,'' said
Dan Caldwell of Concerned Veterans of America.
So, once and for all, all around our State our VSO organizations are
getting a response to the questions they have asked of all of us, and
that is what this bill does.
There is misinformation out there. There are rumors flying around in
Montana, some flying around in Georgia. Can the Senator help clear up
some of the errors?
Mr. TESTER. There is a lot of misinformation about this bill. I will
tell you what this bill does not do. It does not trample on workers'
rights. This bill maintains bargaining rights of union workers at the
VA. One of the problems we had with the House-passed bill was it did
away with the ability of members to use the bargaining process. This
does not. It maintains it. It does not gut due process protections. It
keeps all the existing due process protections under current law.
Unlike the House bill, it doesn't shorten or eliminate the appeals
process for employees who are fired. Moreover, we provide a judicial
review to employees who are directed to repay a bonus and other
protection. Finally, this bill does not allow VA supervisors to get
away with firing anyone who just challenges them. Evidence is still
required in order to take action, and that evidence must go through
general counsel for review before an action is proposed.
This is all critically important, as we go forth, to give
accountability and yet be able to protect the rights of the workers who
are doing the job. I think we found the sweet spot there.
More important than anything else in this bill--and it does a lot of
things--it is really about a culture of accountability at the VA.
Can the Senator tell us here in the Senate what else this bill does
for veterans?
Mr. ISAKSON. I want to talk about the culture the Senator just
mentioned. He is exactly right. The main thing the American people are
going to see from the Veterans' Administration now is a culture
throughout that organization of excellence to serve the veterans the
way they should be served. And where there might be an isolated
problem, make sure it is sought out, rooted out, and corrected within
the agency. Our veterans deserve the highest quality care.
Secretary Shulkin has asked for more authority to hold accountable
those who are not meeting standards. He wants to recognize those who
have not only met but exceeded standards as well.
This bill gives VA the authority to expedite the removal of a bad
employee, but it doesn't motivate them to get rid of people, it gives
them the parameters by which people should be dealt with if, in fact,
they are behaving poorly. It shortens the process for removing an
employee to 15 days. That doesn't mean you act recklessly or quickly,
it means you act expeditiously to see to it that if you have a problem,
it is addressed quickly for the benefit of all the agencies.
It removes the Merit Systems Protection Board from the appeal process
for senior executives. There is some bad talk out there about removing
the Merit Systems Protection Board for all employees. It doesn't do
that at all. But the most senior employees of the Veterans'
Administration deserve to be held accountable without lots of hoops you
have to go through before ever getting to them. So by taking the Merit
Systems Protection Board away from those senior executives, you are
holding them totally accountable in the bright light of day for their
own actions, without some hoop to go through for the agency trying to
remove them.
It prohibits bonuses and relocation expenses for employees guilty of
wrongdoing. I mentioned this in my earlier remarks, and I will
reiterate. This deals with things like what happened in Pennsylvania,
where two employees were reassigned for a discipline, yet they were
given bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments in their pay upward for
doing something wrong. That sends exactly the wrong signal to any
employee in the Veterans' Administration.
For anyone doing a good job, it pats them on the back and lets them
know they can do an even better job.
It expedites the hiring of VA medical center directors, which is
absolutely critical. We have far too many people in the VA healthcare
system today who are acting. They are acting director or acting
assistant. We don't need any more ``acting'' in the Veterans'
Administration; we need performance.
That is what this bill ends up being about--the performance of
delivery of quality healthcare to our veterans, rewarding those
employees who are doing a good job, encouraging those who aren't to do
a better job, and seeing all American veterans get the services they
deserve to get.
The need for this bill does not come out of thin air. I say to
Senator Tester, can you tell me why the VA and veterans need this
legislation to strengthen accountability at the VA?
Mr. TESTER. I sure can. I talked previously about this. It has been a
while. It has been 3 years. We talked about this accountability issue a
lot in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and here on the floor. I think
the context is important for folks who do make the claim that there is
no need for this particular bill, that we are simply playing politics.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
If you remember, back in August of 2014, in response to systemic
failures in the Veterans Health Administration, the Senate
overwhelmingly passed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability
Act of 2014. We were both members of the committee back then. We both
helped draft that bill. It passed by a vote 91 to 3. As my colleagues
on the Veterans' Affairs Committee are well aware, the bill included a
provision to hold senior executives of the VA more accountable. That
provision was in response to multiple reports from both the Obama
administration and an independent VA inspector general documenting the
need to bring greater accountability to the VA.
While much of the attention has been focused on senior-level
employees, hospital administrators, and the like, there are employees
across the system who need to be effectively held accountable for
misconduct and inappropriate behavior. Last Congress, the
[[Page S3269]]
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reported bipartisan legislation that
would give the VA greater authority to improve accountability for all
employees. Unfortunately, we never got floor time for that bill.
This Congress, the House passed a VA accountability bill that, at
least in my view, needed some fixing. I appreciate that my Republican
colleagues worked closely with us--with me--on these changes, and we
got to this point today.
But make no mistake about it--veterans in Montana and all the major
veterans service organizations support giving the VA the authority to
expedite disciplining and firing bad employees. Let me say that one
more time. Every major veteran service organization supports giving the
VA the authority to expedite disciplining or firing bad employees. The
President and the VA Secretaries--both McDonald and Shulkin--have asked
for this authority. Former VA Secretary McDonald repeatedly asked
Congress to give him the tools he needed to hold employees accountable.
Secretary Shulkin has followed and done the same. So we have this bill
up today.
I would like to end where I started, and that is by thanking Chairman
Isakson for his leadership and his willingness to work together in a
bipartisan way to reach a compromise and make ``collaboration'' a good
word again, to get to a point where we can get a bill, as the IAVA
said, that can pass and that can pass the Senate and that hopefully
will pass the Senate within the next few hours.
I thank Chairman Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Tester.
I started my remarks a few minutes ago by saying that this will be
the 73rd anniversary of D-day. Nobody who charged Omaha Beach or
climbed those cliffs in Normandy had second thoughts about what they
were doing or asked questions about their leadership or tolerated
anything but the best they could out of themselves. Because of that,
they won.
Today, our veterans are winning. Our committee--the Senate is going
to pass in I think a unanimous or near-unanimous fashion a piece of
legislation that is a byproduct of a good bipartisan effort to see to
it that we correct the problems of the past, give the Secretary of the
VA the ability to do it in the future, and if he or she doesn't do it,
it gives us the ability to change them so they are held accountable as
well.
It has been a pleasure to work with you and a privilege to work for
our veterans.
On this special day, we honor those who served America 73 years ago
by the beginning of the end of World War II, thank them for their
service, and thank all veterans who provide service to the people of
the United States of America.
I want to end by noting that we have 32 sponsors of this legislation,
which is almost exactly one-third of the Senate, Republican and
Democrat alike. That sends the proper signal that this is the right
bill at the right time for the right people--veterans of the United
States of America.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to start by commending my
colleagues from Georgia and Montana for their compassion and care for
our veterans and specifically for their continued efforts to ensure we
have accountability at the VA. They worked hard on this legislation. I
hope the Senate moves expeditiously to vote for it and to help our
veterans to be able to have the kind of responsibility and
accountability they deserve.
Remembering Les Spaeth
Mr. President, I also rise today to talk about veterans. I am going
to focus on World War II veterans.
Last Monday was Memorial Day. I was in Mason, OH. I was in Warren
County, OH. My mom grew up there, and my family still has a lot of ties
there. I was there at a ceremony for the veterans memorial, one of the
most beautiful memorials in the State of Ohio. I happened to be there
about 15 years ago when it was first began, and it was great to be
back. At the ceremony, I got to see a World War II buddy of mine. His
name is Les Spaeth. He is also a good friend of my father's and
grandfather's. As always, seeing him brought back great memories, and I
was able to speak about him during my remarks.
Two days later--a few days ago--we got word that Les Spaeth died at
age 92. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to this man who gave so
much to his country and to his community.
Les was a marine corporal during World War II. He signed up after
graduating from Mason High School in 1942. He served in the Pacific,
including the occupation of Japan after the war, helping that country
make a difficult transition to democracy. Thanks in large part to
American soldiers like him, by the way, the transition worked. Japan
has become one of our greatest allies.
Les came back to Mason, OH, and started a small business called
Spaeth Brothers Cleaners. He had that optimism so many of the World War
II generation had. He had the courage to take a risk and help build
jobs and help the economy of his hometown. My dad did the same thing
after World War II.
Les was a businessman, but he was also a public servant for more than
half a century. He served six terms as Warren County auditor. He served
on the Board of Elections for 25 years. He chaired the Warren County
Republican Party for 17 years.
He was very active in the community in so many other ways too. He was
one of the very first volunteer firefighters in Mason, OH, starting way
back in 1948. He was elder at his church, Heritage Presbyterian, where
his service will be held. For 70 years, he was a freemason and member
of the American Legion. He helped set up the American Legion Buckeye
Boys Program, a great program where they are teaching young men about
State, local, and Federal government and values and leadership. His
whole life was centered around his community--through the family
business, through military service, through elected office, and through
volunteerism.
In 2009, Mason High School started having a distinguished alumni
graduation speaker every year. For all the reasons I talked about a
moment ago, a few years ago, in 2013, I wrote a letter and recommended
that they honor Les Spaeth. They agreed with me. That spring of 2013,
it was time to receive his award. He gave a beautiful speech. He talked
about his love for this country and counting our blessings as
Americans. He received a standing ovation from the graduating class. I
know that meant a lot to him. That ovation shows the respect and esteem
people in Warren County have for Les Spaeth across generations.
On behalf of Ohio, I want to express my condolences to the family of
Les Spaeth. I also want to thank them for sharing Les with the rest of
us in Ohio for these past 92 years. He was a dedicated servant to the
people of Warren County, an American hero for his military service, and
a good friend to so many.
