[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2806-S2811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            VA MISSION BILL

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a vote we will take in the 
Senate sometime later today, after 12 o'clock. It will be a cloture 
vote on the VA MISSION Act. After we adopt cloture, later this week, 
hopefully, it will lead us to the final vote to adopt the VA MISSION 
Act, which will be the final mosaic in the picture that was put 
together by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, and the administration and both the House and the 
Senate to address the VA benefits program for all of our veterans. We 
all know we have had the challenge to do better, and I submit that this 
is us doing our very best for those who have given everything for us.
  Next week, on Monday, we will celebrate Memorial Day, where we honor 
those who have sacrificed their lives so that we can all be here 
today--you, Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer of this body and I 
as a representative of the people of Georgia. If it weren't for our 
veterans, we might be speaking Japanese or German today. We are 
speaking English today because we won those wars because our best and 
brightest volunteered their lives and sacrificed so that Americans can 
survive and be here. There is nothing less that we need to ask of 
ourselves than to see to it that they have the healthcare benefits we 
have promised them for so long.
  The VA MISSION Act is an act that puts together and answers all of 
those questions that have been long on the front page of the newspapers 
for the last 2 or 3 years.
  I thank John McCain. John McCain was really the inspiration for the 
Veterans Choice bill, which we started 4 years ago when I was on the 
committee. We finally passed a part of that program, and it has been in 
operation until now, but it has had a need for reform, a need to be 
fixed, and a need to be funded. With the passage of this legislation, 
we will do all of those things and make it even better.
  I thank Jon Tester, the Senator from Montana, my ranking member on 
the committee, who has done everything one could ask. He was a team 
player who saw to it that we got through all of the minefields and 
sticky wickets you have to go through in the legislative process to get 
there. Senator Tester has been an invaluable partner in putting 
together the VA MISSION Act and in making the VA a better organization.
  I thank my staff, his staff, and my members of the committee from the 
Republican Party and his members from the Democratic Party. This is as 
close to a unanimous effort as any effort we have done in the committee 
for some time. I thank them for their hard work and their effort.
  I thank in advance the Members of the House and Senate for being with 
us on this venture today. I ask for your vote for cloture, and later in 
the week, I will ask for your vote for final passage.
  Briefly, let me tell you what we are doing because what we are doing 
is critical.
  One, we are making choice better for our veterans by repealing the 
40-mile rule and the 30-day rule, which we passed 4 years ago. People 
will remember that veterans were waiting in some cases years to get 
their appointments with the VA, so we passed a rule that said: You can 
go to the private sector if you can't get an appointment within 30 days 
or if you live more than 40 miles away from the VA center that provided 
that service. But it became cumbersome and difficult. We had a number 
of problems with the third-party contractors we dealt with who were 
making the clearances and opening the gates for the veterans to go. 
Although we improved service and access for our veterans, we didn't 
make it everything it should be.
  The MISSION Act does that because it makes the choice the veteran's 
choice in concert with the veteran's primary care doctor at the VA. If 
a veteran, because of quality, timeliness, distance, urgency, or need, 
needs to go to the private sector or wants to exercise that choice 
rather than go to a VA doctor, if there is one--or if there isn't one, 
go to the private sector because that is the only choice they have--
they will be able to do so in concert with their VA primary care 
doctor.
  So Choice is truly the veteran's choice. The VA continues to have the 
responsibility of keeping up with the veteran. The veteran has the 
choice he or she needs to make to see to it that they get timely, 
professional, and quality care. That is a huge step forward for us. 
That is a great step forward. Although the 30-day rule and the 40-mile 
rule were great starts, this is a great improvement for access for our 
veterans.
  I am a Vietnam-era veteran. Vietnam-era veterans are now mostly in 
their late sixties or early to midseventies. They served our country a 
long time ago. The signature injuries of the Vietnam war were some of 
the most tragic in warfare that were survived for the first time ever 
because of our healthcare. There are a lot of those veterans living 
today who can't take care of the basic functions of life. They need 
assistance with eating, making their bed, getting up and down stairs, 
getting anywhere they need to go.
  We have veteran programs for caregivers for almost every veteran 
around but not for the Vietnam-era veterans. This bill, the MISSION 
Act, applies the VA caregiver benefits to all veterans. So if a veteran 
needs that assistance,

