[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13193-13207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     VA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I have mentioned 
the unions one time, but I now think I understand why the disparity in 
the vote. The senior executive level that we passed the accountability 
for last year is nonunionized, and the people that we are talking about 
today are unionized.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the First District of 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to join my 
colleagues on the House floor today to speak in support of H.R. 1994, 
the VA Accountability Act, as amended.
  I would like to begin by noting that most of the VA's 300,000-plus 
employees are honest, hard-working folks who get up every day and go to 
work with the sole intention of helping our veterans, just as they do 
at Mountain Home VA Medical Center in my hometown of Johnson City, 
Tennessee.
  With the scandals at the VA medical centers and reports of 
whistleblower retribution, it has become evident that there are more 
bad apples than we would like to believe.
  The VA Accountability Act would provide the flexibility necessary for 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to remove these bad actors and send a 
message about the type of performance that we expect for our veterans.
  Additionally, this bill would provide frontline employees with 
increased whistleblower protections from retribution from superiors and 
colleagues through the office of special counsel.
  As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations and as a veteran myself, I understand how crucial it is 
for whistleblowers to continue coming forward with allegations of 
mismanagement, misconduct, and outright negligence. If whistleblowers 
don't feel safe stepping forward, we will never, never be able to fix 
the problems at the VA.
  I think it is important to note that nothing in this bill compels the 
Secretary to remove anyone. Let me say that again. Nothing in this bill 
requires the Secretary to remove anyone. It simply gives the Secretary 
the tools necessary to remove bad employees, which would be a welcomed 
authority, I would think.
  Mr. Chairman, we must change the culture at the VA. As the second 
largest employing Department in the U.S. Government, second only to the 
Department of Defense, there are far too many bureaucratic hurdles in 
place to reasonably and responsibly manage it.
  Just one thing about spending at the VA, Mr. Chairman, I have been on 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee since I have been in Congress, 6\1/2\ 
years. The budget is up 74 percent. We are spending the money. We need 
to spend it more wisely.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for our Nation's 
veterans.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my colleagues on the other 
side believe that we need to protect whistleblowers. It is precisely 
the at-will nature, making all of the 200,000 employees of the VA at-
will employees, which makes them more vulnerable to the caprices of 
managers and makes them less likely to want to come forward as 
whistleblowers.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1994, which seeks 
to transform 300,000 VA personnel to what we call at-will employees, 
capable of being fired based on anything, including their beliefs and 
not their merit necessarily. It effectively destroys the civil service 
as it is and as we know it at the VA.
  Now, some jaded colleagues of mine would look at this bill and say it 
is just a clever attempt to drive a wedge between our Nation's 
veterans--all of whom we ardently support on both sides of the aisle--
between those veterans and the civil servants who serve them at the VA 
and the unions that represent them.
  This bill strips due process rights away from every nonmanagement VA 
employee, including over 100,000 veterans. That is the key, is that 
there are 100,000 veterans themselves affected by this bill; and they 
will lose rights as a result if this bill passes.
  Now, H.R. 1994 will have a chilling effect on those willing to speak 
out, and that has been addressed amply heretofore, but I am here to say 
it goes beyond whistleblowers. Whistleblowers in this country have a 
lot of protections.
  This goes beyond whistleblowers because, remember, a lot of the bad 
actors at the VA that have led to the Phoenix situation and the others 
that we have seen are management people.
  Think of it. If we take away the due process rights of employees, not 
only who would serve as whistleblowers to blow the whistle on bad 
management conduct, but we take away their rights to due process before 
they lose their jobs; what we are doing to them is that we are 
perpetuating this culture of tacit compliance with bad actor managers 
at VA.
  For example, if an employee simply doesn't want to go along with an 
improper and an unethical practice that a manager is asking him or her 
to do, that employee right now can say: No, I am not going to do it.
  If we pass this bill and they refuse to do it, they can be fired for 
not doing it. This is not the way to serve our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), chairman of the Health 
Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1994, 
legislation to allow the VA Secretary to fire employees because of poor 
performance or misconduct. I want to thank Chairman Miller for his 
strong leadership on this bill.
  The VA Committee has been relentless in our pursuit of answers and 
accountability for our veterans since the wait time scandal first 
surfaced. And, yet, the VA has only held three individuals responsible 
for these unacceptable failings.
  I am the father of a veteran, and I served our returning heroes as a 
doctor at the Iron Mountain VA hospital for 20 years. I know exactly 
the quality of our veterans, and they deserve so much better.

[[Page 13194]]

  In northern Michigan, we all know that, if you don't do your job, you 
get fired. It is that simple.
  The VA needs to remember that it is not there to serve the VA, it is 
there to serve our veterans. Until we refocus the VA on this 
fundamental and sacred mission, we will continue to have the issues of 
mismanagement and incompetence that have plagued the Department.
  This bill takes an important step in that direction. I am pleased to 
support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to address again the fact that most of us did, in fact, 
vote for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act SES 
provision.
  I want to reiterate that the courts--not Congress, not the 
President--determine whether a law we pass comports with the 
Constitution.
  In hindsight, we should have given that SES provision closer 
scrutiny. We might have reacted a bit too hastily to the Phoenix 
scandal. We were all, I think, unified in our outrage.
  However, that SES provision is now working its way through the court 
system and is very well possibly going to be overturned.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the First District of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak in support of our legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we do know in the last year there has been a lot of 
talk about accountability at the VA. Unfortunately, though, there has 
not been enough action or change by the VA under this administration.
  This bill provides much-needed tools to ensure the VA Secretary has 
the authority and the responsibility to remove corrupt or incompetent 
employees.
  As a Member of Congress, I am simply tired of hearing stories about 
employees placed on indefinite administrative leave or getting early 
retirement with full benefits for offenses that should get them fired, 
if we really cared about the veterans.
  Ultimately, here is the purpose of this bill: ending the culture of 
nonaccountability at the VA. My bill, the Whistleblower Testimony 
Travel Act, is also included.
  It provides much-needed protections for courageous whistleblowers who 
testify before Congress about the shortfalls of this agency.
  It might be hard to believe, Mr. Chairman, but, currently, if a VA 
whistleblower is invited to testify before Congress, they are required 
to use their personal vacation time and personally cover all their own 
travel expenses.
  This bill would ensure that brave employees who report to Congress 
and the public on what is broken within the VA can do so on official 
time and be compensated by the VA for their travel costs.
  Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting our veterans. It is 
about making sure our veterans are treated with dignity and respect. It 
is about making certain that our brave veterans have a VA that works 
for them, not the other way around.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record that, 
as of last year, under the current due process regime in effect at the 
VA, 872 permanent employees were removed, 487 more resigned in lieu of 
being fired, and 958 probationary employees were terminated.
  So it is indeed very possible under the current due process regime 
for employees to be disciplined and dismissed. We need to work more 
closely with the VA to make sure that we empower managers to utilize 
the current processes in place.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1994, the so-called 
VA Accountability Act.
  I am the daughter of a career servicemember and a veteran. I, too, 
was outraged last year at the findings that wait time records were 
falsified at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  But I have to tell you--and it has been said on the other side--my 
father actually received really good care and services in VA, as 
hundreds of thousands of veterans do all across this country, by the 
hundreds of thousands of veteran employees and workers at the VA.
  I recall that, in my State of Maryland, 10 percent of our population 
are veterans, and we are a small State. We all care about veterans and 
the care that they receive.
  Just before adjourning for our August district work period last year, 
Congress passed and I voted for and the President signed into law the 
Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act.
  That law gave the VA Secretary expanded authority to fire or demote 
Senior Executive Service employees, capped the amount of bonuses the VA 
could pay each year, and it required the VA to establish penalties for 
employees who knowingly submit false wait time data.
  Well, enough already. Almost 1 year later House Republicans are not 
only here skipping town early with a whole bunch of unfinished 
business, but they are spending the last day of the session on an 
ideological bill that is aimed to disparage Federal employees.
  All employees, including Federal employees, must be held to the 
highest standards for their quality of work and their behavior. There 
are mechanisms that are in place to enforce those standards for all 
Federal employees, including those at the Veterans Affairs.
  The main provision of the bill would single out nonmanagement VA 
employees, including over 100,000 veterans in the workforce to be fired 
or demoted without due process.
  We work really closely with our employees at the Baltimore regional 
office and the Washington, D.C., Medical Center. These people, many 
veterans themselves, are dedicated. They care deeply about the patients 
they serve and the mission of the administration.
  This legislation is nothing more than a last-minute attempt by House 
Republicans to terminate, demoralize, and unfairly blame Federal 
employees and shrink the government so it can't do anything for the 
American people.
  I will work with like-minded Members of Congress who want to do the 
right thing and provide the right kind of oversight. But this is not 
the answer, and it would destroy VA's merit-based civil service system.
  Let me just say this is not about accountability. It is not about 
whistleblowers. It is not about improving services for our Nation's 
veterans.
  This bill is nothing more than union-busting. Let's just call it what 
it is. It is union-busting, and it needs to be stopped.
  The House Republicans should be ashamed of trying to use VA employees 
and Federal employees for their own political gain.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentlewoman 
that she voted at the last minute before the August work recess for the 
Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act. The same language is in 
there now. The only difference is it did not cover union employees. 
This one does.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Sixth District of 
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1994, the 
VA Accountability Act.
  You don't have to look any further than my hometown of Aurora, 
Colorado, to see that the VA is in desperate need of fundamental 
reforms.
  What happens when the VA bursts its budget on a single construction 
project by over $1 billion? Nobody gets fired. Nobody gets disciplined. 
Nobody is at fault.
  Of course, that is not technically true. The VA was willing to fire 
one person involved, a whistleblower attempting to warn VA leaders 
early on of the growing problems with the project.
  To make matters worse, the VA didn't just fail to discipline the 
people

