[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 123 (Tuesday, July 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2973-S2974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Tanya J. Bradsher
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Congress and our Nation have no more
solemn duty than the one we owe to our veterans. They have given their
blood, their sweat, and their tears for our great country. They have
fought on battlefields only to come home and face new battles, like
difficulty accessing healthcare and challenges in transitioning to
civilian life. A lot of them face homelessness, PTSD, and, of course,
we hear it all the time, in our various congressional offices, about
bureaucratic redtape at the Veterans' Administration.
I have long engaged in Veterans' Administration oversight. The VA has
fought my efforts tooth and nail. I won't tire. Our veterans deserve
nothing less than making sure the VA delivers in an efficient way, and
particularly when we find things to be wrong there.
It is because of my oversight that I placed a hold on the nomination
of Tanya Bradsher to be Deputy Secretary at the VA. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the nomination as well. So I am here to tell you
why.
Records in my possession, as well as statements from VA
whistleblowers, show that Ms. Bradsher has failed to secure our
veterans' private and sensitive protected health information,
[[Page S2974]]
personally identifiable information, and whistleblower information.
Information also shows that she played a key role in the Veterans'
Administration obstruction of my investigation of VA corruption.
My Democratic colleagues rushed Ms. Bradsher's nomination through the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee without even investigating the
allegations that I brought to the committee's attention. Let's start
with one of these: the VA Integrated Enterprise Workflow Solution,
otherwise known by the acronym VIEWS. Records show that this system
exposes sensitive medical, health, and personal information of many
veterans, as well as whistleblower names and information. At least
1,900 Veterans Affairs employees have access to this system but without
the need to view this sensitive information.
Now, Ms. Bradsher has direct responsibility for that system as the
VA's Chief of Staff, her present position. Emails and screenshots from
VIEWS were supplied to me by whistleblowers. And most of my colleagues
know I get a lot of information from whistleblowers. These emails show
that these whistleblowers notified Ms. Bradsher's deputy last July--a
whole year ago--about these issues. One of these whistleblowers told
Ms. Bradsher's office she had been harassed and that she feared for her
safety.
To this day, Ms. Bradsher hasn't followed up or instructed anyone
else to follow up with these whistleblowers to make sure that their
concerns were addressed. Despite questions for the record asked by
Ranking Member Moran and Senator Blackburn, Ms. Bradsher has offered no
explanation whatsoever for why the specific personnel information
brought to her office's attention was not secured as it should be
secured. Instead, she pointed to a few feeble actions she says were
taken to address future correspondence, such as training on private
data.
This is unacceptable for a nominee who will be in charge of the VA's
effort to modernize our veterans' sensitive electronic health records
if she is confirmed. Ms. Bradsher was in the Chief of Staff position 16
months before whistleblowers notified her of the serious potential data
breach and now for a year after. That kind of inaction and negligence
is remarkable, even for the Veterans' Administration.
These flaws provide a back door enabling whistleblower retaliation
and potential identity fraud, and they must be fixed now, not ignored.
The matter was serious enough that the Office of Special Counsel last
August found ``substantial likelihood of wrongdoing'' in potential
violation of Federal privacy laws and ordered the Secretary to complete
an investigation within 60 days. The Veterans' Administration still
hasn't completed its investigation.
The Office of Special Counsel advised my office that the most serious
allegation relating to data privacy has already been confirmed. The
Veterans' Administration report to the Office of Special Counsel should
be issued by August 1, just days away.
We would fail our Nation's veterans and neglect our constitutional
duty to offer informed advice and consent on this nomination if we
allowed the nomination to go forward before we have those answers.
Also, how can any Member have an informed choice on this nominee if the
Veterans' Affairs Committee didn't even bother to interview the people
with relevant information on that matter?
Instead, rather than investigate, the majority actually circulated a
misleading memo to the committee members that was written by the
Veterans' Administration. It also slandered my office by claiming my
staff had these allegations but intentionally hid them from the
committee until the day before Ms. Bradsher's hearing.
This is not true. My staff provided the information to the committee
right away. The VA ought to quickly get with the program.
That brings me to my second point of opposition to this nominee.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that Ms.
Bradsher played a key role in the VA's failed response to my
investigation into VA corruption, which the VA has stonewalled for over
2 years.
We shouldn't continue to reward the Veterans' Administration and a
nominee for their inattention to congressional oversight. We shouldn't
confirm a nominee who represents business as usual and continued
inattention to Congress and our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this nomination until we get the answers to the American
people, as they deserve those answers.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so
ordered.