[[Page S2807]]

that same incentive to help with the stipend for that service is 
available to that veteran. That is a giant step forward for all of us.
  It is also very important to recognize that we consolidate the VA's 
seven community care funding sources into one single community care 
source. For the first time in 3 years, the VA will no longer announce 
every 3 months that they are running out of money. A lot of times, they 
use that little trick on us because they run out of money in one 
department, but there are six others that are loaded. So we merged them 
all together to see to it that all the funds are available and 
accessible all of the time for the veterans who have the need for the 
benefit--no more crying fire in a crowded theater, no more scaring us 
all by saying that we are not funding our veterans, but instead seeing 
to it that our veterans have access when it is timely and when they 
need it. That is a very important change, and that is a move forward we 
have needed to make for a long time.
  It makes sense for us to make sure that our veterans have their 
choice based on quality, access, and timeliness. It makes sense that we 
make that a key part of the veterans' benefits to all veterans. It 
makes sense that we see to it that caregiver benefits are available to 
Vietnam-era veterans, as well as many others. It makes sense that we do 
all of the other things we have done in all of the VA acts to come 
together to totally reform the Veterans' Administration for our 
veterans who have served us. How many people is that? There are 22\1/2\ 
million people in America today who have served us at one time or 
another. There are 6\1/2\ million people who are served by the VA 
health services. That is a lot of people, but it is a small handful of 
people compared to the 350 million people in our country. Think about 
this: Less than 1 percent of our population served and defended us all 
and risked their lives.
  So when you go to vote on this bill today, think about the veteran in 
your State, the VA service in your State, and the people in your State. 
Think about what you remember about World Wars I and II, what you 
remember about Vietnam, and what you remember about Iraqi Freedom in 
Afghanistan. Think about what you think you owe to those who signed on 
the bottom line. They weren't constricted. They weren't mandated. They 
volunteered. They went, they fought, and they died.
  I want to leave you with a thought on two of those veterans because 
they are the two faces I see every day as the chairman of this 
committee I am working for.
  One of them is Noah Harris. Noah was a cheerleader at the University 
of Georgia on 9/11/2001 when he watched, as you and I did, al-Qaida and 
the evils of that era take down the Twin Towers, and we had the first 
battle of the ultimate war between good and evil.
  We fought that battle. We are still winning it. We are still fighting 
it, and we will fight it for a long time. We have lost over 6,000 
lives, individuals who sacrificed their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan or 
other places in the Middle East, and there will be others to come. They 
sacrificed so you and I can do what we are doing here today--the First 
Amendment protections of speaking our minds, as I am doing; the right 
to assemble, as our constituents do; and the right to defend ourselves 
and be safe. All those God-given rights we have were written on paper, 
but they were given life and protection for all of us by the veterans 
who volunteered and fought and died.
  I remember Noah Harris because he was a cheerleader one day at the 
University of Georgia, and on 9/12/2001--the day after 9/11--he went 
down to the armory, signed up for OCS, went into the Army, and became 
an officer. Two years later, almost to the day, he died in Baghdad, the 
victim of an IED. He died defending the country he loved so much. He 
cheered for the football team, but he fought and sacrificed his life 
for the country.
  I want Lucy and Rick--his mom and dad, in Ellijay, GA--to know that I 
haven't forgotten Noah and what he did for us. I sign most of my notes 
the same way Noah signed his note to me: ``IDWIC, Noah Harris.'' 
``IDWIC'' stands for ``I do what I can.'' I want to have a chance to do 
what I can today. I want to vote for this bill for all the right 
reasons but principally for Noah Harris.
  The other one is a veteran whose name is Roy C. Irwin. Roy died in 
the Battle of the Bulge in the Netherlands in 1944. When I went to the 
cemetery in Margraten, Netherlands, to visit the grave sites there and 
to check on the American battle monument, I walked with my wife down 
the rows of crosses and Stars of David just to pause for a second and 
give thanks for what the over 800 soldiers there in that cemetery did 
in the Battle of the Bulge to make our lives possible and to make it 
possible for me to enjoy the benefits I have enjoyed. We got to the end 
of row 23. I looked down, and there was a cross. It said: ``Roy C. 
Irwin, New Jersey, private, December 28, 1944, KIA''--killed in action. 
I froze at that because I was born on December 28, 1944. The day Roy C. 
Irwin from New Jersey died in the Battle of the Bulge, my mother 
delivered me in Piedmont Hospital. I am almost 74 years old. I have had 
74 wonderful years, including the opportunity to serve in the U.S. 
Senate, because a guy I never knew, when he was 18 years old, 
volunteered to go fight in the Battle of the Bulge in the Army for the 
United States of America. He paid the ultimate sacrifice, and because 
he did, I got the ultimate benefit.
  When you think about your vote on this bill today, you think about 
all of those veterans who did the same for you, who have the same 
birthday or the same killed-in-action date as your birthday, and 
recognize that every one of us stands on the shoulders of our veterans. 
We live, work, and pray on the shoulders of our veterans. I, for one, 
am going to vote for our veterans when we pass this bill so that the VA 
MISSION Act becomes the final mosaic in the beautiful patchwork of 
benefits for those who have sacrificed the most for all of us.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I very much thank Chairman Isakson for his 
work on this bill. As a veteran, as the spouse of a veteran, as the 
mother of a young lady who will enter into the service this summer, and 
as the grandmother to a young man who will begin his enlistment this 
fall, I thank him for the work he has done. I appreciate your service 
as well. Thank you so much.