[[Page 13195]]

in charge of the Aurora project, but they awarded the VA's construction 
chief over $600,000 in bonuses and let him retire with a full pension.
  There is a culture of bureaucratic incompetence and corruption within 
the VA which is hurting our Nation's veterans and wasting billions of 
taxpayer dollars.
  The VA Accountability Act is an important step in the right 
direction, and I urge its full support.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, 
that I have been on this committee for the entire time I have been in 
Congress, 23 years.
  What I have always enjoyed about this committee is the bipartisan 
nature of this committee. But let me just tell you this bill, H.R. 
1994, I do not support.
  The gentleman from Florida, Chairman Miller, has said repeatedly that 
we voted for this provision in the Choice Act. And the only reason we 
did it was because these were union people or not union people.
  I went to every single meeting, every single conference, and this 
provision that you are talking about--the devil is always in the 
details.
  Maybe we need to make sure we read every bill closely because I was 
not--yes, the Secretary has the authority to fire people. But we want 
to make sure that they have due process.
  We are voting to give the VA the additional resources they need to do 
away with the backlog.
  Would the gentleman from Florida respond to that. Because none of us 
were voting for H.R. 1994. It was a bad year for Congress, a bad year 
for the American people.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I would say to the gentlewoman from Florida 
that, if she would ask a question, I will be more than happy to answer 
her question.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Miller has said 
repeatedly that this provision that you have was in the base bill of 
the Choice program and that we all knew that we were voting to give the 
Secretary additional authority to fire people.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. That is correct.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. TAKANO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yesterday in the committee I heard someone say 
that the goal is to close all of the VA facilities and privatize it.
  Now, let me be clear that that is not the goal of the Members on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that H.R. 4031 
last year was a stand-alone bill that dealt specifically with firing 
senior executive-level individuals, the same language that is in here 
now for the rest of the VA.
  The Democrats unanimously supported that language in the Veterans 
Access, Choice and Accountability Act.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Indiana (Mrs. 
Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the VA 
Accountability Act. I also want to thank Chairman Miller for sponsoring 
this bill and for his work to reform the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
  It wasn't long ago that news reports of VA mismanagement made 
headlines across this country. Reports surfaced of veterans dying due 
to mismanaged wait times and senior executives receiving bonuses 
instead of receiving punishment for knowingly allowing this negligence 
to occur.
  Over the past year, the Veterans' Affairs Committee has continued to 
uncover instances of mismanagement or misconduct by VA employees.
  We discovered the VA often does not hold employees accountable for 
their actions. When the VA attempts to take disciplinary action against 
an employee, the process is so complicated and lengthy that such action 
rarely occurs.
  In May, VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson admitted that it was very 
difficult to fire bad employees. For too long, taxpayers have been 
footing the bill to pay poor-performing employees to provide 
substandard care to our veterans.
  Only in government are special protections put in place that protect 
those who cannot appropriately do their job.
  However, I also recognize there are individuals in the VA who do a 
great job for our veterans, and they should be commended for that.
  This legislation simply builds on last year's law that gave the VA 
Secretary the authority to remove employees for poor performance or 
misconduct.
  The VA Accountability Act of 2015 expands that power further to the 
entire VA workforce, giving the Secretary increased authority to remove 
employees who are not meeting the standards of service that veterans 
deserve and taxpayers expect.
  In addition, the legislation protects whistleblowers and would 
shorten the appeal period and end what many veterans believe is a 
never-ending process to remove employees who may be damaging the 
Department's reputation and, even worse, putting veterans at risk.

                              {time}  1530

  This bill takes those steps to ensure our Nation's servicemen and -
women receive the care they rightfully deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill because our 
veterans deserve nothing but the best.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to point out we keep getting back to this point about 
everybody voted for the SES provision that is only now being extended 
to all employees now, but I want to remind my colleagues that that 
provision was part of a large, large conference report that included 
the $10 billion to address the problems we had in Phoenix. There were 
1,500 graduate medical education slots. It was a huge, huge, huge bill.
  There were a number of people who did have concerns about the 
provision that affected the SES employees, but given the enormity of 
the situation we were trying to address, I believe that many folks just 
believe that it was the best thing to do to come together on a 
bipartisan basis and pass a bill that addressed the situation in 
Phoenix.
  I also want to address another issue. H.R. 1994 does not protect 
whistleblowers to the extent that whistleblowers are protected now 
under the current regime. In fact, it creates extra hurdles for 
whistleblowers, and I bring this point up because we would not know 
about the terrible egregious situation in Phoenix without 
whistleblowers coming forward.
  What do I mean by that? This bill does nothing to protect the firing 
of a whistleblower who has not yet filed an official complaint before 
they even have the opportunity to report danger to patient safety, 
wrongdoing, malfeasance, or discrimination.
  This bill will encourage bad employees to file for whistleblower 
status to prevent themselves from being fired, and these bad employees 
will overburden the office of special counsel with frivolous 
complaints.
  Now, if you are an at-will employee and you are under threat of 
immediate dismissal, an immediate threat to your livelihood, that is 
even more of an intimidating situation for that employee not to want to 
come forward as a whistleblower.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill actually worsens the situation 
for whistleblowers and does not protect them more; it protects them 
less. It gives them extra burdens.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would say that the statutory definition in chapter 5 of a 
whistleblower ``means a complaint by an employee of the Department 
disclosing, or assisting another employee to disclose, a potential 
violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, 
gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific 
danger to public health and safety.''

[[Page 13196]]

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Abraham, an 
able-bodied member of our committee.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for bringing up this 
very strong bill which, in my opinion, will be lifesaving for some of 
our Nation's heroes.
  I rise today in support of the VA Accountability Act of 2015. I am a 
proud original cosponsor of the bill, and I believe the legislation is 
vital to rooting out the pervasive bureaucracy that plagues the Federal 
Government.
  As a direct result of this broken system, we have seen instances 
where a VA employee actually took a patient to a crackhouse to get a 
``fix.'' It took an entire year for that employee to be fired--an 
entire year.
  As a direct result of this broken system, we have seen senior 
employees caught participating in retaliation against whistleblowers, 
only to remain on the job.
  As a direct result of this broken system, we have seen employees who 
were caught manipulating veterans' disability claims.
  Do you know what happened to those employees? They were promoted. 
They received bonuses. This is unacceptable on so many levels, and it 
is time for it to stop. We have to make the VA work for the veteran. 
The current law protects those who have forgotten that they work for 
the veteran, not the other way around.
  Even the Veterans Affairs Department's own Deputy Secretary, Sloan 
Gibson, as you heard before, recently admitted at a congressional 
hearing that ``it is too hard to fire someone at the VA.'' There is no 
excuse for those who fail to do their job and then get promoted, none.
  H.R. 1994 is a giant step forward in ensuring that good employees are 
protected, ensuring whistleblowers are protected, and, most 
importantly, that our Nation's heroes are protected.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the veterans who have to stand 
up for us by supporting the VA Accountability Act of 2015.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), from the Sixth District.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, should the Secretary of 
the VA be allowed to remove or demote an employee of the Department for 
poor performance or misconduct? That is the question, as I see it.
  Common sense to me dictates that, if an employee is poorly performing 
or has demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty, as we have seen at VAs 
in Philadelphia and across the country, we need to be able to get rid 
of them--common sense.
  I hear those who are speaking about due process violations implicit 
or explicit in this legislation, and I simply just don't see it. For 
one, there was a law passed last Congress; I wasn't here then, but it 
was part of a larger, broader bill that brought more money to the VA, 
and with more money, there should be more accountability. I think that 
is common sense.
  Here is the example: Poorly performing employee, employee who 
misbehaves, demoted or terminated? Under this bill, that employee, 
within 7 days, gets to file an expedited appeal with the Merit Systems 
Protection Board, and then the MSPB would have to make a final decision 
within 45 days. If you get fired, if you get demoted, if you think that 
that was wrong, there is a process that is in place to address that.
  This comes on the heels of a lot of problems in the VA. We need more 
accountability, and we need more transparency, and we hear that all the 
time. This bill addresses that.
  This bill also provides more protections to whistleblowers. It is the 
courageous whistleblowers, through their tenacity, that have brought a 
lot of the problems forward. This bill seeks to protect them.
  I want to thank the chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish to address this issue of the appeals process that takes place 
post facto. The Supreme Court decisions and case law make very clear 
that Federal employees are entitled to due process on the front end and 
that this bill clearly does not meet that upfront, front-loaded due 
process moment.
  Clearly, 45 days, the Board that makes these decisions, if they don't 
make a decision, the decision for the firing stands, so they do not 
have to make a firm decision, and there is no appeal. There is no 
appeal. That decision is final.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the Secretary of the VA hopefully 
is always appointed by the President with a sense of merit, but I 
remind you that these are political appointees confirmed by the Senate, 
as are the top appointees in any Federal department.
  You do away with due process rights, you do away with the very 
cornerstone of a merit-based civil service system. You subject it long 
term to becoming a spoils system to be dismissed, rehired at the whim 
of any incoming administration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My bill provides all employees an appeal to the MSPB. Post-
depravation is not an issue; and regarding pre-depravation due process, 
my bill provides the same protections as the Choice Act, which the MSPB 
has held does not, on its face, violate the due process clause.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from American Samoa (Mrs. 
Radewagen), a new member of our committee.
  Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Miller for 
introducing this important legislation that will increase 
accountability in the VA.
  For too long, our veterans, including the large number I represent in 
American Samoa, have been subjected to improper treatment, long wait 
times, and other serious matters that have yet to be addressed.
  This commonsense legislation, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, 
will enable the VA to hold those who do not perform their duties 
accountable, which will surely lead to better services for our 
veterans. No longer should our veterans come second to lifelong 
bureaucrats who have gamed the system while our veterans have suffered.
  I want to be clear that I believe the vast majority of those VA 
employees who serve our veterans do so honorably and are dedicated to 
making sure that those they serve are awarded the services and benefits 
they have so rightfully earned. However, it is clear that there are 
some bad apples in the VA, and we must not let them continue to ruin 
the bunch.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, once again, thank Chairman Miller for his 
work on this bill, and I look forward to seeing it signed into law.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how much 
time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from California has 2 minutes.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that the front-end provisions 
that were accorded to the SES employees, we stripped them completely of 
the front-end due process.
  Only with a regulatory move by the VA itself, instituted a 5-day 
procedure of due process because they, too, believed that case law 
required at least some front end, and that was over the objections of 
many of my colleagues. That rule was over the objections of many of my 
colleagues.
  H.R. 1994 strips away front-end due process for all 348,728 
employees, of whom 114,740 are veterans. Before we paint them as 
faceless bureaucrats, one of every three VA employees is a veteran who 
has laid their life on the line for our country. I think we need to 
talk about our VA employees with respect.
  Even my good friend, the chairman of the VA committee, has said the 
vast majority of the employees are good, hard-working, competent, good-
intentioned people. They deserve to be treated fairly; they deserve to 
be treated with respect.

