[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 173 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6834-S6836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Veterans Choice Program
Today, Mr. President, I rise to express my serious concerns on behalf
of our Nation's veterans. This is a huge problem in Wyoming. Wyoming is
the least populated State in the Nation. If it is a huge problem there,
it has to be even greater in States across the country, and I am sure
it is a problem in all of them.
In 2014, we learned that several veterans died in Arizona--a lot of
veterans died in Arizona while staff at the Phoenix VA medical center
entered false information about their wait times and appointments. They
kept getting delayed. Later that year, we found that such scheduling
manipulation was widespread, including in my home State of Wyoming.
Congress responded by creating the Veterans Choice Program to help
veterans get care in their communities and to get it promptly.
Unfortunately, Wyoming veterans are continuing to experience delays
and limited access to care. I have heard from many Wyoming veterans who
have been unable to receive the care they need and many providers who
have been unable to get reimbursed for medical services. Some doctors
and facilities have ended their participation in VA Choice because it
is taking too long to get reimbursed or they are unable to get
reimbursed at all and they are having to do a tremendous amount of
paperwork in order to even get to that final reimbursement. Sometimes
when they finally get payment, the check is made out to the wrong
provider. Time and again, I hear reports of how difficult it is to get
simple answers, let alone care or provider reimbursement, from the VA
and the contractor administering the program in Wyoming.
The consequences of this poorly run program are ultimately borne by
the veterans. In a frontier State like Wyoming, losing access to one
specialist can mean losing access to the only specialist in the area.
Sadly, Wyoming veterans continue to tell me about these problems
because the situation isn't getting any better--that is in spite of my
having the Secretary in my office and then having him bring his staff
in, who had provided the terrible statistics that they were working
from.
One such veteran was waiting for a surgery followup and cancer
screening and can't go to the same doctor now because VA Choice never
paid them. Another veteran was not able to access vision care. Another
could not access necessary neurological care because of reimbursement
issues. I have even been contacted by veterans who are worried that
they will go into collections because of claims that have not been paid
by the Choice Program--not by them but by the Choice Program.
Without improvements to the program, our veterans will have to
continue to wait for needed care, and their quality of life will
continue to be negatively impacted.
I mentioned before that we are the least populated State in the
country, and we have so many problems that I send a weekly list to the
Secretary. I can't imagine what it is like in a high-population State.
We created VA Choice to better serve the healthcare needs of
veterans, not to create a new source of uncertainty about whether they
will be able to get the care they need. That is unacceptable. It
defeats the entire purpose of the program. Until Congress steps in to
improve the program, more providers will drop out of the program and
more veterans will be harmed. These men and women have given our
country so much, and they deserve quality care in an efficient manner.
Their providers need to be paid on time so our veterans can get the
treatment they need. When
[[Page S6835]]
the system fails those who never failed us, trust degrades. We can do
better than this. We must do better than this.
I know my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs are
working hard to solve these issues. I am working with them to make sure
that any new version of community care for our veterans takes into
account the unique challenges that rural and frontier healthcare
networks face. We hold the highest debt to our veterans. Let's repay
that honor and honor their selfless service by providing them with the
care they deserve.
The veterans program was considered to be one of the best-run
healthcare programs anywhere, and I heard nothing but compliments about
it until the problem in Arizona, and then we found that the system had
changed. That might be an indication of what could happen if we went to
Federal healthcare for all, but this is one area that needs to be
straightened out. It was a prime example of good care, and it isn't. We
have to get it restored for our veterans.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a very significant couple of votes
coming up. One is the nomination of Scott Palk to be a district judge
for the Western District of Oklahoma. We have been working on this for
about 2 years now. He is one of the highest qualified individuals.
I thank the leader for moving forward on his nomination this week. I
know judicial nominations are a priority of the leader's, and I share
his belief in the importance of filling the many vacancies we have with
judges who will uphold the rule of law, not predetermine outcomes and
not legislate from the bench. Scott Palk fulfills and embodies this
philosophy, and I have full confidence that he will be a judge whom
Oklahoma and the Nation will be proud of.
This nomination is of great need to the Western District, located in
Oklahoma City, which has a very heavy caseload. In fact, we have three
vacancies on the bench there. One vacancy goes back over 4 years and
another over 3 years, so this nomination is desperately needed.
Mr. Palk was nominated in the last Congress--so it was not this
Congress--during the previous administration. He made it through the
Judiciary Committee by voice vote before we ran out of time at the end
of the 114th Congress. We would have had this done, but we just flat
ran out of time. He had bipartisan support in the last Congress and has
in this Congress, with there having been a 17-to-3 vote in the
Judiciary Committee. It is not very often that happens.
He also has bipartisan support back home in Oklahoma. He comes highly
recommended by David Boren. Everyone here knows who David Boren is. The
Presiding Officer remembers David Boren. He was my predecessor in this
seat. He was the president of the University of Oklahoma but is retired
now. He is a Democrat. Actually, he and I were elected to the House of
Representatives in Oklahoma on the same day, so we go back a long way.
David Boren knows Mr. Palk very well because Scott Palk has worked at
the University of Oklahoma College of Law for about 15 years now after
his having left a successful career in both the U.S. attorney's office
and as a county district attorney.
David Boren said of Palk--now, this is a Democrat talking about Scott
Palk--``He would make an excellent judge,'' would be ``balanced and
fair in his approach,'' and has ``an excellent reputation for complete
honesty and integrity.'' I don't know what more you could want in a
judge.
That is David Boren talking, my predecessor in the Senate.
Again, I thank the leader for his commitment to fulfilling our
judicial vacancies, and I ask that my colleagues support the
nomination, as I am sure they will, with a ``yes'' vote for Mr. Palk.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a gentleman
named Scott Palk, who was nominated by President Trump to serve as a
U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Oklahoma on May
8.
On June 15 of this year, he passed the Judiciary Committee with
bipartisan support. It has taken us this long, from June 15, going
through the committee process, to finally getting this to the floor in
the last days of October.
This is the issue we face as a Senate right now. We have an opening
with a judge who has already gone through the committee process, who
has already been approved--who will be confirmed, I hope, with wide
bipartisan support--but because of the ongoing delay of every nominee,
of everything in the process, this is slowing down the wheels of our
government across the country. Whether that be judges or whether that
be individuals in the executive branch working in the agencies, we are
seeing a constant slowing. We have to be able to correct this.
I would state that Americans will be very pleased when they get a
chance to see Scott Palk on the bench. He will be a fair judge. He
comes from a great family and has a great passion to serve people, both
as he served in the U.S. attorney's office in the past and at the
University of Oklahoma, working at the law school there. He will make
the Nation proud. I am glad we have finally gone through this extremely
long process to finally get him on and to get him seated on that bench.
In the days ahead, I look forward to the other positions in
government being filled as well with other well-qualified individuals.
I look forward to seeing this done. I look forward to seeing Scott Palk
not as Scott Palk but as Judge Palk.
With that, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Palk
nomination?
Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 16, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 251 Ex.]
YEAS--79
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Wicker
Young
[[Page S6836]]
NAYS--16
Blumenthal
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hirono
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Sanders
Schatz
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Booker
Graham
Heinrich
Menendez
Whitehouse
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________