  Mr. President, ``We can and we must do better for our veterans.''
  I spoke those words during my first speech given here on the Senate 
floor just over 3 years ago. I also spoke about the need to fulfill the 
promises made to our veterans who have sacrificed everything for our 
country. At that time, the average wait for a mental health appointment 
at the VA was 36 days. There were, on average, 22 veteran suicides 
every single day in the United States. It underscored the troubles 
within the VA and the urgency to act immediately to help our veterans 
get the quality and the timely care that they have earned and that they 
deserve.
  That is why I introduced on that very day my first bill, the 
Prioritizing Veterans' Access to Mental Healthcare Act. My bill would 
have eliminated the distance and the wait time requirements for 
veterans seeking mental healthcare under the current Choice Program. 
Every veteran should have the choice to receive care in the community, 
but they should not be burdened by bureaucratic redtape or strict 
guidelines that serve as roadblocks to receiving this type of care.
  To illustrate how burdensome and sometimes ridiculous these 
guidelines are, I want to share a letter I received from a veteran in 
Ames, IA. The veteran wrote:

       I am a disabled veteran who currently receives healthcare 
     at the De Moines VA Hospital. I live 39.7 miles from the De 
     Moines VA Hospital, which means I do not meet the 40-mile VA 
     Choice criteria. While I have not had a bad experience at the 
     De Moines VA, it is burdensome to travel approximately 40 
     miles when I have had surgeries that require a family member 
     to transport me. I am unable to utilize a nonVA facility in 
     my own backyard.

  The frustration evident in this veteran's letter has been present in 
hundreds of letters and stories, and I have received many of those over 
the years.
  I am frustrated too. Those who are willing to lay down their lives 
for our country shouldn't have to jump through hoops to receive the 
care they have earned.
  I am thrilled that this week the Senate has the opportunity to do 
better for

[[Page S2808]]