[[Page 13197]]

  Certainly, our frontline employees, our frontline employees, we need 
to protect them from a capricious, politically motivated manager who 
will fire them at will and intimidate them into not being a 
whistleblower.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the VA 
Accountability Act.
  In his recent remarks at the VFW
national convention in Pittsburgh, Barack Obama discussed the outbreak 
of Legionnaire's disease at the Pittsburgh VA that killed six veterans 
and sickened many more.
  The Office of the Inspector General concluded that systemic failures 
and mismanagement at the VA were to blame for the outbreak, and the 
President stated unequivocally: ``Whenever there are any missteps, 
there is no excuse.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the essence of the VA Accountability Act. With 
the enactment of this important legislation, there is no longer any 
excuse for chronic dysfunction at the VA. There is no excuse for the VA 
keeping bad employees, placing them on indefinite paid leave, or 
rewarding them with lavish bonuses. There is no excuse for the VA 
looking the other way when there is retaliation against courageous 
whistleblowers.
  Simply put, this legislation ensures that there is no excuse for the 
VA failing our veterans and their families anymore.
  I thank the committee for its hard work on this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, there has been a lot said today about a lack of due 
process. I do want to remind my colleagues that, in the Cleveland Board 
of Education v. Loudermill of 1985, it basically states that, if post-
deprivation due process includes a full hearing, on appeal, the Supreme 
Court has long held that pre-deprivation due process need only be 
minimal, to only include notice of charges, an explanation of the 
evidence, and an opportunity to present their side of the story.
  In fact, in the Merit Systems Protection Board ruling, the 
administrative law judge in the Hellman case basically said he did not 
find the response period was so short--it was 5 days--as to constitute 
on its face a due process violation, i.e., lack of meaningful 
opportunity to respond to the charges.
  There has been a lot said so far, and I am sure there will be more 
that will be said on the floor as amendments are brought; but I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1994, as amended.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act of 2015. While no Member of this 
body will deny that there is a need for fundamental and transparent 
reform at the Department of Veterans Affairs this bill does nothing to 
address the systematic issues that have plagued the VA.
  Currently, VA management has many different routes to hold their 
employees accountable through existing law. H.R. 1994 would allow the 
VA to immediately fire employees for poor performance, violating a 
worker's right to due process. I'm concerned that the bill would 
effectively make the VA the only ``at-will'' federal agency and this 
would further deplete the talent and retention of the public servants 
who serve our veterans.
  I fully support Mr. Takano's amendment in nature of a substitute 
which would allow the VA to immediately suspend without pay any 
employee who's suspected misconducted threatened health or safety then 
allow the employee to tell their side of the story, preventing cases of 
political patronage and an increase in false whistleblower cases.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1994, 
the so-called ``VA Accountability Act of 2015.'' There is nothing more 
important than providing for the men and women who have made so many 
sacrifices for our country. However, today's legislation is a fake 
solution and provides no real fix to the fundamental problems at the 
VA.
  This legislation turns hundreds of thousands of VA employees--
including many who served in the armed services and are veteran's 
themselves--into at-will employees. As a result, this would open the 
door for political abuse and witch-hunts, effectively creating a 
mechanism where career federal employees could be removed because of 
their views or political affiliation. In addition, turning individuals 
into at-will employees would likely discourage whistleblowers from 
coming forward out of fear of being terminated. Moreover, if this 
legislation passes, the Department of Veterans Affairs would be the 
only federal agency with at-will employment, making it harder to 
recruit and retain the best and brightest employees who are needed to 
serve our veterans.
  I was disappointed that a substitute amendment offered by Congressman 
Takano was not adopted. Rep. Takano's amendment would immediately 
suspend without pay any employee that is found to put a veteran's 
health and safety in jeopardy. However, it also ensures that all 
employees--included whistleblowers--are granted their constitutional 
right to due process. On the other hand, H.R. 1994 would dismantle 
civil service protections that have been in place for decades. It would 
strip away important protections for federal workers and would deny a 
VA employee the opportunity to appeal a decision to the full Merit 
Systems Protection Board.
  Unfortunately, nothing in this bill addresses the systemic problems 
that continue to plague the VA health care system. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, printed 
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1994

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``VA Accountability Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OR DEMOTION OF EMPLOYEES BASED ON PERFORMANCE 
                   OR MISCONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 715. Employees: removal or demotion based on 
       performance or misconduct

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may remove or demote an 
     individual who is an employee of the Department if the 
     Secretary determines the performance or misconduct of the 
     individual warrants such removal or demotion. If the 
     Secretary so removes or demotes such an individual, the 
     Secretary may--
       ``(1) remove the individual from the civil service (as 
     defined in section 2101 of title 5); or
       ``(2) demote the individual by means of--
       ``(A) a reduction in grade for which the individual is 
     qualified and that the Secretary determines is appropriate; 
     or
       ``(B) a reduction in annual rate of pay that the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate.
       ``(b) Pay of Certain Demoted Individuals.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any individual 
     subject to a demotion under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall, 
     beginning on the date of such demotion, receive the annual 
     rate of pay applicable to such grade.
       ``(2) An individual so demoted may not be placed on 
     administrative leave or any other category of paid leave 
     during the period during which an appeal (if any) under this 
     section is ongoing, and may only receive pay if the 
     individual reports for duty. If an individual so demoted does 
     not report for duty, such individual shall not receive pay or 
     other benefits pursuant to subsection (e)(5).
       ``(c) Notice to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     removing or demoting an individual under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives notice in writing 
     of such removal or demotion and the reason for such removal 
     or demotion.
       ``(d) Procedure.--(1) The procedures under section 7513(b) 
     of title 5 and chapter 43 of such title shall not apply to a 
     removal or demotion under this section.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (e), 
     any removal or demotion under subsection (a) may be appealed 
     to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of 
     title 5.
       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal or 
     demotion may only be made if such appeal is made not later 
     than seven days after the date of such removal or demotion.

[[Page 13198]]

       ``(e) Expedited Review by Administrative Judge.--(1) Upon 
     receipt of an appeal under subsection (d)(2)(A), the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board shall refer such appeal to an 
     administrative judge pursuant to section 7701(b)(1) of title 
     5. The administrative judge shall expedite any such appeal 
     under such section and, in any such case, shall issue a 
     decision not later than 45 days after the date of the appeal.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     section 7703 of title 5, the decision of an administrative 
     judge under paragraph (1) shall be final and shall not be 
     subject to any further appeal.
       ``(3) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot 
     issue a decision in accordance with the 45-day requirement 
     under paragraph (1), the removal or demotion is final. In 
     such a case, the Merit Systems Protection Board shall, within 
     14 days after the date that such removal or demotion is 
     final, submit to Congress and the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
     that explains the reasons why a decision was not issued in 
     accordance with such requirement.
       ``(4) The Merit Systems Protection Board or administrative 
     judge may not stay any removal or demotion under this 
     section.
       ``(5) During the period beginning on the date on which an 
     individual appeals a removal from the civil service under 
     subsection (d) and ending on the date that the administrative 
     judge issues a final decision on such appeal, such individual 
     may not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, 
     allowances, differentials, student loan repayments, special 
     payments, or benefits.
       ``(6) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall provide to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and to 
     any administrative judge to whom an appeal under this section 
     is referred, such information and assistance as may be 
     necessary to ensure an appeal under this subsection is 
     expedited.
       ``(f) Whistleblower Protection.--(1) In the case of an 
     individual seeking corrective action (or on behalf of whom 
     corrective action is sought) from the Office of Special 
     Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice 
     described in section 2302(b) of title 5, the Secretary may 
     not remove or demote such individual under subsection (a) 
     without the approval of the Special Counsel under section 
     1214(f) of title 5.
       ``(2) In the case of an individual who has filed a 
     whistleblower complaint, as such term is defined in section 
     731 of this title, the Secretary may not remove or demote 
     such individual under subsection (a) until the central 
     whistleblower office under section 732(h) of this title has 
     made a final decision with respect to the whistleblower 
     complaint.
       ``(g) Termination of Investigations by Office of Special 
     Counsel.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Special Counsel (established by section 1211 of title 5) may 
     terminate an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice 
     alleged by an employee or former employee of the Department 
     after the Special Counsel provides to the employee or former 
     employee a written statement of the reasons for the 
     termination of the investigation. Such statement may not be 
     admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative 
     proceeding without the consent of such employee or former 
     employee.
       ``(h) Relation to Title 5.--The authority provided by this 
     section is in addition to the authority provided by 
     subchapter V of chapter 75 of title 5 and chapter 43 of such 
     title.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `individual' means an individual occupying a 
     position at the Department but does not include--
       ``(A) an individual, as that term is defined in section 
     713(g)(1); or
       ``(B) a political appointee.
       ``(2) The term `grade' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 7511(a) of title 5.
       ``(3) The term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.
       ``(4) The term `political appointee' means an individual 
     who is--
       ``(A) employed in a position described under sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5 (relating to the Executive Schedule);
       ``(B) a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), 
     respectively, of section 3132(a) of title 5; or
       ``(C) employed in a position of a confidential or policy-
     determining character under schedule C of subpart C of part 
     213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``715. Employees: removal or demotion based on performance or 
              misconduct.''.

       (2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any removal or demotion under section 715 of title 
     38.''.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRED PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR NEW EMPLOYEES OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Probationary Period.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 717. Probationary period for employees

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 3321 and 
     3393(d) of title 5, the appointment of a covered employee 
     shall become final only after such employee has served a 
     probationary period of 18 months. The Secretary may extend a 
     probationary period under this subsection at the discretion 
     of the Secretary.
       ``(b) Covered Employee.--In this section, the term `covered 
     employee'--
       ``(1) means any individual--
       ``(A) appointed to a permanent position within the 
     competitive service at the Department; or
       ``(B) appointed as a career appointee (as that term is 
     defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5) within the Senior 
     Executive Service at the Department; and
       ``(2) does not include any individual with a probationary 
     period prescribed by section 7403 of this title.
       ``(c) Permanent Hires.--Upon the expiration of a covered 
     employee's probationary period under subsection (a), the 
     supervisor of the employee shall determine whether the 
     appointment becomes final based on regulations prescribed for 
     such purpose by the Secretary.''.
       (2) Clerical and conforming amendments.--
       (A) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     such chapter, as amended by section 2, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``717. Probationary period for employees.''.