73rd Anniversary of D-day
As was noted, as we talk about World War II, today is also the 73rd
anniversary of D-day. As Chairman Isakson just said, it was really the
beginning of the end of that war. And 73 years ago this morning, Les
Spaeth was in theater in the Pacific, as I said, risking his life for
all of us. But in Europe on that same morning, the largest amphibious
invasion in the history of the world was taking place. Men as young as
18 years old were crossing the channel, carrying packs weighing 80
pounds. More than 160,000 Allied soldiers--mostly Americans--and more
than 5,000 ships backed by more than 10,000 aircraft were fighting to
liberate Europe from Hitler. The outcome was far from certain. The
Nazis had spent 2 years fortifying the coast to prepare for this
moment. It was Hitler's so-called Atlantic Wall. The beautiful
coastline of France was covered in barbed wire, land mines, and
bunkers.
A little more than a month before D-day, by the way, the Allies had
conducted a trial run. They practiced on beaches in western England
that were most like those of Normandy. The practice run was a disaster.
In fact, Germans spotted the Allied ships and attacked them. Hundreds
of American troops died in that practice session.
COL George Taylor told his troops as they were about to land on
Normandy: ``Only two kinds of men are going to be on this beach--the
dead, and those about to die. So get moving.'' This was
[[Page S3270]]
tough stuff. They had an enormous task, and the stakes could not have
been higher.
Erwin Rommel--and Rommel was leading the Nazi defense at that time--
said at that time: ``The fate of Germany depends on . . . the first 24
hours of this invasion.'' He was right.
Well-known historian Douglas Brinkley said that D-day was ``the
single most important moment in the 20th Century.'' It was one of the
bloodiest too. It was the beginning of the end of the most difficult
war in human history, and the lives of millions of people depended on
the outcome.
They depended on the success of brave, young Americans like Eugene
Lyons of University Heights, OH. Eugene was a medic. His ship hit a
mine in the English Channel and sank off the coast. He swam to shore
while German planes shot at him, missing him by a matter of inches. Or
the Napier brothers of Warren County, like Les Spaeth. Five brothers
all served during World War II. Two of them were there on the beaches
that day; one died. Or Jim ``Pee Wee'' Martin from Dayton, OH, who
served in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and parachuted behind
German lines before dawn that day. Jim received both the Purple Heart
and the Bronze Star for his service that day. Or Sigmund Czelusniak of
North Royalton, OH, who was wounded by a mortar shell on Omaha Beach.
Sigmund later said, as he lay wounded: ``In my heart, I didn't think
I'd ever come back.''
More than 10,000 Allied troops did not come back.
While those brave men and hundreds of thousands of others were
fighting, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took to the airwaves, as you
would expect a President to do. As you know, he was known for what were
called fireside chats. These were informal speeches he would give to
the Nation during difficult times. But on that day, he did something
very different. Instead of giving a speech, he was called to lead the
Nation in prayer. This prayer brought our country together. It
strengthened our resolve. It comforted us at a very difficult and
frightening time for our country, and it briefly encapsulated, as you
will hear in a second, what our purpose was--not just in World War II
but what our purpose was as Americans. He made an indelible mark on our
history.
Three years ago, after the 70th anniversary of D-day, then-President
Obama signed into law legislation that I had authored to add the words
of this famous prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC.
Since then, the site for the plaque has been approved. The architect is
continuing to work with the National Park Service on the design. I have
been told that the Park Service intends to present the design options
to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning
Commission during their meetings this summer. Construction could begin
as soon as December and be completed by next June.
Frankly, I am discouraged this has taken so long because this prayer
belongs on the World War II Memorial, and Congress has said so. I urge
the Park Service to move as expeditiously as possible to complete this
project, to bring those words to so many veterans and others who visit
that beautiful memorial.
As has been my tradition since the time we were trying to get that
legislation passed, I would like to read the words President Roosevelt
spoke on D-day 73 years ago.
He started by saying:
My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you . .
. I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and
our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater
operation. It has come to pass with great success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in
prayer.
This was his prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have
set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our
Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free
a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give
strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts,
steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and
hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces.
Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return
again and again; and we know by Thy grace and by the
righteousness of our cause our sons will triumph. They will
be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until the
victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame.
Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They
fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end
conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice
arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They
yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the
haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive
them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for those of us at home--fathers, mothers, children,
wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose
thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty
God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this
hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single
day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the
desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a
continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again
when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,
invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to
redouble the contributions we make in the physical and
material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,
to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our
sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in
our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.
Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not
the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but
fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable
purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces
of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and
racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and
with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a
sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy
men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom,
reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.
Those were the words he spoke and the words that will soon be
inscribed on the World War II monument.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Paris Agreement
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
the administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate
agreement.
In 1992, under President George H.W. Bush, the Senate unanimously
approved a treaty to allow the United States to join the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since then, we have been
engaged in a global conversation with nations around the world to
tackle the challenges of climate change and ensure that we leave future
generations a planet that is not plagued by catastrophic drought,
famine, floods, wildfire, and a rising sea level.
After years of intense negotiation, the world finally reached an
international agreement that resulted in a global commitment, and 195
countries from around the world, except for 2, came together. Nicaragua
abstained; they wanted a stronger agreement. Syria was another country
that stepped aside and didn't take part, for obvious reasons.
Representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions,
these 195 countries committed to reducing their carbon emissions to
prevent the average global temperature from rising by more than 2
degrees.
I cannot fathom why any President of either political party would
want to isolate the United States from the rest of the world, from our
allies and trading partners, by leaving this agreement.
President Trump justified this decision with concern for American
jobs and American business. Yet, since the election, American business
leaders have called him on the phone, sent a barrage of public letters,
and paid for full-page ads in newspapers, trying to get the message
through to him in any way possible that American business strongly
supports the Paris Agreement, which President Trump has walked away
from.
Tech companies and retailers, insurance companies, and even energy
companies, such as ExxonMobil and BP, support global engagement on
climate. In fact, the World Economic Forum estimated that the Paris
Agreement represents a $23 trillion investment potential due to the
growing demand in every corner of the world for clean energy. Between
consumers who want
[[Page S3271]]
clean energy and local regulations that require it, the demand for
clean energy will continue to grow here in the United States and around
the world.
While pulling out of the Paris Agreement might seem like a way to
protect jobs, for example, in the coal industry, the truth is that when
these jobs do go away, it is mostly due to other things: market forces
and automation.
I have been down in the coal mines of Southern Illinois, Central
Illinois. I have seen the way they mine coal today. For those who have
not been there and paid close attention, it may come as a surprise. It
is largely automated. Massive machinery, known as continuous miners,
literally chew away at the walls of coal, transporting it back up to
the surface for transport.
Back in the day, hundreds, if not thousands, of coal miners would
head for their jobs with little more than a pick or an ax or a shovel
or some drill. Today, it is an automated industry, and fewer jobs are
creating more and more coal opportunities because automation is a big
part.
In addition, there is a change in the global energy market. Because
of fracking in States like North Dakota and South Dakota, we have seen
an increase in the availability of natural gas at lower prices. Last
year, for the first time in modern history, we had more electricity
generated in 1 month in America from natural gas sources than from coal
sources.
We have turned a corner when it comes to the availability of
alternatives in energy. Between consumers who want access to clean
energy and local regulations that require it, clean energy is going to
continue to grow in demand.
Meanwhile, even in my own home State of Illinois, which is the fourth
largest coal-producing State in the Nation, we already have thousands
more workers in the solar industry than in the coal industry.
Clean energy jobs are growing. Remaining engaged on climate change
spurs new investment and strengthens American competitiveness for jobs
in the future. These jobs include designing more efficient solar
panels, wind turbines, batteries, and manufacturing the components for
export all over the world. Why should other nations get to lead this
growing industry of clean energy and the United States step away? We
can create those jobs right here in America--American jobs for American
workers in clean energy opportunities. We should lead the world in the
creation of clean energy jobs.
This decision by the Trump administration to turn its back on this
revolution in energy is going to cost us dearly. When the coal jobs do
decline, we have responsibilities to retrain the workers for clean
energy jobs and other opportunities in the future. The Paris Agreement
ensured that we have credibility as leaders, access to global markets,
and reduced financial risk for our citizens and businesses associated
with changing climate.
By walking away from the agreement, America is not just giving up an
environmental commitment, but it is giving up economic opportunity. We
have given away our leadership, isolated ourselves from the rest of the
world. They are not going to wait for us; they are going to move
forward and look for other leaders than the United States. This
President talked about making America first. His decision to walk away
from the Paris Agreement puts America dead last when it comes to energy
in the 21st century.
Climate change is a dire threat to the global economy and global
stability. It will cause catastrophic consequences for global health,
food security, and habitat on land and in the ocean. My constituents in
Illinois are already experiencing the adverse effects of changing
climate.
In recent years, our State--and, I might add, many others--has seen
historic storms, floods, and droughts, causing millions of dollars in
damage. Climate models suggest that if current global warming trends
continue, Illinois will have a climate similar to the Texas gulf coast
by the end of this century. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the
environment have a direct effect on their livelihood and for all of us,
a direct impact on our food supply.
Climate change also has significant national security implications
that affect our shores--ones we simply can't ignore. The crisis in
Syria, the flow of refugees from unstable parts of the world, is an
early warning of the link to climate change and how humanitarian
crises, particularly from less stable parts of our shared planet, are
going to get worse if we continue to let climate change go unaddressed.
Back in 2011, when pro-democracy protests began in Syria, many of
those joining were displaced farmers who had suffered 4 years of
drought, made worse by the effects of climate change. The National
Academy of Sciences published findings earlier this year showing that
extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was more likely due to
climate change and that the drought was a factor in the uprisings in
2011.
Last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom
Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa
through the Sahara Desert to Libya, where people were hoping to
eventually cross the dangerous trek across the Mediterranean Sea to
Europe. He wrote: ``Just as Syria's revolution was set off in part by
the worst four-year drought in the country's modern history--plus
overpopulation, climate stresses and the Internet--the same is true of
this African migration wave.''
Former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell recently called President
Trump's decision to pull the United States from the Paris climate
agreement the worst decision made by this President so far.
Mr. Morell pointed out that pulling out not only cedes American
leadership in the world, but it harms our own national security by
ignoring the impact of climate change on failed and fragile states that
are homes to instability and violence. He further noted that we face
three possible threats to our existence: nuclear war, a natural or
manmade biological threat, or climate change. President Trump's
dangerous decision, if not reversed, will contribute to that threat.