our veterans. Just last week, the House passed the VA MISSION Act, 
which improves how veterans access community care. Under the VA MISSION 
Act, the VA remains the coordinator of a veteran's care. The VA would 
still be in charge of scheduling those appointments, ensuring that a 
veteran is going to followup visits, as well as ensuring that no 
veteran experiences a delay or a gap in their care.
  The VA MISSION Act also makes significant improvements to accessing 
community care. A veteran will no longer be bound by strict distance 
and wait time requirements, just as I expressed from that veteran who 
lives in Ames, IA. Instead, that decision rests with the veteran and 
their provider. If a veteran and their provider determine that it is in 
the veteran's best medical interest, the VA will be required to offer 
access to community care. The VA MISSION Act ensures that veterans have 
a say and a choice in their care.
  This legislation also includes my bipartisan Veterans E-Health and 
Telemedicine Support Act, also known as the VETS Act, which I 
introduced with Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. VA providers will now 
be able to practice across State lines, expanding telehealth services, 
which can include critical mental healthcare and care desperately 
needed to veterans in rural and underserved areas.
  The VETS act will also expand VA caregiver benefits to pre-9/11 
veterans, create a commission to evaluate how to modernize VA 
facilities, increase resources to hire more providers, which is very 
important, and ensure prompt payment to community providers.
  I am also pleased to report that this bill has bipartisan support and 
the support of over 30 veteran service organizations.
  Funding for the Choice Program is expected to run out at the end of 
May--in a matter of weeks. The men and women who have put their lives 
on the line for the freedom of every American deserve better than the 
status quo. Again, I say that we can and we must do better for our 
veterans.
  The VA MISSION Act is a positive step forward toward getting veterans 
the care they need. That is why I will be voting in support of it. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same and cast their vote in favor of the 
VA MISSION Act.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator Leahy, Senator Isakson, and Senator Tester.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. We rise today to speak about the VA MISSION Act, 
bipartisan legislation that would make much needed reforms to the VA 
Choice and VA Community Care programs. Among these reforms, the 
existing VA Choice program, funded as a mandatory program, will merge 
with a streamlined Medical Community Care program, funded with 
discretionary dollars. I commend my colleagues for a job well done.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, however, I want to 
express my concern that this legislation authorizes significant 
discretionary spending for the VA without providing any way to pay for 
it under the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act, BCA. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill will cost $49 billion 
over the next 5 years--roughly $10 billion per year. Without relief 
from the caps plus an anticipated return to sequestration levels in 
2020, this $49 billion could come at the expense of existing programs, 
including those at the VA.
  I am also concerned that the underlying bill only provides funding 
for the VA Choice program through May of 2019, with no funding plan for 
the new program which is expected to come online in fiscal year 2019. 
These problems are not insurmountable. They do, however, require 
funding above and beyond what was contemplated in both the caps deal 
and the BCA. Fortunately, there is existing law and ample precedent for 
adjusting spending caps to reflect changes resulting from a shift in 
mandatory spending to discretionary spending.
  I want to ask Senator Isakson and Senator Tester if it is also their 
understanding that this funding deficiency could imperil other VA 
funding and, if so, whether they will commit to assisting Senator Leahy 
and me in enacting a solution when the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill comes to the floor that will 
provide adequate resources for the programs authorized in this bill 
without doing harm to existing programs?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, I want to associate myself with Chairman Shelby's remarks. 
Since the inception of the Choice Program in 2014, it has been riddled 
with delays, programmatic problems, and fiscal instability. In many 
areas of the country, the networks that were established left providers 
unhappy about the speed of reimbursement and veterans often trying to 
navigate a cumbersome system. Congress has had to provide $4.2 billion 
within the last year alone, just to keep the program afloat. That is 
why I am pleased that Senators Isakson and Tester worked in a 
bipartisan way to try and fix Choice by establishing a streamlined and 
consolidated program that will make non-VA care more efficient. 
However, to truly address these problems and provide the care that our 
veterans deserve, we need to not only fix the policy, but we must also 
provide the funding to enact that policy. This bill does not do that.
  The MISSION Act appropriates $5.2 billion in mandatory spending, $1.3 
billion of which will merely fill the fiscal year 18 shortfall in the 
current Choice program. The remaining balance of $3.9 billion will 
provide enough funding for Choice through May 2019, but leaves the 
program short between $1 and $1.5 billion for the rest of the fiscal 
year when the new program shifts to the discretionary side. According 
to CBO the cost only goes up in the out-years, with the major 
components of the new Community Care program costing another $8.67 
billion in fiscal year 20 and more than $9.5 billion in fiscal year 21. 
This is unsustainable under the BCA non-defense discretionary caps, 
which are set in law and were negotiated prior to the passage of this 
bill and without accounting for these costs. We do our veterans no 
favors by promising care without backing it up with resources.
  I will not stand in the way of the new policy created in this bill, 
as I do believe it creates a better Community Care program, but 
Chairman Shelby and I have a proposal that will help us fulfill our 
promise to our veterans by allowing for an adjustment to the caps to 
help us pay for this program. We intend to address this issue when the 
Senate MilCon/VA appropriations bill comes to the floor by offering an 
amendment that keeps the promises we are making today, and I would like 
to ask both Senator Isakson and Senator Tester for their full support 
with this effort.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Shelby and 
Senator Leahy for their leadership on this issue and for their strong 
support of the VA MISSION Act. I understand their concerns regarding 
funding, and agree that the important reforms included in this bill 
require resources. I am committed to working with you to find an 
appropriate solution as the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
bill moves to the Senate floor. Our veterans deserve no less.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs I continue to fight hard on behalf of new policies 
that will allow VA to better serve our Nation's veterans. As a former 
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and VA, I am also very mindful of the need to secure the 
resources necessary for VA to properly carry out those policies.
  The Choice program has been a disaster in Montana, and I am proud 
that the VA MISSION Act streamlines VA community care in a manner that 
makes more sense for veterans and their doctors and for community 
providers, but as we provide the tools and authorities necessary for 
veterans to get the care they need, I agree that we also need to secure 
the resources necessary to achieve the goals of this legislation 
without short-changing other domestic priorities. I am therefore 
strongly supportive of including language in an upcoming appropriations 
bill that provides veterans with the certainty they deserve, and I 
remain committed to working with the chairman and vice chairman on this 
effort.