       (B) Conforming.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in section 3321(c)--

       (I) by striking ``Service or'' and inserting ``Service,''; 
     and
       (II) by inserting at the end before the period the 
     following: ``, or any individual covered by section 717 of 
     title 38''; and

       (ii) in section 3393(d), by adding at the end after the 
     period the following: ``The preceding sentence shall not 
     apply to any individual covered by section 717 of title 
     38.''.
       (b) Application.--Section 717 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply to any 
     covered employee (as that term is defined in subsection (b) 
     of such section 717, as so added) appointed after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS IN DEPARTMENT 
                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subchapter:

               ``SUBCHAPTER II--WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS

     ``Sec. 731. Whistleblower complaint defined

       ``In this subchapter, the term `whistleblower complaint' 
     means a complaint by an employee of the Department 
     disclosing, or assisting another employee to disclose, a 
     potential violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross 
     mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or 
     substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.

     ``Sec. 732. Treatment of whistleblower complaints

       ``(a) Filing.--(1) In addition to any other method 
     established by law in which an employee may file a 
     whistleblower complaint, an employee of the Department may 
     file a whistleblower complaint in accordance with subsection 
     (g) with a supervisor of the employee.
       ``(2) Except as provided by subsection (d)(1), in making a 
     whistleblower complaint under paragraph (1), an employee 
     shall file the initial complaint with the immediate 
     supervisor of the employee.
       ``(b) Notification.--(1) Not later than four business days 
     after the date on which a supervisor receives a whistleblower 
     complaint by an employee under this section, the supervisor 
     shall notify, in writing, the employee of whether the 
     supervisor determines that there is a reasonable likelihood 
     that the complaint discloses a violation of any law, rule, or 
     regulation, or gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, 
     abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to 
     public health and safety. The supervisor shall retain written 
     documentation regarding the whistleblower complaint and shall 
     submit to the next-level supervisor and the central 
     whistleblower office described in subsection (h) a written 
     report on the complaint.
       ``(2) On a monthly basis, the supervisor shall submit to 
     the appropriate director or other official who is superior to 
     the supervisor a written report that includes the number of 
     whistleblower complaints received by the supervisor under 
     this section during the month covered by the report, the 
     disposition of such complaints, and any actions taken because 
     of such complaints pursuant to subsection (c). In the case in 
     which such a director or official carries out this paragraph, 
     the director or official shall submit such monthly report to 
     the supervisor of the director or official and to the central 
     whistleblower office described in subsection (h).
       ``(c) Positive Determination.--If a supervisor makes a 
     positive determination under subsection (b)(1) regarding a 
     whistleblower complaint of an employee, the supervisor shall 
     include in the notification to the employee under such 
     subsection the specific actions that the supervisor will take 
     to address the complaint.
       ``(d) Filing Complaint With Next-level Supervisors.--(1) If 
     any circumstance described in paragraph (3) is met, an 
     employee may file a whistleblower complaint in accordance 
     with subsection (g) with the next-level supervisor who shall 
     treat such complaint in accordance with this section.

[[Page 13199]]

       ``(2) An employee may file a whistleblower complaint with 
     the Secretary if the employee has filed the whistleblower 
     complaint to each level of supervisors between the employee 
     and the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(3) A circumstance described in this paragraph are any of 
     the following circumstances:
       ``(A) A supervisor does not make a timely determination 
     under subsection (b)(1) regarding a whistleblower complaint.
       ``(B) The employee who made a whistleblower complaint 
     determines that the supervisor did not adequately address the 
     complaint pursuant to subsection (c).
       ``(C) The immediate supervisor of the employee is the basis 
     of the whistleblower complaint.
       ``(e) Transfer of Employee Who Files Whistleblower 
     Complaint.--If a supervisor makes a positive determination 
     under subsection (b)(1) regarding a whistleblower complaint 
     filed by an employee, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) inform the employee of the ability to volunteer for a 
     transfer in accordance with section 3352 of title 5; and
       ``(2) give preference to the employee for such a transfer 
     in accordance with such section.
       ``(f) Prohibition on Exemption.--The Secretary may not 
     exempt any employee of the Department from being covered by 
     this section.
       ``(g) Whistleblower Complaint Form.--(1) A whistleblower 
     complaint filed by an employee under subsection (a) or (d) 
     shall consist of the form described in paragraph (2) and any 
     supporting materials or documentation the employee determines 
     necessary.
       ``(2) The form described in this paragraph is a form 
     developed by the Secretary, in consultation with the Special 
     Counsel, that includes the following:
       ``(A) An explanation of the purpose of the whistleblower 
     complaint form.
       ``(B) Instructions for filing a whistleblower complaint as 
     described in this section.
       ``(C) An explanation that filing a whistleblower complaint 
     under this section does not preclude the employee from any 
     other method established by law in which an employee may file 
     a whistleblower complaint.
       ``(D) A statement directing the employee to information 
     accessible on the Internet website of the Department as 
     described in section 735(c).
       ``(E) Fields for the employee to provide--
       ``(i) the date that the form is submitted;
       ``(ii) the name of the employee;
       ``(iii) the contact information of the employee;
       ``(iv) a summary of the whistleblower complaint (including 
     the option to append supporting documents pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)); and
       ``(v) proposed solutions to complaint.
       ``(F) Any other information or fields that the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(3) The Secretary, in consultation with the Special 
     Counsel, shall develop the form described in paragraph (2) by 
     not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this section.
       ``(h) Central Whistleblower Office.--(1) The Secretary 
     shall ensure that the central whistleblower office--
       ``(A) is not an element of the Office of the General 
     Counsel;
       ``(B) is not headed by an official who reports to the 
     General Counsel;
       ``(C) does not provide, or receive from, the General 
     Counsel any information regarding a whistleblower complaint 
     except pursuant to an action regarding the complaint before 
     an administrative body or court; and
       ``(D) does not provide advice to the General Counsel.
       ``(2) The central whistleblower office shall be responsible 
     for investigating all whistleblower complaints of the 
     Department, regardless of whether such complaints are made by 
     or against an employee who is not a member of the Senior 
     Executive Service.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the central 
     whistleblower office maintains a toll-free hotline to 
     anonymously receive whistleblower complaints.
       ``(4) In this subsection, the term `central whistleblower 
     office' means the Office of Accountability Review or a 
     successor office that is established or designated by the 
     Secretary to investigate whistleblower complaints filed under 
     this section or any other method established by law.

     ``Sec. 733. Adverse actions against supervisory employees who 
       commit prohibited personnel actions relating to 
       whistleblower complaints

       ``(a) In General.--(1) In accordance with paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall carry out the following adverse actions 
     against supervisory employees whom the Secretary, an 
     administrative judge, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the 
     Office of Special Counsel, an adjudicating body provided 
     under a union contract, a Federal judge, or the Inspector 
     General of the Department determines committed a prohibited 
     personnel action described in subsection (c):
       ``(A) With respect to the first offense, an adverse action 
     that is not less than a 14-day suspension and not more than 
     removal.
       ``(B) With respect to the second offense, removal.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), and 
     notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c) of section 7513 and 
     section 7543 of title 5, the provisions of subsections (d) 
     and (e) of section 713 of this title shall apply with respect 
     to an adverse action carried out under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) An employee who is notified of being the subject of a 
     proposed adverse action under paragraph (1) may not be given 
     more than five days following such notification to provide 
     evidence to dispute such proposed adverse action. If the 
     employee does not provide any such evidence, or if the 
     Secretary determines that such evidence is not sufficient to 
     reverse the determination to propose the adverse action, the 
     Secretary shall carry out the adverse action following such 
     five-day period.
       ``(b) Limitation on Other Adverse Actions.--With respect to 
     a prohibited personnel action described in subsection (c), if 
     the Secretary carries out an adverse action against a 
     supervisory employee, the Secretary may carry out an 
     additional adverse action under this section based on the 
     same prohibited personnel action if the total severity of the 
     adverse actions do not exceed the level specified in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Prohibited Personnel Action Described.--A prohibited 
     personnel action described in this subsection is any of the 
     following actions:
       ``(1) Taking or failing to take a personnel action in 
     violation of section 2302 of title 5 against an employee 
     relating to the employee--
       ``(A) filing a whistleblower complaint in accordance with 
     section 732 of this title;
       ``(B) filing a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector 
     General of the Department, the Special Counsel, or Congress;
       ``(C) providing information or participating as a witness 
     in an investigation of a whistleblower complaint in 
     accordance with section 732 or with the Inspector General of 
     the Department, the Special Counsel, or Congress;
       ``(D) participating in an audit or investigation by the 
     Comptroller General of the United States;
       ``(E) refusing to perform an action that is unlawful or 
     prohibited by the Department; or
       ``(F) engaging in communications that are related to the 
     duties of the position or are otherwise protected.
       ``(2) Preventing or restricting an employee from making an 
     action described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Conducting a peer review or opening a retaliatory 
     investigation relating to an activity of an employee that is 
     protected by section 2302 of title 5.
       ``(4) Requesting a contractor to carry out an action that 
     is prohibited by section 4705(b) or section 4712(a)(1) of 
     title 41, as the case may be.

     ``Sec. 734. Evaluation criteria of supervisors and treatment 
       of bonuses

       ``(a) Evaluation Criteria.--(1) In evaluating the 
     performance of supervisors of the Department, the Secretary 
     shall include the criteria described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The criteria described in this subsection are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Whether the supervisor treats whistleblower 
     complaints in accordance with section 732.
       ``(B) Whether the appropriate deciding official, 
     performance review board, or performance review committee 
     determines that the supervisor was found to have committed a 
     prohibited personnel action described in section 733(b) by an 
     administrative judge, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the 
     Office of Special Counsel, an adjudicating body provided 
     under a union contract, a Federal judge, or, in the case of a 
     settlement of a whistleblower complaint (regardless of 
     whether any fault was assigned under such settlement), the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Bonuses.--(1) The Secretary may not pay to a 
     supervisor described in subsection (a)(2)(B) an award or 
     bonus under this title or title 5, including under chapter 45 
     or 53 of such title, during the one-year period beginning on 
     the date on which the determination was made under such 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall issue an order directing a supervisor 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B) to repay the amount of any 
     award or bonus paid under this title or title 5, including 
     under chapter 45 or 53 of such title, if--
       ``(A) such award or bonus was paid for performance during a 
     period in which the supervisor committed a prohibited 
     personnel action as determined pursuant to such subsection 
     (a)(2)(B);
       ``(B) the Secretary determines such repayment appropriate 
     pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary to carry 
     out this section; and
       ``(C) the supervisor is afforded notice and an opportunity 
     for a hearing before making such repayment.

