[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.