[[Page S2809]]

  

  Mrs. ERNST. 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. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
is a small agency with a major mission. Its goal is to protect the 
public from the threats of injury or death associated with defective 
and dangerous products. That mission is more important today than ever 
before because consumers face dangers from fire, electrical, chemical, 
or mechanical hazards--not only consumers but their children and 
families.
  The agency is already resource-starved. It is already depleted in 
terms of the support that it needs in Congress, and already it needs 
zealous and relentless advocacy.
  The individuals who are members of that board should be dedicated to 
that mission and to the safety and well-being of consumers above all. 
That is their mission.
  So, today, when we consider the nomination of Dana Baiocco, we should 
keep in mind that no matter how able and skilled and experienced a 
litigator she is, the question is whether she will devote those skills, 
ability, and experience to the mission of this agency.
  Unfortunately, every sign that she has given indicates that her goal 
will be contrary to the agency's mission. I say that, first of all, 
because of her experience. She has participated in cases that are of 
extraordinary concern to Americans.
  In 2007 she represented Mattel as a member of their litigation team 
when lead was discovered in the paint of 83 different Mattel toy 
products; I think nearly 1 million toys. In 2007, when she represented 
Mattel, I was the attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I 
remember that well because it was known as the Year of the Recall 
because of the frequency and the number of recalls involving unsafe 
products. In 2007, there were more than four recalls, on average, each 
week, and more than half of them were for children's products. It was a 
time when our Nation was facing this crisis in dangerous toys. Mattel 
ultimately was fined $2.3 million for violating the Consumer Product 
Safety Act and knowingly selling children's toys with contaminated 
paint or surface coatings.
  This decision was an important win for consumers and children. The 
Consumer Product Safety Commission did its job. Ms. Baiocco was on the 
wrong side of consumer safety in that case.
  Similarly, in representing the Yamaha Motor Company, a manufacturer 
of off-road vehicles, she was on the wrong side, standing with the 
industry that violated basic safety standards, causing multiple 
injuries and lawsuits when consumers were seriously maimed, injured, 
and harmed in operating Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicles. Those injuries 
occurred while the CPSC was conducting a campaign on ATV safety. Ms. 
Baiocco's defense of Yamaha put her on the wrong side of that issue at 
a time when there were more than 330 ATV-related fatalities and 101,000 
ATV-related emergency department-treated injuries in the United States.
  Another area that I know well where she was clearly on the wrong side 
related to Big Tobacco. Ms. Baiocco represented R.J. Reynolds in the 
early part of this century--2007--in a class action lawsuit in Florida 
brought by injured smokers who were seeking to recover the damages they 
suffered as a consequence of Big Tobacco deliberately and purposefully 
addicting them, leading to lives of disease and addiction. She was on 
the wrong side of that issue as well--on the side of injury and 
industry against consumers. She was instrumental in those lawsuits, and 
R.J. Reynolds has been instrumental in lobbying to encourage the 
extensive use of flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture to 
deflect pressure on cigarette makers to make a fire-safe cigarette. 
That issue is squarely within the CPSC's jurisdiction.

  She lacks that dedication to this agency's mission that is critical 
for any Member to have. She may have skill, ability, and experience, 
but if it is devoted to the industry's well-being rather than 
consumers, she should be working for a different agency or continuing 
to work for a law firm that represents these industries.
  In fact, she has worked for a very large law firm that represents 
many of those clients and industries, but she has refused to provide a 
full list of the clients and companies she has represented. The only 
way we have gained full knowledge of these clients is to go to the law 
firm's website--where, by the way, her profile cites as follows: ``She 
is known for strategic business advice and high-intensity trials 
involving mass torts, consumer and industrial products, and medical 
devices in federal, state, and international courts.'' The clients are 
then listed in her profile.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this profile be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [From Jones Day]