     ``Sec. 735. Training regarding whistleblower complaints

       ``(a) Training.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman designated under section 
     3(d)(1)(C) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), shall annually provide to each employee of the 
     Department training regarding whistleblower complaints, 
     including--
       ``(1) an explanation of each method established by law in 
     which an employee may file a whistleblower complaint;
       ``(2) an explanation of prohibited personnel actions 
     described by section 733(c) of this title;
       ``(3) with respect to supervisors, how to treat 
     whistleblower complaints in accordance with section 732 of 
     this title;
       ``(4) the right of the employee to petition Congress 
     regarding a whistleblower complaint in accordance with 
     section 7211 of title 5;
       ``(5) an explanation that the employee may not be 
     prosecuted or reprised against for disclosing information to 
     Congress in instances where such disclosure is permitted by 
     law, including under sections 5701, 5705, and 7732 of this 
     title, under section 552a of title 5 (commonly

[[Page 13200]]

     referred to as the Privacy Act), under chapter 93 of title 
     18, and pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 
     264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191);
       ``(6) an explanation of the language that is required to be 
     included in all nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements 
     pursuant to section 115(a)(1) of the Whistleblower Protection 
     Enhancement Act of 2012 (5 U.S.C. 2302 note); and
       ``(7) the right of contractors to be protected from 
     reprisal for the disclosure of certain information under 
     section 4705 or 4712 of title 41.
       ``(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall annually provide 
     training on merit system protection in a manner that the 
     Special Counsel certifies as being satisfactory.
       ``(c) Publication.--(1) The Secretary shall publish on the 
     Internet website of the Department, and display prominently 
     at each facility of the Department, the rights of an employee 
     to file a whistleblower complaint, including the information 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a).
       ``(2) The Secretary shall publish on the Internet website 
     of the Department, the whistleblower complaint form described 
     in section 732(g)(2).

     ``Sec. 736. Reports to Congress

       ``(a) Annual Reports.--The Secretary shall annually submit 
     to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     of the Senate a report that includes--
       ``(1) with respect to whistleblower complaints filed under 
     section 732 during the year covered by the report--
       ``(A) the number of such complaints filed;
       ``(B) the disposition of such complaints; and
       ``(C) the ways in which the Secretary addressed such 
     complaints in which a positive determination was made by a 
     supervisor under subsection (b)(1) of such section;
       ``(2) the number of whistleblower complaints filed during 
     the year covered by the report that are not included under 
     paragraph (1), including--
       ``(A) the method in which such complaints were filed;
       ``(B) the disposition of such complaints; and
       ``(C) the ways in which the Secretary addressed such 
     complaints; and
       ``(3) with respect to disclosures made by a contractor 
     under section 4705 or 4712 of title 41--
       ``(A) the number of complaints relating to such disclosures 
     that were investigated by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs during the year covered by the 
     report;
       ``(B) the disposition of such complaints; and
       ``(C) the ways in which the Secretary addressed such 
     complaints.
       ``(b) Notice of Office of Special Counsel Determinations.--
     Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary 
     receives from the Special Counsel information relating to a 
     whistleblower complaint pursuant to section 1213 of title 5, 
     the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate of such information, 
     including the determination made by the Special Counsel.''.
       (b) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Conforming amendment.--Such chapter is further amended 
     by inserting before section 701 the following:

              ``SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL EMPLOYEE MATTERS''.

       (2) Clerical amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended--
       (A) by inserting before the item relating to section 701 
     the following new item:

               ``subchapter i--general employee matters'';

     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new items:

                ``subchapter ii--whistleblower complaints

``731. Whistleblower complaint defined.
``732. Treatment of whistleblower complaints.
``733. Adverse actions against supervisory employees who commit 
              prohibited personnel actions relating to whistleblower 
              complaints.
``734. Evaluation criteria of supervisors and treatment of bonuses.
``735. Training regarding whistleblower complaints.
``736. Reports to Congress.''.

     SEC. 5. REFORM OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR SENIOR 
                   EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Performance Appraisal System.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 717, as added 
     by section 3, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 719. Senior executives: performance appraisal

       ``(a) Performance Appraisal System.--(1) The performance 
     appraisal system for individuals employed in senior executive 
     positions in the Department required by section 4312 of title 
     5 shall provide, in addition to the requirements of such 
     section, for five annual summary ratings of levels of 
     performance as follows:
       ``(A) One outstanding level.
       ``(B) One exceeds fully successful level.
       ``(C) One fully successful level.
       ``(D) One minimally satisfactory level.
       ``(E) One unsatisfactory level.
       ``(2) The following limitations apply to the rating of the 
     performance of such individuals:
       ``(A) For any year, not more than 10 percent of such 
     individuals who receive a performance rating during that year 
     may receive the outstanding level under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(B) For any year, not more than 20 percent of such 
     individuals who receive a performance rating during that year 
     may receive the exceeds fully successful level under 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(3) In evaluating the performance of an individual under 
     the performance appraisal system, the Secretary shall take 
     into consideration--
       ``(A) any complaint or report (including any pending or 
     published report) submitted by the Inspector General of the 
     Department, the Comptroller General of the United States, the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or any other 
     appropriate person or entity, related to any facility or 
     program managed by the individual, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(B) efforts made by the individual to maintain high 
     levels of satisfaction and commitment among the employees 
     supervised by the individual; and
       ``(C) the criteria described in section 734(a)(2) of this 
     title.
       ``(b) Change of Position.--(1) At least once every five 
     years, the Secretary shall reassign each individual employed 
     in a senior executive position to a position at a different 
     location that does not include the supervision of the same 
     personnel or programs. The Secretary shall make such 
     reassignments on a rolling basis based on the date on which 
     an individual was originally assigned to a position.
       ``(2) The Secretary may waive the requirement under 
     paragraph (1) for any such individual, if the Secretary 
     submits to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives notice of the waiver and an 
     explanation of the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(c) Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the performance appraisal system of the Department under 
     subsection (a). Each such report shall include, for the year 
     preceding the year during which the report is submitted, each 
     of the following:
       ``(1) All documentation concerning each of the following 
     for each individual employed in a senior executive position 
     in the Department:
       ``(A) The initial performance appraisal.
       ``(B) The higher level review, if requested.
       ``(C) The recommendations of the performance review board.
       ``(D) The final summary review.
       ``(E) The number of initial performance ratings raised as a 
     result of the recommendations of the performance review 
     board.
       ``(F) The number of initial performance ratings lowered as 
     a result of the recommendations of the performance review 
     board.
       ``(G) Any adverse action taken against any such individual 
     who receives a performance rating of less than fully 
     successful.
       ``(2) The review of the Inspector General of the Department 
     of the information described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) 
     of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) A summary of the documentation provided under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Definition of Senior Executive Position.--In this 
     section, the term `senior executive position' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 713(g)(3) of this title.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 3, is 
     further amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 717 the following new item:

``719. Senior executives: performance appraisal.''.

       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 4312(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) that, in the case of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, the performance appraisal system meets the 
     requirements of section 719 of title 38.''.
       (b) Review of SES Management Training.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall enter into a contract with a nongovernmental entity to 
     review the management training program for individuals 
     employed in senior executive positions (as such term is 
     defined in section 713(g)(3) of title 38, United States Code) 
     of the Department of Veterans Affairs that is being provided 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act. Such review 
     shall include a comparison of the training provided by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs to the management training 
     provided for senior executives of other Federal departments 
     and agencies and to the management training provided to 
     senior executives in the private sector. The contract shall 
     provide that the nongovernmental entity must complete and 
     submit to the Secretary a report containing the findings and 
     conclusions of the review by not later than 180 days after 
     the date on which the Secretary and the nongovernmental 
     entity enter into the contract.

[[Page 13201]]

       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives the report under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committees 
     on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives the report together with a plan for carrying 
     out the recommendations contained in the report.

     SEC. 6. REDUCTION OF BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR 
                   EXECUTIVE SERVICE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.

       (a) Reduction of Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 719, as added 
     by section 5, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 721. Senior executives: reduction of benefits of 
       individuals convicted of certain crimes

       ``(a) Reduction of Annuity for Removed Employee.--The 
     Secretary shall order that the covered service of an 
     individual removed from a senior executive position under 
     section 713 of this title shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of calculating an annuity with respect to such 
     individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if--
       ``(1) the individual is convicted of a felony that 
     influenced the individual's performance while employed in the 
     senior executive position; and
       ``(2) before such order is made, the individual is afforded 
     notice and an opportunity for a hearing conducted by another 
     department or agency of the Federal Government.
       ``(b) Reduction of Annuity for Retired Employee.--(1) The 
     Secretary may order that the covered service of an individual 
     who is subject to a removal or transfer action under section 
     713 of this title but who leaves employment at the Department 
     prior to the issuance of a final decision with respect to 
     such action shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     calculating an annuity with respect to such individual under 
     chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if--
       ``(A) the individual is convicted of a felony that 
     influenced the individual's performance while employed in the 
     senior executive position; and
       ``(B) before such order is made, the individual is afforded 
     notice and an opportunity for a hearing conducted by another 
     department or agency of the Federal Government.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall make such an order not later than 
     seven days after the date of the conclusion of a hearing 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(B) that determines that such 
     order is lawful.
       ``(c) Administrative Requirements.--(1) Not later than 30 
     days after the Secretary issues an order under subsection (a) 
     or (b), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall recalculate the annuity of the individual.
       ``(2) A decision regarding whether the covered service of 
     an individual shall be taken into account for purposes of 
     calculating an annuity under subsection (a) or (b) is final 
     and may not be reviewed by any department or agency or any 
     court.
       ``(d) Lump-Sum Annuity Credit.--Any individual with respect 
     to whom an annuity is reduced under subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's 
     lump-sum credit as is attributable to the period of covered 
     service.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered service' means, with respect to an 
     individual subject to a removal or transfer action under 
     section 713 of this title, the period of service beginning on 
     the date that the Secretary determines under such section 
     that such individual engaged in activity that gave rise to 
     such action and ending on the date that such individual is 
     removed from the civil service or leaves employment at the 
     Department prior to the issuance of a final decision with 
     respect to such action, as the case may be.
       ``(2) The term `lump-sum credit' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 8331(8) or section 8401(19) of title 5, as 
     the case may be.
       ``(3) The term `senior executive position' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 713(g)(3) of this title.
       ``(4) The term `service' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 8331(12) or section 8401(26) of title 5, as the case 
     may be.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 719, as added by section 
     5, the following new item:

``721. Senior executives: reduction of benefits of individuals 
              convicted of certain crimes.''.