Anyone in this Chamber claiming to be serious about national security
simply cannot be credible without addressing the long-term threats
posed by weak states and climate change in the decades to come.
It is amazing to me that people around the world have come together
to recognize the danger and the urgent need to act on climate change
everywhere in the world except right here in the United States of
America.
I don't understand the other political party. I can remember a time
when we would have a debate on climate change on the floor. We would be
talking about the Environmental Protection Agency, created by a
Republican President, Richard Nixon, and we would have Senators from
both sides of the aisle actively debating climate change, realizing
that it is a threat to our future. Those days have changed.
Any debate now about environment is strictly one-sided. Was the
science changed when it comes to global warming and climate change? Not
at all. Ninety-eight percent of scientists agree that we have global
warming, and the reasons for it relate directly to greenhouse gas
emissions.
So what has changed? Why isn't this a bipartisan debate anymore? The
politics have changed. They have changed dramatically with the way we
finance political campaigns in this country. Groups have emerged--one
in particular, the Koch brothers, who have made their fortune in carbon
industries and who have promised any Republican who steps out of line
on climate change this: You are in for a fight; you are going to face a
primary. Don't you dare stand up and talk about climate change here on
the floor of the Senate.
That is where we are today. We have come to a standstill, and now we
have a President who has decided to walk away from this issue. This
President has chosen politics over science and greed over
responsibility. His decision is a fateful decision for our children,
our grandchildren, and generations to come.
There may be some momentary applause in some places because President
Trump has walked away from this global agreement to deal with this
global challenge, but I could tell you the cheers are short-lived. When
we see the price that we are going to pay--and that our kids will pay--
for this gross irresponsibility, there will not be a lot of cheering.
I have said this on the floor before, and I will say it again because
I am waiting for someone on the other side
[[Page S3272]]
to come to challenge me: The Republican Party of the United States of
America is the only major political party in the world today that
refuses to take climate change seriously. I have said that over and
over, and I expect Senators from the Republican side to come to the
floor and say: That is not true; we take it seriously. But they don't.
Or I expect them to come to the floor and say: No, there is another
major political party that also denies climate change.
One Republican Senator, after I said this on the floor repeatedly,
pulled me off to the side in the corridor, looked around, and
whispered: There is a party in Australia that also doesn't believe in
climate change.
You think to yourself: So it has come to that. We have isolated
ourselves in the eyes of the world when it comes to protecting this
world for generations to come. We are going to pay a heavy price for
that, but the biggest price is going to be paid by future generations.
Can we make a little sacrifice today, drive more energy-efficient
cars and trucks, and think about ways to heat our homes and to light up
our rooms that don't consume so much energy? Well, of course, we can.
We have already done it, and we can do so much more. Walking away from
the Paris Agreement is not the path that should lead America into the
21st century.
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. President, earlier today, Majority Leader McConnell came to the
Senate floor to, once again, be critical of the Affordable Care Act, a
law that has resulted in more than 20 million Americans gaining health
insurance. The law has lowered the uninsured rate to the lowest in
American history. This law has put an end to insurance discrimination
based on preexisting conditions or gender. It is a law that has made
sure that Americans suffering from mental health or substance abuse
addiction can get treatment. It is a law that extended the solvency of
Medicare by a decade and decreased prescription drug costs for seniors
by more than $1,000 for each senior in America. It is a law that has
helped to reduce--cut in half--the number of bankruptcies filed in
America because so many were the result of medical bills that people
just couldn't pay. I was proud to vote for this law.
Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be improved and strengthened?
Yes, it should be. Improvements can be made the same way we have made
improvements in Medicare, Social Security, and in so many other
programs over the years, but not by repealing Social Security, not by
repealing Medicare but by sitting down on a bipartisan basis to try to
find a way to make sure that we don't deny health insurance coverage to
23 million people in America because of the repeal of the Affordable
Care Act and to find a way not to raise costs on older Americans, which
the bill that passed the House of Representatives would do, and to find
a way to make this law better for people living in rural America.
My hometown is in downstate Illinois. I, as a Congressman and
Senator, have represented a lot of small towns in sparsely populated
counties. They value many things. They sure value their schools, their
basketball teams and football teams. I will tell you what they value as
much, if not more, than anything else--their local hospital.
The local hospital makes such a difference in smalltown America. It
is not only a lifesaver--it saves you from driving another 50 or 100
miles for quality care--but it is also a source of great employment.
Probably the best paying jobs in town are at the local hospital. If you
want to keep a business or attract one, a local hospital is a good
selling point.
Do you know what the bill that passed the House of Representatives
will do to the rural and smalltown hospitals in Illinois?
Don't take my word for it. Ask the Illinois Health and Hospital
Association. They anticipate losing 60,000 jobs in Illinois because of
the healthcare repeal bill that passed the House of Representatives,
and they know that many hospitals downstate and many in the inner city
are going to be forced to cut back in services, if not close, as a
result of it.
What can we do to make this a better bill, to make the Affordable
Care Act work more effectively? Let me give you a couple of ideas.
First, we don't have anything in the law today that deals with
prescription drug prices. We are at the mercy of people--pharmaceutical
companies, investment bankers, and others--who come and control these
pharmaceutical patents. They can literally raise the cost of these
drugs beyond the reach of many families.
I had a young man come see me. He is in high school. He has been
fighting diabetes since he was a little boy. He and his mother talked
about the dramatic increase in the cost of insulin that he has faced
over the last several years. Insulin has been around a long time. This
is not a new wonder drug. It is a critical, lifesaving drug, but the
prices and costs of insulin are going through the roof, and there is no
way under current law for us to deal with it. Should we take that up?
Of course, we should.
Blue Cross Blue Shield in Illinois told me recently that they spent
more money last year on pharmaceutical costs than they did on inpatient
hospital care, and the costs continue to go up. We need good,
lifesaving drugs. We need to reward the companies that find them with a
profit. But as to those who want to gouge prices and take advantage of
people of modest income or folks who don't have insurance, there has to
be a way to answer that and to deal with it honestly.
Yesterday, I went with eight other Senators up to the National
Institutes of Health. It is out in Bethesda, MD. It is the premier
medical research facility in the world. We are lucky to have it right
here in the United States.
Time and again they told us about breakthrough drugs that were making
a big difference that started with research at the National Institutes
of Health. I asked at one point: Is it too much to ask the
pharmaceutical companies that take your basic research idea and turn it
into a profitable product to give some of those profits back to the NIH
to continue their research? They said: We have tried to do it, but the
pharmaceutical companies walk away. They don't want to give us a penny
for our future research.
Well, that is wrong. We ought to be investing in that research,
rewarding the pharmaceutical companies for their development of these
products, as well, but making certain we continue this leadership in
the world when it comes to medical research and pharmaceuticals.
The individual market on health insurance is one that troubles us
because it is the area where people who don't have health insurance
through their place of employment or don't qualify for a government
health insurance plan--like Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, or the
like--go to buy insurance on the insurance exchange. This is where the
premiums have gone up. Now, why have the premiums gone up in that one
sector? Because when it comes to individuals, those who are older and
sicker are the first to sign up, but the healthier, younger ones are
the last.
We can sit down on a bipartisan basis and find ways to create an
incentive so that we can increase the participation in this insurance
pool and bring down the premium costs for those who are paying.
The third thing we need to do is to make sure that no matter where
you live in the United States, there is an option to choose when it
comes to buying your health insurance. One of the things we can do is
to take one of the most popular medical care programs in history--the
Medicare Program itself--and duplicate it in a public option available
to people across the United States. Do you want to buy a health
insurance program that looks like Medicare, a not-for-profit program?
This would be your chance.
So those are three ideas that I think we could bring forward in an
effort to make the Affordable Care Act even more responsive.
Senator McConnell, the Republican Leader, comes to the floor
frequently to talk about the choice to expand the Medicaid Program, as
allowed under law in many States. I would welcome the opportunity to
expand that program.
Most people do not understand the Medicaid Program. Oh, that is
health insurance for poor people. Well, in a way, it is, but it is so
much more. For example, one out of every two births in
[[Page S3273]]
Illinois is paid for by the Medicaid Program to keep mom healthy so she
delivers a healthy baby and to keep that baby healthy as soon as it is
born. It is paid for by Medicaid in 50 percent of the cases of new
births. But that is not the most expensive thing.
The most expensive thing under Medicaid is for your mom and your
grandmother who is in a nursing home, living on Social Security and
Medicare, and they need help. So they qualify for Medicaid to pay for
the medical care they need so they can continue to live wholesome
lives.
The third area, of course, is medical insurance for the disabled who
have ongoing needs. Those three areas make up Medicaid. When the
Republican proposal that came out of the House wanted to cut $600 or
$700 billion and give tax cuts to wealthy people, they took it out of
Medicaid.
So which of the groups that I just described to you would you take
health insurance away from--mothers with new babies, elderly folks in
nursing homes with no resources, or the disabled who live in our
communities?
I would think it is a step in the wrong direction to hit any of these
groups. That is why Medicaid was expanded in so many States and why we
should continue to find ways to expand it in a responsible fashion.
As I go back home and talk to people about this Republican
alternative that passed the House of Representatives, it is very clear
they oppose it.
I have challenged those Congressmen who voted for the Republican
repeal bill to find one medical advocacy group in my State that
supports their effort. There are none. The Illinois Health and Hospital
Association, the Illinois Medical Association, the Illinois Nurses
Association, and the Illinois pediatricians all oppose it.
The AARP, or American Association of Retired Persons, opposes it
because the bill removed the protection for elderly people when it came
to the cost of premiums. The AARP believes--and I am afraid the facts
bear it out--that what passed the House of Representatives will
dramatically increase health insurance premiums for people between the
ages of 50 and 64. We can do better, but we need to do it on a
bipartisan basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
The President's Budget
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, just a little less than 2 weeks ago,
President Trump released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2018,
which would begin October 1. He named his plan ``A New Foundation for
American Greatness.'' While unveiling this budget, Director Mulvaney,
the OMB Director, declared that ``We are no longer going to measure
compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those
programs, but by the number of people we help get off of those
programs.''