                     Profile--Dana Baiocco, Partner

       Clients describe Dana Baiocco as a ``very smart and tough'' 
     litigator, who is ``very responsive and thorough'' and 
     ``provides efficient and effective legal counsel relative to 
     some very difficult situations.'' She is known for strategic 
     business advice and high-intensity trials involving mass 
     torts, consumer and industrial products, and medical devices 
     in federal, state, and international courts. Dana counsels 
     clients on minimizing risks, regulatory and reporting 
     obligations, warranties, and CPSC product recalls.
       Dana is go-to counsel for the Boston Red Sox. She led 
     Vibram USA's defense in Bezdek v. Vibram, et al., a putative 
     class action based on allegations of false and misleading 
     advertising regarding Vibram's extremely popular FiveFingers 
     minimalist shoes, and she was the first chair trial lawyer 
     winning a victory for Honeywell Safety Products and Bacou-
     Dalloz in New York state respirator litigation (Wiacek v. 3M, 
     et al.) and for Parker Hannifin in aviation component part 
     litigation (Brewer v. Dodson [aff'd, 9th Cir.]). She defended 
     Yamaha in its Rhino product liability litigation nationwide 
     and in a French tribunal. Dana is on Jones Day's Product 
     Recall & Accident Response Team, a multidisciplinary legal 
     group prepared to respond in recall or crisis situations.
       Dana is a member of Brimmer and May School's Annual Fund 
     Committee and the Carousel Ball Committee for Children's 
     Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a former officer of the 
     Pennsylvania Bar Association and the MDL Steering Committee 
     for the Boston Bar Association.


                               experience

       Fenway Sports Group defends personal injury action--Jones 
     Day is representing Fenway Sport Group, parent company of the 
     Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, in a personal injury action.
       Electrolux attempts acquisition of GE appliances business--
     Jones Day represented Swedish appliance maker AB Electrolux 
     as antitrust and labor counsel in its attempted $3.3 billion 
     acquisition of the appliances business of General Electric.
       Honeywell legacy subsidiaries obtain dismissal of lawsuit 
     alleging defectively designed products--On January 8, Jones 
     Day obtained a compelling victory in a New York appellate 
     court for Jones Day clients Willson Safety Products; Bacou-
     Dalloz Safety, Inc.; Bacou-Dalloz USA Safety, Inc.; and 
     Dalloz Safety, Inc. (all owned by Honeywell International).
       Vibram obtains First Circuit affirmation of class action 
     settlement agreement related to its advertising--On December 
     31, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the First 
     Circuit affirmed a $3.75 million class action settlement 
     involving Jones Day clients, Vibram USA, Inc. and Vibram 
     FiveFingers LLC, makers of the popular FiveFingers shoes.
       Goodman defeats class certification in putative consumer 
     class actions alleging sale of failure-prone air conditioner 
     components--Jones Day represents Goodman Global, Inc. and its 
     affiliates, the manufacturers of central air conditioning and 
     heating systems sold under the Goodman, Amana, and Daikin 
     brands, in a series of putative consumer class actions.
       ColdCypress acquired by division of Konica Minolta Business 
     Solutions U.S.A.--Jones Day advised ColdCypress LLC in its 
     acquisition by All Covered, a division of Konica Minolta 
     Business Solutions U.S.A.
       Yamaha wins Frye motion rejecting computer model of 
     accident--Jones Day represented Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. 
     (``Yamaha'') in a high-visibility case in Philadelphia where 
     counsel from two of the lead national plaintiff's firms were 
     seeking significant compensatory and punitive damages against 
     Yamaha, the manufacturer of an off-road vehicle, the 
     ``Rhino.''
       Yamaha successfully defends nationwide litigation of 
     product liability cases and claims involving the Rhino side-
     by-side (``SxS'') vehicle--Jones Day leads Yamaha's defense 
     of Rhino cases and claims pending in the United States.

[[Page S2810]]