       (b) Application.--Section 721 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply to any 
     action of removal or transfer under section 713 of title 38, 
     United States Code, commencing on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR EMPLOYEES 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 721, as added 
     by section 6, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 723. Limitation on administrative leave

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     the Secretary may not place any covered individual on 
     administrative leave, or any other type of paid non-duty 
     status without charge to leave, for more than a total of 14 
     days during any 365-day period.
       ``(b) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation under 
     subsection (a) and extend the administrative leave or other 
     paid non-duty status without charge to leave of a covered 
     individual placed on such leave or status under subsection 
     (a) if the Secretary submits to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a detailed 
     explanation of the reasons the individual was placed on 
     administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without 
     charge to leave and the reasons for the extension of such 
     leave or status. Such explanation shall include the name of 
     the covered individual, the location where the individual is 
     employed, and the individual's job title.
       ``(c) Covered Individual.--In this subsection, the term 
     `covered individual' means an employee of the Department--
       ``(1) who is subject to an investigation for purposes of 
     determining whether such individual should be subject to any 
     disciplinary action under this title or title 5; or
       ``(2) against whom any disciplinary action is proposed or 
     initiated under this title or title 5.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 6, is 
     further amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 721 the following new item:

``723. Limitation on administrative leave.''.

       (b) Application.--Section 723 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply with respect 
     to any 365-day period beginning on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. TREATMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY BY DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES AS OFFICIAL DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 723, as added 
     by section 7, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 725. Congressional testimony by employees: treatment 
       as official duty

       ``(a) Congressional Testimony.--An employee of the 
     Department is performing official duty during the period with 
     respect to which the employee is testifying in an official 
     capacity in front of either House of Congress, a committee of 
     either House of Congress, or a joint or select committee of 
     Congress.
       ``(b) Travel Expenses.--The Secretary shall provide travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, to any employee of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs performing official duty described under 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is further amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 723, as added by section 
     7, the following new item:

``725. Congressional testimony by employees: treatment as official 
              duty.''.

     SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON AWARDS AND BONUSES PAID TO EMPLOYEES OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       Section 705 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 703 
     note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 705. LIMITATION ON AWARDS AND BONUSES PAID TO 
                   EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       ``The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that the 
     aggregate amount of awards and bonuses paid by the Secretary 
     in a fiscal year under chapter 45 or 53 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or any other awards or bonuses authorized under 
     such title or title 38, United States Code, does not exceed 
     the following amounts:
       ``(1) With respect to each of fiscal years 2015 through 
     2018, $300,000,000.
       ``(2) With respect to each of fiscal years 2019 through 
     2024, $360,000,000.''.

     SEC. 10. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF DEPARTMENT TIME AND 
                   SPACE USED FOR LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY.

       (a) Study Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study on the amount of time 
     spent by Department of Veterans Affairs employees carrying 
     out organizing activities relating to labor organizations and 
     the amount of space in Department facilities used for such 
     activities. The study shall include a cost-benefit analysis 
     of the use of such time and space for such activities.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     completion of the study required under subsection (a), the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives 
     a report on the results of the study.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 114-234. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Benishek

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-234.

[[Page 13202]]


  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 11. ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
                   INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 8, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 727. Accountability of Secretary to Inspector General

       ``(a) Submission of Reports.--(1) At the same time as the 
     Inspector General of the Department submits to the Secretary 
     a covered report, the Inspector General shall submit to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a copy of such covered report.
       ``(2) The Inspector General shall include in each covered 
     report submitted under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) an explanation of any changes to the covered report 
     recommended by the Secretary during the period in which the 
     Inspector General was preparing the covered report; and
       ``(B) a list of the names of each responsible manager.
       ``(3) The Inspector General may not make public the names 
     of responsible managers submitted under paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(b) Performance of Responsible Managers.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) promptly notify each responsible manager of a covered 
     issue by not later than seven days after the date on which 
     the Inspector General submits a covered report to the 
     Secretary;
       ``(B) direct such manager to resolve such issue; and
       ``(C) provide such manager with appropriate counseling and 
     a mitigation plan with respect to resolving such issue.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that any performance 
     review of a responsible manager includes an evaluation of 
     whether the manager took appropriate actions during the 
     period covered by the review to respond to a covered issue.
       ``(3) The Secretary may not pay to a responsible manager 
     any bonus or award under chapter 45 or 53 of title 5 or any 
     other bonus or award authorized under such title or this 
     title if a covered issue is unresolved.
       ``(c) Role of Inspector General.--Any authority of the 
     Inspector General provided under this section is in addition 
     to any responsibility or authority provided to the Inspector 
     General in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered issue' means, with respect to a 
     responsible manager, an issue described in a covered report 
     for which the manager is or was responsible.
       ``(2) The term `covered report' means a report by the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs that 
     recommends actions to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (or 
     other official or employee of the Department) to address an 
     issue in the Department with respect to public health or 
     safety relating to misconduct, or alleged misconduct, by an 
     employee of the Department.
       ``(3) The term `responsible manager' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) is an employee of the Department;
       ``(B) is or was responsible for an issue included in a 
     covered report; and
       ``(C) in being so responsible, is or was employed in a 
     management position, regardless of whether the employee is in 
     the competitive civil service, Senior Executive Service, or 
     other type of civil service.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 8, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 725 
     the following new item:

``727. Accountability of Secretary to Inspector General.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 388, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have a real opportunity here to inject accountability into the 
VA's culture of mismanagement. The Benishek-Sinema amendment would help 
ensure that, when a VA inspector general identifies a problem and 
offers recommendations to fix it, the changes are made, and the job 
gets done.
  Today, the IG regularly issues reports on problems at the Department, 
and most of the time, the VA agrees with many of the recommendations 
and promises to change. The problem is no manager is actually named as 
being responsible for making those changes. When no one is in charge, 
nothing gets done, and there is no one to hold responsible. This 
amendment makes key changes that will give the IG's reports teeth, that 
will bring to the VA the solutions our veterans deserve.
  It increases transparency, and it allows the public to see the IG's 
report related to alleged employee misconduct. It requires the release 
of any modifications that the VA has asked the IG to make.
  It also requires the IG to identify specific managers who are 
responsible for fixing the problems identified in the reports. Their 
names will not be released, but this will allow Congress and the VA to 
know who is responsible for fixing the problem. Those individuals will 
not be able to receive a bonus or any performance award until the IG 
certifies that the problem is resolved.
  Finally, it reduces the burden on a supervisor when it is necessary 
to fire a bad employee. A supervisor cannot effectively manage if his 
hands are tied.
  This amendment has a history of bipartisan support, passing as a 
stand-alone bill by voice vote in the last Congress. It has also 
garnered the support of veterans' service organizations, including the 
American Legion, the VFW, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 
and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  I thank my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Sinema, for her 
leadership and for joining me on the issue. I am grateful for Chairman 
Miller's support and for that of the entire Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. Chairman Miller has been an incredible voice and advocate 
for our veterans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, for 
offering his amendment. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman and Representative Sinema.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the IG to identify problem 
employees at the VA, and it would prohibit the VA from giving 
performance pay to these identified employees.
  I believe this amendment could compromise the integrity of the VA 
inspector general and the ability of the VA IG to investigate 
whistleblower complaints and bring to light problems at the VA.
  The amendment would force the IG to concentrate its efforts on 
identifying bad managers by name rather than focusing on recommending 
solutions to problems and conducting thorough and complete 
investigations.
  Requiring the IG to forward anything submitted to the VA would 
interject Congress into the very manner in which the IG drafts and 
finalizes reports. This change would call into question the integrity 
of the investigations that Congress relies on to shape policy and to 
find solutions.
  Finally, I believe that this amendment is vaguely drafted and that it 
raises more questions than it seeks to answer. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, once again, Members who saw this 
go through regular order last year through the committee and then pass 
the full House are now in opposition.
  I rise in support of Dr. Benishek's amendment. He has been the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Health since the 113th Congress. It is 
a position that I offered him based on his dedication to our Nation's 
veterans. Dr. Benishek's amendment to the VA Accountability Act of 2015 
contains the text of his bill, the Demanding Accountability for 
Veterans Act.
  The Demanding Accountability for Veterans Act is a bipartisan piece 
of legislation that is supported by many veterans' service 
organizations. His

[[Page 13203]]