When I read this and looked at the budget, I was reminded of the
story of the two hikers who got to the top of a mountain. They stood
near a big cliff and one hiker said: It is a beautiful vista.
The other hiker said: I am so exhausted from hiking all the way up; I
wish I could get down quickly.
The first hiker then said: Let me help you with that. And he shoved
him off the cliff.
That is what this budget does. It doesn't help people get off
programs through education and training; it shuts down the programs. It
shoves people off the cliff.
In this budget, millions of struggling, rural, middle-class, low-
income, and working Americans are thrown off the cliff. They are thrown
out of these programs as these programs are just struck down, not
because programs have served their purpose and are no longer needed but
because the President wants to do two things. He wants to build a lot
more in terms of the military, and he wants to give a tax giveaway of
some $6 trillion in the budget, with most of it going to the very
richest Americans. This is not an ``America first'' budget; this is a
``billionaires first'' and a ``rural and working Americans last''
budget.
We see this vision implemented through dramatic cuts to food stamps,
children's healthcare, job training, after-school programs, scientific
research, and other anti-poverty programs. One program after another
designed to help American families who are devastated will be
eliminated, all in the name of building a wall, building more missiles
and more bombs, and giving this massive, massive giveaway of the
Treasury to the privileged and powerful.
Now there is good news. The good news is that I think we are going to
have a bipartisan coalition we can build to defeat this budget. Even
some of our colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus, who often talk
about slashing government spending and eliminating programs, are saying
that this proposal and its impact on rural Americans and rural America
is draconian and unacceptable. It is not often that you hear folks
throughout the entire political spectrum come together to say the same
thing--that this budget is shortsighted and ill-conceived--but that is
where we are now.
This budget tells us a lot because a budget is an expression of
values. When President Trump placed this budget before us, we gained
insight into his values. What we quickly learned is that President
Trump doesn't place value on struggling and working American families,
helping them climb a ladder to a better point. What this budget does
tell us is that our President is all about raiding the National
Treasury for the privileged and the powerful--quite the opposite of
what we heard when he was campaigning.
Franklin Roosevelt once said that, as a nation, ``The test of our
progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' By
``enough'' he meant, do we provide a ladder of opportunity for families
to get their economic footing, to be able to buy a house, to be able to
find a job, to be able to educate their children?
In this budget, President Trump puts out a different test. With this
budget, he is saying that the test of our progress is whether we
destroy programs for working Americans in order to fund a $6 trillion
giveaway to the privileged and powerful. That is Donald Trump's test of
progress, and I think we find very few in the country who might agree
with that vision of making economic and educational progress for
working Americans much more difficult. It is not an ``America first''
budget. It is not a foundation for American greatness. It is more akin
to a great train robbery, a great raid on the National Treasury to
benefit those who are already at the very top.
It is a budget that hurts children. It is a budget that hurts
struggling, hard-working Americans. It cuts 20 percent from the
Children's Health Insurance Program, critical for the health of our
children. Shouldn't every child in America have access to affordable
healthcare? That is a value I can get behind. But slashing healthcare
for children and making it harder for them to succeed in life--I can't
agree with that.
Let's make children hungrier by cutting the basic food stamp program
or school programs that 44 million Americans rely on, cutting it by
$193 billion. Making children hungrier doesn't help them learn. Helping
children learn is a value I can get behind. Making it harder for them
to succeed in school may be a Trump value, but it is not mine, and I
don't think it is shared by many Members of this Chamber.
We find that he proposes to get rid of the subsidization of interest
on student loans, making the cost of college even more unaffordable for
low-income and working graduates. He freezes the Pell grants that
already have not kept pace with inflation. He proceeds to wipe out the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program that erases student loans after
a decade of service to the public. All of this is about making college
more expensive. I can get behind the value of making higher education
more affordable, whether it is apprenticeship training, career
technical education, or a 4-year college program. I can get behind
making those programs more affordable, making community college
programs more affordable because some form of education, whether it is
in the technical education world or community college world or a 4-year
program--some aspect of that is important to virtually every job in
America.
Making it more affordable is what virtually every other developed
country has done. In Germany, going to a public university is free in
terms of tuition--not so here in the United
[[Page S3274]]
States of America. Our students are burdened by massive, massive debt.
It is growing and growing and growing. I can get behind the value of
saying we shouldn't make college a financial gauntlet because it is so
essential to the success of our children. But Trump has a different
value. His value is let's make it harder. Let's make it more difficult.
Let's put students further into debt. Those are not values I can
support. Again, I think very few in this Chamber would share in that.
The list goes on and on. This isn't just an attack on the ladder of
opportunity for working Americans; this is an attack on rural America.
During the last couple of years, I served as the ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development and
FDA, and in that time I have seen the tremendous impact many of these
programs have had in providing opportunity and strengthening the
economy in rural America. I value making rural America stronger, but
that is not the value Trump put into his budget. He put into this
budget: Let's undercut, let's undermine, let's make it more difficult
for rural America. This is truly a ``rural America last'' budget.
It eliminates funding for Essential Air Service. The Essential Air
Service is essential to key small towns across our Nation, including
one in my home State. If the Essential Air Service is wiped out, the
economy of that town, Pendleton, would be dramatically impacted.
It slashes the Contract Tower Program that supports even more
airports--six of them in my State--rural airports that need that
contract tower support to be able to remain open. Small towns from
Aurora to Klamath Falls would be dramatically impacted.
How about rural infrastructure? He takes out the rural water and
wastewater disposal program. As I hold townhalls around my State--and I
go to every county every year, all 36. Before I hold a public townhall
where people can ask any question they want, I meet with the local
county commissioners, city commissioners, and all the locally elected.
In virtually every county, every year, I hear about the challenge of
water infrastructure, expanding the clean water supply or waste water
treatment. These two challenges are enormous. Yet here is President
Trump wiping out the rural water and wastewater programs.
How about critical housing programs? Well, here is the issue. In our
rural communities, often the economy is hindered by the lack of
availability of affordable housing. I have been in town after town
after town saying: We have interest by a company to move here because
of some of the key assets we have. Then they decide not to because they
don't have affordable housing in the community for them to be able to
hire the staff they need. So we have these programs at the Federal
level--direct single-family housing loans, direct multifamily housing
loans, low-income housing repair loans, farm labor housing loans, self-
help housing grants. Here again, the Trump budget wipes them out.
The Community Development Block Grant Program provides flexible
strength for rural communities to address local problems. We talk a lot
about flexibility in the Senate, enabling local areas to decide how
best to use funds. The CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant,
does exactly that. Yet it is not valued by our President, who probably
doesn't even know what the program is, but he wiped it out.
How about the Rural Business-Cooperative Service that offers programs
to support business development and job training? It is gone too. His
budget slashes USDA's rural development programs by about $1 billion, a
little less than $1 billion. This is a part of the agency where
programs focus on supporting economic development, housing, and
infrastructure in rural communities.
Then we have the impact on rural healthcare. This budget impacts
rural healthcare in several different ways. It cuts the Rural Hospital
Outreach Grant Program that helps small rural hospitals get resources
to create collaboratives for long-term care facilities or with
ambulance services. It eliminates the State offices of rural health.
In addition, this budget destroys healthcare for 23 million
Americans, and many of those live in rural America. In fact, in Oregon,
about one out of three individuals, almost one out of three in our
small towns find healthcare through the Oregon Health Plan, the Oregon
Health Plan funded by Medicaid. Rolling back Medicaid would throw some
400,000 people off of healthcare in Oregon just by itself, and that
would make a huge impact in rural Oregon.
I have been holding a lot of townhalls in rural Oregon. This year I
have had over 12 in what you would see on a map as pretty red counties,
and people are coming up to me at townhalls and saying that they are
scared to death about this budget's impact on healthcare. They are not
just scared; they are terrified. And they are not just terrified; they
are angry because they finally have the peace of mind that if a loved
one gets sick, that loved one will get the care they need, that loved
one will not end up bankrupt. That is a huge improvement in quality of
life, but this budget from the President destroys that peace of mind.
It is not just impacting those who directly benefit from the Oregon
Health Plan; it also impacts everybody else in the rural communities
because the health plan has enabled our rural clinics and hospitals to
do much better financially.
Out in the northeast corner of my State--it is a very remote and
beautiful place--a person told me that his local clinic had gone from
20-some employees to about 50 employees, roughly doubling the
healthcare provided. Why were they able to do that? Because they had
had so much uncompensated care before people had access to insurance.
Now that has dropped dramatically, and their finances are much better.
So they are able to hire a lot more people and provide a lot more
healthcare to this rural part of the State. But that changes with this
Trump budget.
Let me list a few more details about some of these areas, starting
with the USDA Rural Development Water Programs.
Last year, 14 projects in my State received $10.7 million in loans
and $6.5 million in grants in order to provide reliable, clean drinking
water and waste disposal, affecting 12,000 folks in rural Oregon.
Vernonia, which is in northwest Oregon, relied on these programs so as
to finally improve the town's wastewater system--a project almost 20
years in the making. I have visited Vernonia a number of times. In 1996
it suffered a terrible flood, and then, again, in 2007, there was
another major flood. The floods overwhelmed Vernonia's wastewater
treatment systems and lagoons and caused overflows on public and
private properties as well as into the nearby Nehalem River. Thanks to
loans and grants from the USDA's rural water programs, the town of
Vernonia was able to purchase new equipment, upgrade its wastewater
systems, and protect the water for its residents. That is just one
community that has benefited.
Let's talk a little bit more about housing. The budget singles out
many housing programs to cut.
It eliminates the USDA Rural Development's direct housing loan
programs and most of the housing grant programs and community
facilities programs, which include programs like the rural Single
Family Housing Direct Loans, the rural Multi-Family Housing Direct
Loans, the self-help housing program, housing repair loans, and the
Farm Labor Housing Program.
With so many States and so many communities across our Nation
suffering from a shortage of affordable and available housing, how can
we consider it a positive thing to slice and dice these programs?