       Mattel settles voluntary toy recall litigation--Jones Day 
     represented Mattel, Inc. (``Mattel'') in connection with a 
     number of U.S. federal and state and foreign lawsuits and 
     regulatory actions arising out of voluntary recalls of 
     certain Mattel and Fisher-Price toys.
       GE defends against putative nationwide class action 
     alleging discrimination against women in executive pay and 
     promotions--Jones Day represented General Electric Company in 
     a nationwide putative class action, alleging discrimination 
     against women in the executive band in pay and promotions.
       Parker Hannifin wins Ninth Circuit dismissal of wrongful 
     death claims involving single-engine plane crash--Wrongful 
     death claims were filed against Jones Day client, Parker 
     Hannifin Corporation, and others resulting from the crash of 
     a single-engine Beech Bonanza that claimed the lives of the 
     pilot, his wife, and two minor children.
       U.K. corporate jet owner succeeds in coverage arbitration 
     against London Aviation Insurance Market--Jones Day 
     represented a U.K. private property company, owners of a 
     Raytheon Premier 1 jet aircraft, in an arbitration against 
     the London Aviation Insurance Market challenging declinature 
     of a claim following constructive total loss.
       Parker Hannifin obtains non-suit with prejudice in wrongful 
     death action stemming from single-engine Cessna crash--
     Wrongful death claims were filed, but later voluntarily 
     dismissed, in two separate actions in Hidalgo County, Texas 
     (near the Mexico border) against Jones Day client Parker 
     Hannifin Corporation and others as a result of a single-
     engine Cessna crash in which three individuals perished.
       Safelite Glass wins summary judgment in unfair competition 
     action against call center operations--Jones Day represented 
     Safelite Glass (now Belron US Inc.) in an unfair competition 
     lawsuit filed in 2002 by Safelite's competitor, Diamond 
     Triumph Auto Glass, attacking its call center operations and 
     seeking tens of millions of dollars.
       UAG defends against Tennessee and Mississippi class action 
     involving ``dealer reserve'' revenues relating to automobile 
     financing--Jones Day represented United Auto Group, Inc. in a 
     multijurisdictional (Tennessee and Mississippi) class action 
     settlement involving ``dealer reserve'' revenues relating to 
     dealer-assisted automobile financing.
       Forgital successfully defends against age discrimination 
     claim--Jones Day advised Forgital USA, Inc. in an action 
     brought by a former employee who claimed that his changes in 
     job duties were a pretext for age discrimination.
       SSB Maschinenbau defends against wrongful death and product 
     liability litigation arising out of industrial machine 
     accident--Jones Day defended German manufacturer SSB 
     Maschinenbau GmbH in a wrongful death and product liability 
     case arising out of an industrial machine accident in Erie, 
     Pennsylvania.
       Temple Inland defends against six wrongful death and 
     personal injury actions arising out of explosion at 
     particleboard manufacturing plant--Jones Day served as 
     defense counsel to Temple Inland, Inc. in six wrongful death, 
     personal injury actions in state and federal court arising 
     out of an explosion at a particleboard manufacturing plant.
       Textron obtains dismissals in silica exposure cases--Jones 
     Day represented Textron, Inc. in 88 individual personal 
     injury claims against more than 80 different defendants.
       Parker Hannifin settles during appeal claims filed in wake 
     of SilkAir crash--Parker Hannifin Corporation retained Jones 
     Day to handle post-trial motions, damages trials, and appeals 
     following an adverse verdict in cases arising out of the 
     December 1997 crash of SilkAir 185.


                              publications

     November 2012
       No Summer Vacation for Device Regulators: An Overview of 
     Recent Legislation and FDA Activity, Part II
     November 2012
       No Summer Vacation for Device Regulators: An Overview of 
     Recent Legislation and FDA Activity, Part I
     Winter 2012
       Aviation Crisis Management: Are You Really Ready?, Practice 
     Perspectives: Product Liability & Tort Litigation
     Summer 2007
       The Americanization of Aviation Claims, Practice 
     Perspectives: Product Liability & Tort Litigation
     December 2006
       Runway Safety and Airport Operations: Are You Responsible, 
     The Public Record
     March 2, 2006
       Learning ``Plane'' English Can Help Lawyers in Aviation 
     Litigation, Pittsburgh Business Times
     2004
       Implementing the Montreal Accord: Practical Implications of 
     the Aviation Liability Treaty, Airline Business Report White 
     Paper 2004: Charting a Course to Meet Today's Market 
     Challenges
     July 2004
       The Significance of Other Accidents in Aviation Trials, 
     Aviation Litigation Quarterly
     Spring 2003
       Excluding NTSB Final Aircraft Accident Reports and FAA 
     Airworthiness Directives at Trial, Air and Space Lawyer


                          speaking engagements

     February 13, 2012
       The Commonwealth Institute's Strategies for Success 
     Program, keynote speaker--Boston, Massachusetts
     June 22-23, 2011
       American Conference Institute's 3rd Annual Forum on 
     Defending and Managing Aviation Litigation--Boston, 
     Massachusetts
     May 11, 2011, May 20, 2011
       Pennsylvania Bar Institute presents: The Preparation and 
     Trial of the Products Liability Case--Pittsburgh, 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     November 11, 2010
       PBI Fundamentals of Products Liability Law--Pittsburgh, 
     Pennsylvania
     June 22-23, 2010
       American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on 
     Defending and Managing Aviation Litigation--Boston, 
     Massachusetts
     May 23-24, 2007
       The Changing Legal Climate Surrounding Ownership 
     Structuring, Use, and Operation of Corporate Jets--Cleveland 
     and Columbus, Ohio
     February 14, 2007
       The Americanization of Aviation Claims, IATA Legal 
     Symposium 2007--Istanbul, Turkey
     February 13, 2007
       Global Environmental Initiatives--Where We Are Today, Where 
     We Are Going Tomorrow, IATA Legal Symposium 2007--Istanbul, 
     Turkey
     January 31, 2007
       Proven Strategies for Successfully Managing the Demands of 
     a Law Practice and Personal Life, Pennsylvania Bar Institute 
     CLE program--Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
     September 14, 2006
       Participant on a panel which discussed litigation and 
     insurance issues arising out of fixed base operator 
     negligence, 26th Annual Pennsylvania Aviation Conference--
     Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
     June 6, 2006
       The Changing Legal Climate Surrounding Ownership 
     Structuring, Use And Operation Of Corporate Jets--Pittsburgh, 
     Pennsylvania