amendment would require the inspector general to be transparent with 
Congress about the reports that are written about VA facilities and 
programs and the changes that are being made to those reports at the 
VA's behest.
  The amendment would also require the VA to provide the name of the VA 
employee who is responsible for implementing recommendations issued by 
the IG, to direct that employee to take action, and to prohibit the VA 
from paying a bonus or a performance award to that employee if 
appropriate action is not taken. In the most recent semiannual report 
to Congress, the VA inspector general reported that 1,150 
recommendations were left open by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
That is not acceptable.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. I thank Mr. Takano, Chairman Miller, and Chairman 
Benishek for their efforts to improve the quality of care and services 
delivered to our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, the Benishek-Sinema amendment is a commonsense 
amendment that will bring accountability to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. The amendment, based on a bill that Dr. Benishek and I 
introduced, the Demanding Accountability for Veterans Act, requires the 
VA to address problems identified by the VA Office of Inspector 
General, and it ensures that individual managers are held accountable 
if issues remain unresolved.
  Our amendment requires that, in each covered VA inspector general 
report, the Secretary of the VA assign specific managers who will be 
responsible for fixing specific problems identified within the IG's 
report. The Secretary must give the responsible managers appropriate 
counseling and plans of action to resolve each covered issue. Bonuses 
cannot be paid if a covered issue remains unresolved, and how a manager 
responds to the challenge will be included in that individual's 
performance evaluation.
  It is unacceptable that issues raised by the VA inspector general 
over and over, from wait times to medical staffing, remain unresolved 
by the VA. This amendment will hold the VA Secretary and senior 
management accountable for ensuring these warnings are not ignored 
again.
  We have a long way to go to change the system and culture of the VA, 
and I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to ensure that veterans come first.
  Again, I thank Chairman Miller, Chairman Benishek, and Mr. Takano for 
their leadership and for their work on veterans' issues. I especially 
thank Chairman Benishek for his thoughtful, bipartisan approach to this 
amendment.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this measure has 
significant applicability to the ``right here, right now'' problems 
associated with the VA. Specifically, I am going to cite the oversight 
efforts involving the Philadelphia VA Regional Office.
  It has been nearly a year since the Philadelphia VA problems were 
first reported. We have an IG report; we have an AIB report; and we 
have egregious allegations that have been proven true. Yet, as a Member 
of Congress who represents tens of thousands of veterans who rely on 
the Philadelphia VA for benefits and services, I still don't have 
answers. I still don't know who is responsible or know of all of the 
specific misconduct and behaviors or know of the repercussions for the 
employees who are responsible.
  Our tools for providing oversight over the VA need updating to 
reflect that there must be transparency when investigating and 
disciplining bad employees. This amendment and this bill move us in the 
right direction towards accountability and transparency.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of this 
amendment.
  For far too long, the VA has condoned an apathetic culture that 
encourages its employees to ignore their duties and to cover up serious 
problems.
  Last year, the staff of VISN 16, which includes my home State of 
Louisiana, admitted to inappropriately denying hundreds of veterans' 
medical care claims. When my office asked how many veterans' claims 
were being inappropriately denied, we were met with excuses and 
obfuscation. That is completely unacceptable.
  One important provision of this amendment would prevent bonuses and 
performance awards for VA employees who fail to fix these problems. 
This provision is similar to an amendment I offered to the VA 
appropriations measure this past April. No small business in Louisiana 
would survive by allowing employees with such poor success rates to 
earn bonuses. I believe this is one of the most effective ways we can 
force accountability on this overly bureaucratic agency.
  I thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Benishek for their efforts in 
this cause.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and hold the VA 
accountable for their inadequate and unacceptable performance.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-234.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair VA Accountability 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES FOR PERFORMANCE OR MISCONDUCT 
                   THAT IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after section 713 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 715. Employees: suspension and removal for performance 
       or misconduct that is a threat to public health or safety

       ``(a) Suspension and Removal.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), the Secretary may--
       ``(1) suspend without pay an employee of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs if the Secretary determines the performance 
     or misconduct of the employee is a clear and direct threat to 
     public health or safety; and
       ``(2) remove an employee suspended under paragraph (1) 
     when, after such investigation and review as the Secretary 
     considers necessary, the Secretary determines that removal is 
     necessary in the interests of public health or safety.
       ``(b) Procedure.--An employee suspended under subsection 
     (a)(1) is entitled, after suspension and before removal, to--
       ``(1) within 30 days after suspension, a written statement 
     of the specific charges against the employee, which may be 
     amended within 30 days thereafter;
       ``(2) an opportunity within 30 days thereafter, plus an 
     additional 30 days if the charges are amended, to answer the 
     charges and submit affidavits;
       ``(3) a hearing, at the request of the employee, by a 
     Department authority duly constituted for this purpose;
       ``(4) a review of the case by the Secretary, before a 
     decision adverse to the employee is made final; and
       ``(5) written statement of the decision of the Secretary.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Disciplinary Rules.--The authority 
     provided under this section shall be in addition to the 
     authority provided under section 713 and title 5 with respect 
     to disciplinary actions for performance or misconduct.
       ``(d) Back Pay for Whistleblowers.--If any employee of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs is subject to a suspension or 
     removal under this section and such suspension or removal is 
     determined by an appropriate authority under applicable law, 
     rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement to be a 
     prohibited personnel practice described

[[Page 13204]]

     under section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, such employee 
     shall receive back pay equal to the total amount of basic pay 
     that such employee would have received during the period that 
     the suspension and removal (as the case may be) was in 
     effect, less any amounts earned by the employee through other 
     employment during that period.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term `employee' 
     means any individual occupying a position within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs under a permanent or 
     indefinite appointment and who is not serving a probationary 
     or trial period.''.
       (b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 713 the following new item:

``715. Employees: suspension and removal for performance or misconduct 
              that is a threat to public health or safety.''.
       (2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any suspension or removal under section 715 of title 
     38.''.
       (c) Effective Date of Back Pay Provision.--Subsection (d) 
     of section 715 of title 38, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall take effect on October 1, 2015.
       (d) Report on Suspensions and Removals.--Not later than one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall 
     submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report on suspensions and 
     removals of employees of the Department made under section 
     715 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (a). Such report shall include, with respect to the period 
     covered by the report, the following:
       (1) The number of employees who were suspended under such 
     section.
       (2) The number of employees who were removed under such 
     section.
       (3) A description of the threats to public health or safety 
     that caused such suspensions and removals.
       (4) The number of such suspensions or removals, or proposed 
     suspensions or removals, that were of employees who filed a 
     complaint regarding--
       (A) an alleged prohibited personnel practice committed by 
     an officer or employee of the Department and described in 
     section 2302(b)(8) or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of 
     title 5, United States Code; or
       (B) the safety of a patient at a medical facility of the 
     Department.
       (5) Of the number of suspensions and removals listed under 
     paragraph (4), the number that the Inspector General 
     considers to be retaliation for whistleblowing.
       (6) The number of such suspensions or removals that were of 
     an employee who was the subject of a complaint made to the 
     Department regarding the health or safety of a patient at a 
     medical facility of the Department.
       (7) Any recommendations by the Inspector General, based on 
     the information described in paragraphs (1) through (6), to 
     improve the authority to make such suspensions and removals.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR EMPLOYEES 
                   WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding after section 715, as added by 
     section 2, the following new section:

     ``Sec. 717. Administrative leave limitation and report

       ``(a) Limitation Applicable to Employees Within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.--(1) The Secretary may not 
     place any covered individual on administrative leave, or any 
     other type of paid non-duty status without charge to leave, 
     for more than a total of 14 days during any 365-day period.
       ``(2) The Secretary may waive the limitation under 
     paragraph (1) and extend the administrative leave or other 
     paid non-duty status without charge to leave of a covered 
     individual placed on such leave or status under paragraph (1) 
     if the Secretary submits to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a detailed 
     explanation of the reasons the individual was placed on 
     administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without 
     charge to leave and the reasons for the extension of such 
     leave or status. Such explanation shall include the name of 
     the covered individual, the location where the individual is 
     employed, and the individual's job title.
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `covered individual' 
     means an employee of the Department--
       ``(A) who is subject to an investigation for purposes of 
     determining whether such individual should be subject to any 
     disciplinary action under this title or title 5; or
       ``(B) against whom any disciplinary action is proposed or 
     initiated under this title or title 5.
       ``(b) Report on Administrative Leave.--(1) Not later than 
     30 days after the end of each quarter of any calendar year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 
     report listing the name of any employee of the Department (if 
     any) who has been placed on administrative leave, or any 
     other type of paid non-duty status, for a period longer than 
     7 days during such quarter.
       ``(2) Any report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     include, with respect to any employee listed in such report, 
     the position occupied by the employee, the number of days of 
     such leave, and the reason that such employee was placed on 
     such leave.''.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) Administrative leave limitation.--Section 717(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), 
     shall apply to any action of removal or transfer under 
     section 713 of such title or title 5, United States Code, 
     commencing on or after the date of enactment of this section.
       (2) Report.--The report under section 717(b) of such title 
     (as added by subsection (a)) shall begin to apply in the 
     quarter that ends after the date that is 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter 7 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``717. Administrative leave limitation and report.''.

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 38, 
     United States Code, to improve the authority of the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs to suspend and remove employees of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for performance or misconduct 
     that is a threat to public health or safety.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 388, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, in Congress, we can all agree that greater 
accountability is sorely needed within the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. We are all outraged that VA employees whose misconduct has 
harmed veterans have remained in their jobs. Last summer, we were all 
horrified that the VA medical centers in Phoenix and elsewhere 
manipulated patient wait times. This spring, in Denver, we were 
frustrated by the huge cost overruns with no real accountability.
  I agree with my Republican colleagues that the VA must do a better 
job of using its existing authorities to hold bad employees, such as 
these, accountable. Unfortunately, this lack of accountability has 
overshadowed the excellent work of the vast majority of VA employees--
over a third of them veterans themselves, whose genuine caring and 
tireless efforts honor veterans' service to our Nation. I believe it is 
wrong to assume VA employees are guilty until proven innocent, and I 
believe that H.R. 1994 is the wrong way to achieve greater 
accountability at the VA.
  This afternoon, I am offering an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1994. The text of my amendment is based on my bill, 
H.R. 2999, the Fair VA Accountability Act. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it today.

                              {time}  1600

  My substitute would provide real accountability at the VA in a manner 
that preserves the important due process rights of VA employees and 
protects our veterans, and my substitute would improve the status quo 
by giving VA an additional accountability mechanism.
  It would allow VA to immediately fire, without pay, any VA employee 
whose misconduct presents a clear and present danger to public health 
and safety while providing adequate due process on the back end for 
such employees.
  This standard comes from Supreme Court precedent regarding 
constitutional due process for Federal employees and mirrors a similar 
Department of Defense provision.
  My substitute would mean that, if a VA employee's behavior threatened 
veterans' health or safety, VA could immediately fire that employee. 
Current law only allows VA to ask such an employee to leave work while 
still receiving pay.
  My substitute would also cap paid administrative leave at 14 days so 
VA employees would not sit at home and collect a paycheck while 
fighting a disciplinary action.