Last year, 6,000 rural Oregonian families were living in 211
affordable apartment complexes thanks to USDA financing. But keeping
these programs and strengthening our housing initiatives isn't just
good for our Nation's families. It is also critical for the economic
development of rural towns and communities. As I have mentioned so
often, I have heard from town leaders that they have a potential deal
within their grasp, and it falls out of their grip because of the
shortage of housing. We need to do better in this area, not worse.
Let's talk about another program--the Forest Service Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
[[Page S3275]]
This program is an all-lands approach to collaboratively encouraging
science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.
Let me put it more simply.
Often, in terms of forest health, we have a challenge. The work in
the woods can be quite expensive to improve forest health, and, often,
you have disputes between the environmental community and the timber
community on just how this should be done. A collaborative brings
together these elements--the environmental side and the timber side--
with the goal of both making the forest healthier and providing a
steady supply of sawlogs to the mill.
This is something that happened in the Fremont-Winema National
Forest, and it has given environmental and conservation groups
confidence that Fremont-Winema is on a track to having a healthier
ecosystem. At the same time, their work has helped to ensure that there
is a balance between the timber industry and environmental protection,
which means that timber is still coming and will keep coming to the
local mill, which will help to create local jobs, like at the Collins
Mill in Klamath Falls. That mill is able to continue employing more
than 80 workers because of the steady supply of logs that makes its way
from Fremont-Winema due to the eco-friendly forest management
practices.
This ``billionaires first'' and ``rural America and workers last''
budget is going to die here in the Senate because there is going to be
a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who say that
undermining the success of our families in order to provide a massive
giveaway--a raid, if you will, on the National Treasury--and a handout
to the privileged and powerful is, simply, the wrong way to go. This
is, really, Robin Hood in reverse. This is a situation in which the
working families are undermined to provide a $6 trillion raid on the
Treasury, with most being given away to our richest American families.
I do not know that there is anyone in this Chamber who is not already
aware that we have massive income inequality here in the United States
of America. I do not think there is any Senator among the 100 Senators
of the Senate who is unaware that we have a massive wealth gap in
America. It has gotten larger and larger and larger until it has become
equal to that level or near that level at which it was before the Great
Depression. That is not a way for America to thrive--to raid working
families in order to provide even more giveaways to those who have the
most.
I must say that this budget does not surprise me. It does not
surprise me that the President submitted this. The President himself is
a billionaire. The President lives in that world of billionaires, and
he was persuaded to think that helping the billionaires to have even
millions more would, somehow, be good for America.
I would like to take the President to real working America so that he
may see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural health
clinics, see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural water
systems, and see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural
housing programs. We need to get the President outside of his
billionaire bubble and seeing the impact so that, somehow, he gets a
grip on what it means to guide this country in education policy and
economic policy and so that we strengthen that ladder of opportunity
rather than destroy it.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The Senator from South Dakota.
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, everyone remembers President Obama's
famous--or perhaps infamous--promise that he would sign a healthcare
bill that would ``cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to
$2,500 per year.'' Well, as everyone knows, that didn't happen. Between
2009 and 2016, the average family with employer-sponsored health
insurance saw its premiums rise by $4,767. That is just the beginning.
Two weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services released a
report comparing the average individual market insurance premium in
2013--the year when most of ObamaCare's regulations and mandates were
implemented--with the average individual market exchange premium in
2017 in the 39 States that used healthcare.gov--so 2013 to 2017
individual market premiums. Here is what they found. Between 2013 and
2017, the average individual market monthly premium in the
healthcare.gov States increased by 105 percent. In other words, on
average, individual market premiums more than doubled in just 5 years.
In my home State of South Dakota, premiums increased by 124 percent
or $3,588 over 5 years. As I said, that is according to HHS reporting
on the premiums in the individual market exchanges over the course of
the past 5 years. So $3,588 in South Dakota is money that South Dakota
families had to take from other priorities, like saving for retirement
or investing in their children's education.
Three States saw their premiums triple over those 5 years. The
average monthly premium in Alaska went from $344 to $1,041. That is an
increase of $697 per month or more than $8,300 a year. Think about
that. Over the past 5 years, the average individual market yearly
premium has increased by $4,800 in Arizona, by $3,648 in Louisiana, by
$5,064 in North Carolina, by $4,488 in Tennessee, and by $5,292 in West
Virginia. Those kinds of premium increases are just not sustainable.
Some people, of course, received tax credits to help offset their
premium payments, but many others are left to face these massive
premium hikes by themselves. And most people do not have the money to
easily absorb a 105-percent premium increase or more in many States, as
I pointed out, over 5 years.
Of course, premium increases show no signs of slowing down. Numbers
for 2018 are emerging, and they are not looking good. Insurers on the
New York exchange are requesting double-digit rate hikes. A Connecticut
insurer requested an average rate hike of 33.8 percent. One Virginia
insurer requested an average rate increase of 38 percent. Another has
requested an average 45-percent rate hike. In Oregon, the average rate
hike requested is 17.2 percent. Companies offering plans on the
exchange here in Washington, DC, are requesting average rate hikes
ranging from 13 percent to nearly 40 percent. In Maryland, average
increases range from 18 percent to almost 59 percent. One insurer in
Maryland has requested a rate increase of up to 150 percent--150
percent for just one year.
As if the premium hikes aren't bad enough, many Americans don't have
a cheaper option to choose. In 2017, roughly one-third of U.S. counties
have just one choice of insurer on their ObamaCare exchange--one choice
in one-third of all the counties in America. So you pretty much have to
take whatever rate they are going to quote you when that is the only
option in town. Talk about a lack of competition.
Several States, including Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Wyoming,
have just one choice of insurer for the entire State. The entire
State--in those States that I just mentioned--has one choice of
insurer. Things are only getting worse.
In 2018, a number of counties may lack any ObamaCare insurer at all.
On Friday, the Omaha World-Herald announced that 100,000 Nebraskans
could end up with zero options for individual market coverage in 2018.
Iowa is facing a similar situation. In April, Wellmark Blue Cross and
Blue Shield announced that it will withdraw from the individual market
in Iowa in 2018. Days later, Aetna announced that it would pull out of
the Iowa exchange. In the wake of these announcements, Medica, the last
ObamaCare insurer for most of Iowa, announced that it will likely leave
the State in 2018. That would leave 94 of the 99 Iowa counties with no
ObamaCare insurer next year.
Republicans in the Senate are currently working on legislation to
repeal and replace ObamaCare. Why? Because, as I just pointed out,
ObamaCare is broken. This law is not working. This law has never
worked. It shows absolutely no sign that it is going to work in the
future, particularly if those premium increases are any indication.
From first to last, this law has been a disaster--high premium costs,
high deductibles, customers losing health plans, customers losing
doctors, fewer choices, failed co-ops, unraveling exchanges. I could go
on and on because the list of the failures goes on and on.
[[Page S3276]]
Given all of this, it is hard to believe the Democrats are still
defending this disastrous law. I sometimes wonder just what it will
take for my Democrat colleagues in the Senate to accept the staggering
amount of evidence that says this law has failed. Do premiums have to
triple? Do they have to quadruple? Does every American on the exchanges
have to be reduced to just one choice of insurer or be without an
insurer at all?
ObamaCare was going to reduce premiums. It didn't. People were going
to be able to keep their healthcare plans. They regularly found out
that they couldn't. Buying insurance was going to be like shopping for
a TV on Amazon--well, maybe if Amazon had only one brand of television.
The responsible thing to do when a government program has turned out
to be a disaster is to repeal it. That is what Republicans are working
to do with ObamaCare. We are working to repeal this law and replace it
with real healthcare reform. My colleagues in the House have made a
good start. We are working to build on their bill in the U.S. Senate.
Chairmen Alexander, Enzi, and Hatch have been leading the charge on
this. I am grateful to them and their staffs for all of their hard
work.
Republicans are committed to restoring the millions of Americans
trapped on the ObamaCare exchanges and lifting the burdens this law has
foisted onto taxpayers. We are committed to addressing ObamaCare's
skyrocketing premium increases. We are committed to preserving access
to care for Americans with preexisting conditions. We are committed to
making Medicaid more sustainable by giving States greater flexibility
while insuring that those who rely on this program don't have the rug
pulled out from under them. We need to make healthcare more affordable,
more personal, more flexible, and less bureaucratic.
It would be wonderful if at least some Democrats would join us in
this effort and stop prioritizing partisanship over the needs of the
American people. Republicans know that the American people are
suffering under ObamaCare, and we are committed to bringing them
relief. They are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and
that is what Republicans intend to deliver.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is fitting that today, June 6, the
anniversary of D-day in Europe and the Battle of Midway in the Pacific,
we are talking about our country's veterans in the debate that is going
on in the Senate. The brave men and women who have served our country
deserve the very best care our Nation can give them. That is why I rise
today in support of the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection
Act, which I believe will pass by a voice vote in the Senate later this
afternoon.
This bipartisan bill will help improve the quality of care our
veterans receive by reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs and
making it easier for the Secretary of the VA to fire poorly performing
employees. The legislation will allow the VA to hold its employees more
accountable. It will also create new protections for whistleblowers--
those who report wrongdoing. And it would ensure that any employee who
is terminated has an adequate opportunity to appeal their dismissal.
For years, the VA has been plagued by reports of inefficiency and
long wait times. I might say that often we find those reports are true,
but that is completely separate from the quality of medical care that
is given through the VA healthcare system. If you talk to almost any
veteran, they are very pleased with the quality of that medical care.
It is the administrative stuff getting in the way, and that is what
there has been such an outrage about.
Well, this VA bill is going to help the VA get rid of the bad actors
while protecting the good ones. I want to make it clear that the vast
majority of VA employees perform their work admirably in an often
thankless environment. These dedicated public servants work hard to
provide the day-to-day care our veterans deserve, and they should be
protected. That is why, while I believe it is important to hold poorly
performing employees accountable, I also believe that it is important
to protect the rights of the employees who may have been wrongly
terminated, especially at the lower levels, by giving them the
opportunity to appeal a supervisor's decision to fire them. This bill
we are going pass does that. It is supported by dozens of veterans
service organizations, the Office of Special Counsel, the Secretary
himself. So I urge our colleagues to join me and join so many of us in
voting in favor of the bill.