                               education

       Duquesne University (J.D. 1997, cum laude; Justice Louis 
     Mandarino Honor Society for Achievement in Trial and 
     Appellate Advocacy; Order of Barristers); Ohio University 
     (B.S. in Journalism 1988)


                             bar admissions

       Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, U.S. District Courts for the 
     District of Massachusetts and Eastern and Western Districts 
     of Pennsylvania, and U.S. Courts of Appeal for the First, 
     Third, and Ninth Circuits


                               clerkships

       Law Clerk to Judge Gustave Diamond, U.S. District Court, 
     Western District of Pennsylvania (1996-1998)


                         experience highlights

       Fenway Sports Group defends personal injury action
       Electrolux attempts acquisition of GE appliances business
       Honeywell legacy subsidiaries obtain dismissal of lawsuit 
     alleging defectively designed products


                             areas of focus

       Business & Tort Litigation
       Product Liability Litigation
       Airlines & Aviation
       Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation
       Toxic Tort Litigation


                         honors & distinctions

       Legal 500--leading lawyer or recommended in litigation for 
     product liability and mass tort defense: consumer products 
     (including tobacco) (2013-2014), toxic tort (2014-2016), 
     automotive/transport (2015-2016), and aerospace/aviation 
     (2007, 2009-2011, and 2014)
       Selected by American Lawyer Media as one of 35 Pennsylvania 
     lawyers as a ``2005 Lawyer on the Fast Track''
       Named a ``Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, Rising Star'' by 
     Philadelphia Magazine and Law & Politics (2005-2007)

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I take this extraordinary step because she has failed 
to provide it in response to a specific question I asked in the written 
inquiries we submitted after her testimony. She said, in effect, she 
was ``duty bound to maintain the confidential nature of legal advice 
sought by or provided to any client.''
  This claim of attorney-client privilege is absolutely bogus and ought 
to insult this body because there is no reason for the name of the 
client to be kept confidential or that attorney-client privilege to be 
sustained.
  I think invocation of attorney-client privilege in this way speaks 
volumes to the kind of member of this Commission she would be. In fact, 
she has refused to reveal her full list of consumer product clients, 
other than the ones like Mattel and Yamaha, which are available through 
court filings and other public records. I have entered many of those 
other clients into the Record, but we

[[Page S2811]]

have no assurance that we know that full list.
  She has also refused to recuse herself from matters involving her 
current firm, Jones Day, or its clients for more than 1 year. The 
Office of Government Ethics requires 1 year of recusal from the time 
she last represented that client, but no more than that length of time, 
and she has committed no more than the bare minimum requirement by law. 
In addition, her husband has represented IKEA in a major product 
liability suit involving furniture tipovers. She has refused to recuse 
herself from matters involving IKEA.
  We are in a perilous time, when the norms concerning conflicts of 
interest have been reduced, almost eviscerated. We have an obligation 
to protect consumer interests at the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission. That responsibility is to make sure serious defects, 
dangerous products, problems, and hazards that will face consumers as a 
result of deadly or defective products are prevented from reaching the 
market. Consumers may have no knowledge of how they are deadly or 
dangerous. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the mission to 
protect consumers.
  For someone who has the ability, skills, and expertise to represent 
wrongdoers which threaten consumers is the responsibility of admirable 
and able law firms, like Jones Day, and those skills and experience 
enable lawyers who work there. It is not the job of a Commissioner of 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  So it is really not about her personal ability, it is about the 
mission of this agency and who is qualified to serve on it and whether 
they have told us everything we need to know to hold them accountable 
if they are confirmed.
  On all those scores, this nominee is lacking. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote no today on her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The assistant majority leader.