[[Page 13205]]

  My substitute would shield our bold VA whistleblowers by protecting 
existing laws and requiring the VA to backpay any whistleblower 
unjustly fired for reporting wrongdoing.
  In sum, my substitute would provide the VA with the tools it needs to 
remove dangerous employees immediately and protect the health and 
safety of veterans and others, and my bill does so in a way which 
preserves important concepts of due process for VA employees.
  These employees live in our communities and States. They are our 
friends and neighbors and sometimes our family members. Ensuring basic 
American notions of fairness is what my amendment in the nature of a 
substitute provides and, frankly, what H.R. 1994 does not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, but at this time I have to 
oppose it.
  I appreciate that Mr. Takano does believe that we need to provide 
real accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs. But as I 
said at our committee markup when he offered an almost identical 
amendment, this substitute fails to achieve true accountability.
  I am supportive of section 3 of his amendment, which would limit 
administrative leave for all employees to 14 days, and I agree with 
this commonsense policy. But I would note that this limitation language 
is already included in my bill, H.R. 1994.
  My main concern with the substitute lies within section 2, which 
would dramatically change the standard and the process set up in my 
bill of removing VA employees.
  The substitute would only give the Secretary the authority to remove 
an employee if they represent a ``clear and direct threat to public 
health or safety,'' which is almost an unobtainable, if not 
immeasurable, bar to reach.
  This undefined standard would make it almost impossible for the 
Secretary to remove any employee under this new authority, thereby 
ensuring that the current stalemate that exists with the civil service 
rules would continue.
  Unfortunately, as I said moments ago, maintaining the status quo is 
not acceptable. I would submit that the standard of a clear and direct 
threat to public health and safety would not apply to those employees 
involved with many of today's ongoing scandals at the VA, including the 
cost overruns of the Denver hospital; the budget shortfall that we are 
going to vote to fix later today, a $3 billion budget fix; the 
manipulation of data at the Philadelphia regional office; the 
allegations of inappropriate use of government purchase cards to the 
tune of $6 billion; the allegations of employees at the Los Angeles 
regional office once again inappropriately shredding veterans' claim 
information; and the many other egregious actions that continue to come 
to light at VA almost every single day.
  Members, these are the very type of employees that our constituents 
and our veterans expect to be held accountable, but the standard 
proposed in this substitute would not give the Secretary the authority 
to provide the accountability we all know that VA desperately needs.
  I also have some concerns with the procedures that are laid out in 
the substitute to actually remove these employees.
  I believe that, unlike the procedures that I have laid out in my 
bill, which set definitive timelines to remove someone while 
maintaining the due process and maintaining appeal rights, the 
procedures laid out in this substitute could allow an employee to be on 
indefinite suspension for months, if not years, awaiting a hearing for 
the Secretary's final decision.
  It has been mentioned several times by my colleagues on the other 
side that passage of H.R. 1994 would return to a spoils or an at-will 
employment system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Let me compare a spoils or an at-will system to the protections 
offered in 1994.
  First, a spoils system would allow the party in power to hire anyone, 
usually partisan supporters, that they want to reward for their 
political support with a Federal job. In contrast, H.R. 1994 has no 
effect on the current hiring process.
  Second, a spoils or a patronage system makes all employees at will 
and subject to firing for any or even no reason. Again, that is hardly 
the case in my bill. H.R. 1994 requires proof in the form of poor 
performance or misconduct.
  Additionally, my bill requires the Secretary to report the reasons 
for any such removals to Congress within 30 days.
  Third, in a spoils system, a fired employee has no right of appeal. 
In contrast, under H.R. 1994, fired employees still have due process 
rights, including 45 days to appeal their firing to the Merit Systems 
Protection Board.
  Fourth, in a spoils system, there is no such thing as paid 
administrative leave. You are fired, gone with no pay.
  Under civil service rules, a poor-performing employee can be placed 
on administrative leave for essentially an unlimited time, as we have 
seen with several miscreants identified during our investigations.
  H.R. 1994, on the other hand, would limit the Secretary's authority 
to put someone on paid administrative leave to 14 days, at which time 
the Secretary must bring that person back to Active Duty.
  Fifth, in a spoils system, there are no protections for 
whistleblowers. In an at-will system, employees may or may not be 
covered by whistleblower protection, employee discrimination, et 
cetera, type laws, depending on the type of employer.
  However, under H.R. 1994, employees are protected by both of these 
types of laws, plus the procedures and additional protections created 
under section 4 of my bill.
  Employees cannot be removed without OSC approval if an open case 
exists, and employees cannot be removed or demoted if they have an open 
case under the new process that is laid out in section 4 until the 
Office of Accountability review makes a final determination.
  So, ultimately, not only does this amendment set a standard for 
removal that is not relevant to a majority of the issues that we see at 
the Department, it keeps intact the long and arduous timeline before a 
final approval is complete. This is not fair to veterans, to the 
Department, or to the employee in question.
  To reemphasize, I also have issues with the whistleblower protections 
that are laid out in this substitute or the lack of protections in this 
substitute.
  The only mention of whistleblower protections made in this amendment 
says that a whistleblower may receive backpay if the Merit Systems 
Protection Board ultimately decides they were removed for blowing the 
whistle.
  Not only does this not provide any protections on the front end, but 
it would also strip out all of the whistleblower protections I have 
included in section 4 of my bill.
  We all know that the Secretary has a tall task to restore trust and 
to rebuild the VA. We have to give him every tool possible to complete 
that mission. This amendment does not come close to giving him the tool 
that he needs today.
  So, once again, I urge Members to support change and stand with 
veterans, not the bureaucrats and the special interest groups and the 
status quo. I urge Members to oppose the Takano substitute.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague, Chairman 
Miller of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has implied that my clear 
and present danger standard in the substitute that I have offered is 
too narrow and does not give the Secretary enough tools to dismiss bad 
employees. I respectfully disagree.
  Particularly in the case of the Phoenix VA, the hospital's director, 
Sharon Helman, clearly posed a threat to the health and safety of 
veterans. Under

[[Page 13206]]

my substitute, she would have been immediately removed.
  Similarly, many of the speakers on the other side of the aisle cited 
a crackhouse case where a VA employee took a veteran to a crackhouse.
  Now, my substitute and the clear and present standard, the health and 
safety standard that we have put forward, would clearly have addressed 
that employee and would have made that employee immediately 
dismissible.
  Let me remind you again that VA does have current title 5 procedures 
that they have been using to remove poor-performing employees.
  We should encourage the VA to use them better, to use the tools that 
they have. I remind my colleagues that last year 872 permanent 
employees were removed, 487 more resigned in lieu of being fired, and 
958 probationary employees were terminated.
  Now, the fact that the VA wait list scandal emerged out of Phoenix 
was because we do have protections for whistleblowers. They could be 
strengthened.
  Nevertheless, the current civil service protections, the due process 
protections, afforded those employees the security to move forward and 
to come forward as whistleblowers.
  Again, my amendment in the form of a substitute fixes the 
deficiencies of my good friend Chairman Miller's bill.
  I have said before that I believe his bill puts extra barriers in 
front of whistleblowers in coming forward. It complicates and makes 
more cumbersome their ability to come forward.
  If you are an employee who is under threat of dismissal and 
immediately losing your livelihood, that is a huge, huge barrier to 
your coming forward as a whistleblower.
  That is exactly what his bill would do. It would make everyone in the 
VA an at-will employee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), the chairman of the subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over the VA budget.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Miller for his 
leadership on this.
  I rise to oppose the substitute amendment. But I want to express my 
gratitude to the chairman for the work that he and the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee have done, all the work they have put into this 
legislation to prevent another VA catastrophe by making sure that the 
Choice Act funds we appropriated last year can be used for related 
veterans' community care expenditures.
  This bill will ensure that no veterans hospital or care for any 
veteran will be jeopardized due to the VA's continuing mismanagement of 
the influx of patients that followed last year's passage of the Choice 
Act.
  Once again, Congress is providing the VA with all the resources they 
require to provide timely, quality care to our veterans and their loved 
ones.
  It was only about a month ago that we were informed by the Department 
that there was a shortfall of the magnitude of almost $3.4 billion, and 
here we are today remedying this problem.
  The bill also proposes something that is sorely needed: the 
consolidation of the myriad programs VA uses to provide care outside 
their facilities.
  Veterans are confused. VA employees are confused. Doctors are 
confused. Reimbursement rates are not standardized.
  We need to make sure that the non-VA care program is thriving so that 
patients can get the high-quality care they deserve in their homes, in 
their home communities, right where they live.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans 
Affairs and Related Agencies, I will continue to devote time and 
attention to pinpointing the VA's future funding needs and maintaining 
vigilant oversight of their appropriated taxpayer dollars.
  The VA must develop systems that give us accurate and on-time 
information and engage with Congress in a transparent and timely 
manner. We cannot and should not continue to lurch from one VA funding 
crisis to another.

                              {time}  1615

  What we have seen is terrible management and a terrible disservice to 
our veterans by the VA in many of these cases; we need to fix it. I 
believe the Secretary is a good and honorable man trying to do his 
best, but the taxpayers deserve better, and our veterans most assuredly 
do.
  I urge passage of this bill. I thank the chairman and the leadership 
of the committee.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Let me just be clear. I am just amazed that, on 
the last day of the session, we are spending the entire afternoon 
discussing H.R. 1994--a bill that the Senate will not pick up; and if, 
by some miracle, it passed, the President would veto it--when there are 
so many other things that we could be discussing.
  How about addressing H.R. 3266, which will give the Secretary the 
authority to run the VA like a business, which is what we keep saying?
  I support the substitute amendment. The accountability substitute is 
offered today because it brings real accountability to the VA while 
maintaining constitutionality due process protection for civil service 
employees.
  At the Committee on Veterans' Affairs over the past 2 years, we have 
learned of widespread mismanagement and--let me emphasize--lack of 
training at the VA. The problems that the VA has have gone back for 
many years, over 30. Maybe if we had adequately funded VA, they would 
have fewer problems.
  The majority has introduced H.R. 1994, which attempts to increase 
accountability by allowing VA to immediately fire any employee for 
misconduct with only limited due process. The substitute increases 
accountability by allowing VA to immediately suspend, without pay, any 
employee whose misconduct posed a direct threat to veterans' health and 
safety.
  Unlike H.R. 1994, the substitute provides sufficient due process 
rights to meet constitutional requirements by providing an accused 
employee with a fair chance to tell their side of the story.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute and vote against 
H.R. 1994.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. May I inquire how much time is remaining on my 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote 
for my amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is 
basically gut H.R. 1994, which is an accountability bill that provides 
the Secretary with a desperately needed tool in order to hold people 
accountable within the Department.
  I would like to read for the Record the 11 veterans service 
organizations that support the removal authority: American Legion, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, Student 
Veterans of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Military 
Officers Association of America, Reserve Officers Association, 
Concerned Veterans for America, and AMVETS.
  I remind Members that VA has only successfully removed three VA 
employees for reasons related to the wait time manipulation in the VA 
scandal that was brought to everybody's attention back in April.
  Here are those that oppose the accountability bill: the American 
Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees 
Union.
  So, again, on opposition are the unions; on support are the veterans 
service organizations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 13207]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 1994) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the removal or demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________