I would also say that on this very famous day, this anniversary, June
6, I have been to the beaches of Normandy, I have been to Omaha Beach.
As a matter of fact, while there, it is impossible to walk into that
cemetery on the cliff overlooking the beach--it is impossible to walk
into that beautiful, beautiful American cemetery and not become very,
very emotional, realizing what happened in 1944.
I felt so strongly about this that at one point I wanted to put on my
jogging shoes and run the 4 miles of that Omaha Beach. I wanted to
reach back into time, having been there where so many sacrificed so
much.
Then, of course, the Battle of Midway, the time which turned the
battle in the Pacific, where a young admiral showed his courage and his
superiority in planning. As a result, that battle turned around the
course of the war in the Pacific with Japan. What a day to remember,
June 6.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, we are all united in support of a
strong and effective VA that is able to provide topnotch services and
support to the veterans who have served our country nobly. None of us
can be satisfied with the current state of the Department, and I share
the frustration of constituent veterans who are unable to get the basic
care and treatment they need, from widows and families who have lost
loved ones while under the care of the VA, and from dedicated VA
employees who are frustrated with the waste and inept management that
prevent them from providing the care they believe our veterans deserve.
The revelations about the continuing problems at the District of
Columbia VA medical center should serve as a new wake-up call that
immediate attention is needed to make the VA right.
I supported the nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be VA Secretary
and gave him my full support to make changes to the organization to
address the management problems and lapses in care that plague the VA.
There is no question that the VA needs reforms that will make it more
responsive to the needs of our veterans, and more accountable when it
does not adequately serve them.
The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act attempts to
address these issues by making it easier for management to discipline
and remove VA employees. It is essential that managers have this
authority to remove employees who violate their duty to care for our
veterans. It is also important that our removal process be implemented
in a fair and impartial manner. The House bill failed to provide those
protections, and I appreciate Senator Tester's work on this issue and
his efforts to improve the bill that the House passed. I am concerned,
however, that some provisions in the bill weaken the worker protections
that are necessary to avoid arbitrary or politically motivated
disciplinary actions. Our Nation's civil service protections are
intended to allow Federal workers to do their jobs free of intimidation
or political interference. Employees can be disciplined or removed, but
only with due process that exposes the full facts of the case. Reforms
that rely on fear of arbitrary discipline or removal are not truly
reforms, but will create a toxic environment within the agency. While I
have concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, we must
provide veterans the care and support they need from the VA.
I admire the dedication and commitment of our Federal workers at the
VA, many of whom are veterans themselves. Most care deeply and go the
extra mile to serve those who have served. I know that Secretary
Shulkin
[[Page S3277]]
recognizes the enormous talent in our Federal workers, and I believe he
should strive to create a stronger team by rapidly filling the 45,000
vacant civil service positions currently at the VA and by building on
the strong sense of purpose that motivates our VA Federal workforce and
cares for our veterans.
Mr. NELSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Budget Process
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, we have 50 workdays in the Senate before
the end of this fiscal year--50 days. That does not include the 5 weeks
we will be gone during the August State work weeks. I rise tonight to
talk about what happens September 30. September is the end of the
fiscal year. That means we have to have the Federal Government funded
for fiscal year 2018, which starts October 1 of this year.
Like most years--as a matter of fact, like every year since 1980--the
Federal Government will probably not be funded by the end of this
fiscal year in the manner it was supposed to be, according to the law
that was done in 1974, the Budget Act of 1974. In the last 43 years,
the Federal Government has only been funded four times, according to
that bill. We have used 178 continuing resolutions, and therefore
ongoing omnibuses and so forth, where six people get in a room,
basically decide how we are going to spend $1 trillion.
This is the only enterprise I can find anywhere in the world that
funds its operations this way. The problem is, we have a system that is
absolutely totally broken. It is a fraud that is being perpetrated on
the American people. We have been asked, between now and September 30--
this is the way the budget process works. By the way, we should have
started this back in January, but we couldn't do it because we were
working on the fiscal year 2017 budget to do reconciliation so we could
work on healthcare.
Now we are going to, when that gets done, do a budget for 2018. We
will do a reconciliation and hopefully do a tax package behind that,
but wrapped up in all of that, here comes September 30 and 50 workdays
from today to fund the Federal Government. Between now and then, in 50
days, we are asked to do a budget for fiscal year 2018, to do full
authorizations for 16 different entities, committees, and then do
appropriations for 12 committees.
By the way, over the last 43 years, you have to fund 12
appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government. It was 13
appropriations bills up until around 2000. Since then, it has been 12,
but of those 12, the average number of appropriations bills this body
has appropriated each year is 2\1/2\.
Now, by any measure, that is unacceptable, but we are now asked,
between now and September 30, in a very truncated manner, to do the
budget, do all 16 authorizations and all 12 appropriations. Now, I am
not a betting man, but I will go to Vegas and short that idea right
now. There is no way we are going to fund this government according to
that policy--no way. It will not happen. It can't happen. It has not
happened in 43 years that way except four times.
Every single year this process breaks down. Like I said, we have used
178 continuing resolutions. What does a CR do? It ties the hands of our
military leaders, where they can't move money from one bucket to the
other to help accommodate it. So what we have right now is a process
that just has not worked. Yet, because of that, the Federal Government
has exploded in size.
In 2000, the Federal Government spent $2.4 trillion running the
Federal Government. Last year, we spent $3.9 trillion. Those are
constant 2016 dollars. Over the next 10 years, we are going to spend
$53 trillion running the Federal Government. We are going to borrow a
significant part of that--another $10 trillion.
The irony is, the debate we are having between now and September 30
is to fund the government, not on the full $4 trillion we are going to
spend next year running the Federal Government, we are going to have
this debate on only about $1.1 trillion, the discretionary side of the
budget.
If you do the math, in the last 8 years and, oh, by the way, in the
next 10 years, according to the current CBO baseline budget, we borrow
over 30 percent of what we spend as a Federal Government. Well,
discretionary spending over the next 10 years is going to be less than
that. So what that means is, over the last 8 years and over the next 10
years, every dime we have spent on discretionary spending has, by
definition, been borrowed.
There is no other way to look at it. That means that every dime we
have spent for our military, which is about $600 billion today, every
dime we spend on our VA, which is a little less than $200 billion, and
every dime we spend on all other domestic expenditures, including
healthcare, by the way, comes to $1.1 trillion. Every dime of that
today is borrowed money. That means we have to go to China and the rest
of the world to fund all of our discretionary spending.
Now, by anybody's estimate--conservative, liberal, whatever--that is
not acceptable. Here is why it is not acceptable: It cannot be
sustained over a long period of time. Yet we are sitting here with a
budget today that goes for the next 10 years that says we are going to
continue operating business as usual and add another $10 trillion to
this already burdensome debt of $20 trillion.
The debt crisis and the budget problem are interlinked. There is no
way that we can solve the debt crisis unless and until we solve the
budget process. The difficulty comes in trying to align the prospects
within the process itself of getting to a determination.
Right now, the budget process doesn't work for this very reason: The
budget itself is not a law. It is a resolution, which means the
majority party can cram down the throat of the minority its version of
a political budget. That is all it is.
Then you go to an authorization process, and, in the authorization
process today, we have over $310 billion of Federal expenditures that
are not authorized, including the State Department. Last year, we
didn't even do an authorization for our military. Even then, after
passing the appropriations bill in the Armed Services Committee 30 to
0, we could not get that bill on the floor of the Senate. We tried six
times. So it was not authorized or appropriated last year, but it got
wrapped up in an omnibus, and that same thing will more than likely
happen this year.
This can be fixed. It is not that difficult. Several of us have been
working behind the scenes, looking at other best practices around the
world--other countries, companies, and even States. We have looked at
best practices. What we found was that nobody else tries to fund their
government or their enterprise the way we try to fund the Federal
Government. This goes back to article I and article II of our
Constitution.
Article I says that funding the Federal Government is the
responsibility of Congress. Yet we have absconded with that. The 1921
act that created the Office of Management and Budget went well beyond
what I think is called for in the original Constitution. So what we are
looking at today is a legislative underreach and an executive overreach
relative to funding government, out of necessity because of the
dysfunction right here in the Senate relative to how we fund our
government. There is no question that we will not fund this government
without a continuing resolution and/or an omnibus come September 30.
The fix is not that unreasonable. All we need is a politically
neutral platform that brings all expenses into the budget process--all
$4 trillion today. That would include discretionary and mandatory and
that the budget become a law, which means that we have to get
bipartisan support for the budget.
Then, lastly, if we don't get the budget done by a certain date and
we don't fund the government by the end of the fiscal year, then,
severe consequences are borne by the people who have the responsibility
to fund the government, and that is the Senate, the House of
Representatives, and the people in the administration who are
responsible for their part of it.
It is not that complicated. Many other countries do it. Most other
countries do it. In fact, in some countries, if
[[Page S3278]]
they don't fund the government by the end of their fiscal year, their
constitutions actually say that the government gets disbanded and they
have an election. Well, that is not what I am calling for here. I don't
think we have to do anything that severe.
There are colleagues of mine right here in this body, on both sides,
who have contributed--Senators Whitehouse, Enzi, Corker, Lankford,
Tillis, Ernst, Rounds, Sullivan, Daines, and others--and who are
weighing in on this. Governors, who have executive experience running
large financial enterprises at the State level, have come into this
body and bring enormous wealth of experience about how to get this
done.
My argument is that right now, during this period of dysfunctionality
when we see firsthand the reality of not being able to take care of
domestic needs, military needs, or any other discretionary enterprises
that we want to fund because of our own budgeting intransigence, I can
find no other time better than what we have right now to raise the
question on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan
conversation. Both sides are guilty, but let's come up with a
politically neutral platform that would allow both sides, during the
budget process, to talk about tax increases, tax expenditures, spending
cuts, all the spending that we have, and all the responsibility we have
in the Federal Government or in the Congress of funding the Federal
Government. Why not?
We have one suggestion that says: Pick a time in the future. Decide
what percentage of your GDP should be covered by debt--no more than
that--and have a limit on that, and then pick a roadmap back from that
point in time to today with guardrails around that. That suggestion
comes from the other side of the aisle, and I applaud that suggestion
and I think it is very workable. I think we can find ways to make all
of this work. This should not be a partisan conversation.
I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and I sat on Foreign Relations
the last 2 years. Both of those committees are really very strong
bipartisan efforts by every Member.
That is what is needed here, and yet the Budget Committee,
ironically, is one of the most partisan committees. The reason it is so
is because of the law itself, because the budget is not a law. It is a
resolution. My contention is that this is the root of this problem. It
is one of the causative factors that cause this debt to be
uncontrollable and to cause a dysfunction in this body from even being
able to attempt to bring that under control.
The solution is not just taxing more. It is not just spending more.
It is not just growing more. The problem is much bigger than that. The
debt problem will never be solved unless and until we solve this
budgeting process.
As we close in on the next 50 days, as we check off every single day,
I want my colleagues in here to be reminded of what we are going to
have to do to fund the government come October 1. Please, let's not get
right up to September 30 with a gun to our head that says: Either do it
this way, spend this money this way, or do not fund the government
tomorrow. That is total irresponsibility, just like I believe this
budget process is a fraud perpetrated by Washington on the people of
America and it is not honest relative to what we have to face up to in
terms of our responsibilities.
We cannot afford to do all that we are doing. That is just pure fact.
The world is no longer going to be able to loan us the money that we
need over the next 10 years--another $10 trillion. There is some $200
trillion of total debt in the world. Only $60 trillion of the $200
trillion is sovereign debt, and we have one-third of that sovereign
debt today. Now, most other countries have curtailed their borrowing.
We are one of the few that continue to just race along this path of
borrowing money at this breakneck pace and adding another $10 trillion.
We could, potentially, have over half of the world's sovereign debt in
the next 10 years. That cannot happen. The world bond risk and the bond
markets will not, potentially, allow that to happen.
So today is the day. As we go through the next 50 days, I believe we
need to look for opportunities on both sides of the aisle to find a
bipartisan way to stop this nonsense and to get to where we can fund
the government in a responsible way each year, not just 1 year, and to
get away from the past 43 years of total failure in terms of funding
the Federal Government, such that when we get to September 30 of each
year, we have already approved the budget and we have the
appropriations lined up and funded for the needs that we have all
agreed here in Congress need to be met.
I can think of no other call on this body higher than this right now
because it puts us at risk of doing the very things that we need to do;
that is, to take care of our domestic needs, to take care of the people
who need the safety net, to take care of these legacy programs of
Social Security and Medicare, and yet defend our country. Because of
this debt, we are limiting the opportunities that we have, and we will
not solve that until we address this budget process.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). The Senator from Washington.
TrumpCare
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this
afternoon to talk about TrumpCare, specifically, about what families
back in my home State of Washington are saying about the harm that this
bill will do and why, despite how often Republicans say they are
struggling to find a way to jam TrumpCare through the Senate, now is
the time to keep the pressure on.
I have had to say this far too often: Right now people across the
country are scared, and they have a right to be. The policies in
TrumpCare would turn our healthcare system into a minefield of higher
costs and worse care for our families. If you are a young person who
needs mental healthcare, you could pay thousands more a year on top of
what you are already paying for insurance. If you are a senior, your
premiums could increase by as much as 850 percent. If you need
maternity care, the independent analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office shows you could pay as much as $1,000 more a month.
Under TrumpCare, 23 million people across the country would lose
coverage, and, because insurance companies would have far more power to
lower their standards and offer skimpy, snake-oil plans, we would go
back to the days when a trip to the emergency room could result in a
truly devastating financial hit.
I have just described some of the biggest impacts TrumpCare would
have. None of them help patients and families. They instead do serious
harm.
But you know who would benefit from TrumpCare? Special interests in
the healthcare industry that would get a massive tax break and, of
course, President Trump, who is desperate for a political win.
For these reasons and many more, people across our country are
rejecting TrumpCare. They don't want the dramatically higher healthcare
costs. They don't want this bill to create even more chaos in our
healthcare system than Republicans already have, and they certainly
don't think they should have to pay more, all to appease President
Trump and those at the very top.
Senate Republican leaders have said they expect their final product
will look a whole lot like the version of TrumpCare that passed in the
House. In fact, some of them said they expect to keep as much as 80
percent of the House-passed version of TrumpCare. So it is no wonder
that they are now having trouble figuring out how to cobble together
enough votes to jam this disastrous bill through the Senate. If that is
truly the case, then, I would again encourage them to drop this
reckless repeal effort, to stop creating chaos in our healthcare
system, which is driving up our premiums, and to work with Democrats on
real solutions.
We are ready, like we have always been, to find ways to bring down
families' healthcare costs while making sure they get the same quality
of care and finding ways to get families more affordable coverage.
Unfortunately, we have not heard from any Republicans who are willing
to reverse course. That is why, despite how much trouble Republicans
may be having with their disastrous policies, I am here today urging
anyone who rejects TrumpCare and what it means for our families' health
and financial security to fight as hard as they can against this bill.
Keep making those calls, keep rallying, and keep sharing your stories.
[[Page S3279]]
Since the election, I have heard from family after family in
Washington State about what the future holds for their healthcare. One
of those is a constituent of mine named Marcy Jefferson. Her husband is
a small business owner, and they purchase individual insurance.
Well, in 2014 Marcy was diagnosed with cancer. She has had to have
not one but two stem cell transplants since then, and her chemotherapy
costs are over $3,000 each month.
Before the Affordable Care Act, Marcy's health insurance had no out-
of-pocket limit. Without limits on how much insurance companies can
charge patients--a protection that TrumpCare would take away--Marcy
says she and her husband will most definitely face bankruptcy.
Marcy also says that the ACA ``literally saved my life--and we could
not afford the type of care I am receiving without it.''
There are stories like Marcy's in literally every community in our
country--in red States, in blue States, in purple States. It is
appalling that instead of working with us to make healthcare more
affordable and with higher quality and expanding coverage, instead of
listening to people like Marcy and joining us at the table, Republicans
are trying to jam through the Senate a plan that would do the
opposite--one that would threaten lives and devastate our families
financially.
So I am going to do everything I can to fight back, and I will keep
working hard against the deeply harmful TrumpCare plan that Republicans
are determined to get signed into law. Families like Marcy's are
bravely speaking up and making clear just how damaging TrumpCare would
be, and that is exactly what Democrats here in the Senate are going to
do as well.
the President's Budget
Before I close, Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to
talk about President Trump's latest budget proposal, because even after
last week's stunning move by President Trump to obstruct our fight
against climate change and seeing another confirmation the week before
that that 23 million Americans would lose their healthcare coverage
under TrumpCare, we cannot lose sight of the grand scope of President
Trump's cruel attack against working families. Nowhere has the
President's broken promises to working families been more evident than
in his recent budget proposal.
President Trump spent his campaign promising workers he would stand
with them, promising seniors he would protect their care, promising the
middle class he would make the economy work for them. Then he came to
Washington, DC, and crafted a budget that is a perfect summary of all
the way those promises are broken.
In fact, the President's budget director came up to Capitol Hill just
2 weeks ago to try to defend the budget, to try to explain how it
didn't break promises, but he couldn't do it because it can't be done.
From his promises not to cut Medicaid or Social Security to his
promise to provide ``insurance for everybody'' that was better and at
lower cost, promise after promise was not just broken but shattered.
So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to reject
President Trump's anti-worker, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-senior
agenda. Thankfully, we are seeing signs that is happening. Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents have been criticizing this budget here in
DC and across the country. One senior Republican Senator called it
``dead on arrival,'' and he is exactly right.
The families we represent want us to work together, to invest in our
workers and in our middle-class families, to protect patients, to stand
with women, to grow our economy from the middle out, and not simply
give more tax cuts to the wealthy or well connected. We were able to do
this before. Recently, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass
a spending bill that rejected President Trump's extreme agenda and
worked for families and the middle class. We were able to come together
on bipartisan budget deals that increased investments. So I am hopeful
that Republicans will stand with us on the side of the people they
represent, push aside this awful budget from the President, and work
with us to do this again. I stand ready to do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the VA
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act--bipartisan legislation
that will help ensure that our veterans receive the care they deserve.
We owe our veterans more than we can ever repay for their dedicated
service. Part of this debt is providing our veterans with timely, high-
quality healthcare.
In my home State of North Dakota, our VA medical center is located in
Fargo. It not only serves the veterans in North Dakota, but it also
serves the western half of Minnesota as well. If there is one thing
that our veterans have made very clear about the health center in
Fargo--from both North Dakota and Minnesota--our veterans have made
clear that it is an outstanding healthcare center that provides high-
quality service. Our veterans love the Fargo VA. They do a great job.
It is important to note that the vast majority of VA employees are
dedicated to serving our veterans and are working diligently to provide
services to veterans in their communities. However, as recent events
have shown, there are a number of instances where poor performance or
misconduct by a VA employee has had tragic consequences.
In cases like these, the VA needs to have the ability to address
these situations and to do it in a fair but expeditious manner. This
bipartisan legislation will provide the VA Secretary with the necessary
tools to do just that and ensure that VA employees are putting our
veterans first. Specifically, this legislation establishes in law the
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection within the VA, a
post which was created earlier this year through Executive order. It
authorizes the Secretary of VA to reprimand, suspend, demote, or remove
VA employees at any level and hasten the appeal and review process.
Additionally, it establishes protections for whistleblowers .
These reforms are important for our veterans. That is why the
legislation has garnered the support of many veterans organizations. It
has garnered the support of our North Dakota VA Commissioner, as well
as the veterans service organizations, including the American Legion,
AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, the Military Officers Association of America, and others. It
has also garnered the support of cosponsors on both sides of the aisle
in this Chamber.
Seventy-three years ago, over 160,000 brave Allied troops landed on
the beaches of Normandy. I can think of no more an appropriate day to
pass legislation that honors our commitment to our veterans and helps
ensure they receive the care they have earned.
I thank the committee chair, Senator Isakson of Georgia, and also
Senator Tester of Montana for their outstanding bipartisan leadership
on this important legislation.
I particularly also want to thank Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who
is the primary sponsor of this legislation and has been a champion for
veterans issues. I know this accountability issue is one he has spoken
about consistently, often, and passionately on behalf of our veterans.
I thank him for his leadership on this very important legislation.
At this time, I yield to the prime sponsor of this bill, Senator
Marco Rubio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for his kind
comments. This issue is one that I think matters to all 100 Members of
this Chamber and every American.
I, too, find it timely that here we are, 73 years to the day of the
incredible sacrifices that were made on that beach in Normandy and that
we have the opportunity to honor the men and women who have served for
us, then and since then, particularly those who are now in need of
services, with the passage of what is truly landmark legislation, and I
will talk about that in a moment. It is the hope of all of us who are
supporting this that it will help bring accountability for generations
of those who have served and will serve to protect our great Nation.
[[Page S3280]]
We live in a time of an outrage culture, where in order to make the
news every evening, you have to be involved in some controversy or say
something over the top. That is just the way things are these days. So
when something positive happens, it doesn't get a lot of coverage. It
is my sense that while we are not doing this for purposes of getting
coverage, many Americans tonight, as they watch the news or go on the
internet, will have no idea that the Senate took this up. I think that
is unfortunate because in addition to the importance of this piece of
legislation, it is a testament that despite all of the important
issues, noise, and arguments we hear every day on television, that our
Republic still works and that men and women of good faith can come
together across political ideology and partisan lines on an issue that
wasn't easy to work with for a couple of years.
I hope there is an opportunity to point to this and say that on
something that was important--this is not a symbolic resolution; this
is a change in the laws of our country that will bring accountability
to one of the most important functions that our government provides to
the men and women who serve in uniform, and that is the Veterans'
Administration. That is why I preference my comments on all this and
the fact that this is not getting a lot of attention because this is
not controversial. If there were a big fight on the floor about this
and people were bickering or arguing, it would get more coverage, but
the fact that we were able to come together across party lines on this
issue and get it done should not be a reason not to recognize its
importance. That is not why we are doing it. We are doing it to make a
change.
I think it is important to preface my remarks by saying that it has
been an honor and a pleasure to work with Chairman Isakson and with the
ranking member, Senator Tester, and all the members of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee on what is now truly bipartisan legislation
that is before the Senate. I remain grateful to the committee for their
efforts to help bring needed accountability reforms to the Department.
This is an issue, as I said, that we have been working on for several
years, and I am pleased that we are now on a path to enact real change.
This spring marks 3 years since light was shed on the veterans who
died while they were stuck on secret waiting lists at the Department of
Veterans Affairs. After it was revealed that the Phoenix, AZ, VA
facility had widespread mismanagement and misconduct by employees,
Congress came together and acted promptly. In the wake of that
deplorable situation, this Chamber responded in a bipartisan way by
passing the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.
While many of those reforms have begun to make a difference, we knew
even then that it would not be enough. As reflected in the legislation
that is now before us, in this law we are seeking to address those
shortcomings and doing so in deference to what the courts have decided
is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
As virtually every Member of this Chamber--if not everyone--has done,
over the years I have met with veterans throughout my home State of
Florida, and I have found that many share a common frustration and
disappointment and often express resignation that meaningful
accountability has yet to come or occur at the VA. It is my hope that
will begin to change with this vote today. These men and women, our
veterans, have sacrificed much for our country, and it is our duty to
take care of them when they come home after taking care of us. Sadly,
for many, this solemn obligation and promise has not been kept.
Plain and simple, ineffective governance is unfair to our veterans
and to the American taxpayer. The VA must be properly managed so that
it can provide timely, quality care to veterans and be held accountable
to all Americans.
Let me follow up what I just said by making it abundantly clear that
the overwhelming majority of the people who work at the VA are good,
hard-working employees who serve our veterans well. Many of them are
veterans themselves. This is not a punitive measure, nor is it meant to
degrade the work they are doing under very difficult circumstances. But
it has become clear that under the current law, the VA often is
unwilling or unable to hold individuals appropriately accountable for
their actions and/or misdeeds--usually not because they don't want to
but because under the law they just can't. Even in instances in which
disciplinary action against an employee was attempted, the complexity
and the lengthiness of the process prevented meaningful consequences.
The unfortunate reality is that those few but significant number of
negligent employees often went unpunished. To shield such employees
from the consequences brings down the entire Department, demoralizes
the workforce, and undermines the core mission of the VA. That comes
not from political talking points but from many of the men and women
who themselves work at the VA.
We cannot and must not allow bureaucratic redtape to get in the way.
Our VA is staffed by those who belong there and are willing to perform
the important tasks of serving our heroes.
It is our hope and my belief that this law will change the VA, and it
will change it for the better. Simply put, the law gives the VA
Secretary the authority to reprimand, to suspend, to demote, or to
remove any employee if their behavior or their performance warrants
such an action.
Importantly, these reforms establish a period of adequate notice,
response, and final decision on a disciplinary action initiated by the
Secretary and is under an enforceable and capped timeframe. So while
the employee is getting due notice and the opportunity to defend
themselves, it doesn't drag on forever.
It also provides a new avenue for whistleblowers so they can come
forward without fear of retaliation through the establishment of an
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection. This is critical
because, as we have seen, in order to uncover many of these abuses at
the Department, we oftentimes need to rely on information directly from
those who have seen it happen and are involved.
In summary, this bill will protect our veterans while also serving as
a means to protect the countless well-performing, dedicated VA
employees and whistleblowers in the Department who are frustrated that
just a handful of bad apples are standing in the way of providing the
service they signed up to provide. This bill will also ensure that VA
employees' due process rights are respected and not infringed upon.
This is not an anti-VA employee law; it is designed to reward those who
work hard and perform and to identify and remove those who do not.
I am proud to say this bill would not have been possible without the
support of our current VA Secretary. We worked closely with him and his
office to ensure that the provisions would provide the tools they need
now and for future Secretaries so they can carry out their important
mission.
In addition to the Secretary, the bill has been endorsed by the
Office of Special Counsel, Project On Government Oversight, and several
veteran service organizations, including the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Concerned
Veterans for America, the Reserve Officers Association, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, American Veterans, and the Military
Officers Association of America. These organizations serve our veterans
admirably, have valuable knowledge of veterans' needs, and they agree
that this legislation provides overdue reforms to the VA's current
broken civil service system. We are all grateful for their help, for
their support, and for helping and informing us in tweaking this law so
that it actually solves problems.
There are two more points that I want to make.
I am proud that we were able to come together as a unified body--
Republicans and Democrats--to show the Nation that the Republic can
still work and that we can work together to solve problems. Hopefully,
that spirit will carry over into other issues that confront our Nation.
With today's vote, I think we move one step closer to achieving the
worthy goal of bringing accountability and, as a result, an improvement
in the VA. I thank my colleagues for joining this fight to better serve
our Nation's veterans.
[[Page S3281]]
I close by thanking the people who worked day in and day out on this,
including the staffs for Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Tester.
Adam Reece and Jorge Rueda worked tirelessly on the bill. I thank Hazen
Marshall and Tom Hawkins with Senator McConnell's office. I thank our
cloakroom staff--Laura Dove, Chris Tuck, and Tony Hanagan--for their
work in getting this bill here today.
On my own personal staff, I thank J.R. Sanchez, who has worked on
this personally for 2\1/2\ to 3 years. I don't know what he is going to
do with his time now because he has spent so much time and passion on
this, and he knows many of these veterans personally.
This is a good day, and I look forward to eventually getting this
bill over to the President's office so that accountability and
improvement in performance can finally come to the VA and so that the
men and women who have taken care of us will finally be taken care of
the way they deserve.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rubio, who has been a
steadfast leader on this issue for years.
People have heard the term ``years'' mentioned. It is plural. We have
worked on this thing for a long time. It started coming together last
year, but it fell apart at the last minute. Thanks to the Senator's
work and the work of the committee and the staffs on both committees
and the leadership on the Democratic side--Mr. Tester's and mine--we
found a way to do what, as I said in my opening remarks earlier--3
hours ago--is an act of Divine Providence. None of us really ever
planned that this bill would come to the floor on the 73rd anniversary
of the invasion of Normandy.
It was a great day in American history and world history when the
evil German empire--Adolf Hitler--was destroyed by the Allied Forces
and the United States of America. It is only appropriate that on the
anniversary of that date 73 years later, we say to those who have worn
the uniform and who wear the uniform, who represent us every day and
fight for us and ask nothing in return: We will see to it that you get
what you were promised in terms of healthcare and benefits, and we will
be sure you have a mechanism to hold it accountable in order to give
you the type of service as a veteran that you gave to us when you
fought for our country.
I will repeat what has been said by the others in thanking the staff
members who have worked so hard. This has not been an easy battle. It
has appeared easy because nobody has been down here, arguing. All of
the arguments are over. The veterans won. Doing the right thing won. It
all would not have happened had it not been for a lot of hard-working
staff.
I thank Jon Tester and his staff, on the Democratic side, for all of
their work on this. I want to particularly thank the Republican
staffers who worked countless, tireless hours in order to make this
take place: Staff Director Tom Bowman, Amanda Meredith, Adam Reece,
Gretchan Blum, Kristen Hines, Maureen O'Neill, Leslie Campbell, David
Shearman, Jillian Workman, Thomas Coleman, John Ashley, Mitchell
Sylvest, and Heather Vachon.
We could not have done what we did nor would we have been here today
without their help. Yet, as has always been true, we would not as a
country have been here today nor would we have ever existed had it not
been for the brave men and women who bore the battle--who fought the
battle--who defended our country and made sure we had the opportunity
to become what is now acknowledged around the world--the greatest
government on the face of this Earth.
On this day, the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy on D-day, we
are guaranteeing our veterans the type of service that they fought for
and deserve. God bless America, and God bless the veterans who proudly
serve America day in and day out in every uniform around the world.
In the absence of another speaker, I yield back the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (S. 1094), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
____________________