[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9666-9676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2016--Continued

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to address the Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        FAA Reauthorization Bill

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the FAA 
reauthorization and several things and stories that have arisen in the 
last few days which are very discouraging to me and troublesome to a 
cause I care a lot about.
  I am an advocate for general aviation, and I was pleased the Senate 
was able to pass the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 by a vote of 95 to 
3--95 to 3, this Senate approved legislation reauthorizing the FAA for 
the next 18 months. It is an unusual occurrence around here when 
anything passes 95 to 3.
  I also would indicate our committee voted--I am a member of the 
Commerce Committee--unanimously to report that bill to the Senate in a 
favorable recommendation, again demonstrating overwhelmingly bipartisan 
support in regard to this aviation legislation.
  Kansas is an aviation State. Wichita and South Central Kansas are 
known as the significant provider of airplanes--general aviation 
airplanes and parts. We have lots of subcontractors in that process. We 
are also a rural State. In fact, Wichita is known as the air capital of 
the world. In addition to the manufacturing sector, which is so 
important to our State's economy, so important to our ability to 
compete globally, we are a rural State, and airplanes and airports 
matter to us greatly.
  So while we care a lot about the manufacturing of general aviation 
airplanes, we also care a lot about airports and their ability to take 
care of flights coming in and out of small communities across our State 
and certainly across the country. That general aviation airport is a 
connection to the rest of the world, and it allows for medical 
expertise to be flown into a community in lifesaving efforts, but just 
on a more day-to-day basis, it allows for us to have access to 
customers, to suppliers, to clients because we have manufacturing and 
other businesses in rural communities across Kansas whose connection 
with their customer base and suppliers is through that airport. In the 
absence of general aviation manufacturing, our State suffers greatly, 
but in the absence of general aviation airports, our State would suffer 
greatly as well.
  What I am worried about is the House has not acted in any positive 
way on the passage of this bill, and the deadline of July 15 is rapidly 
approaching. If the House does not take up the Senate-passed version, 
what that would mean is the expectation--in fact, the stated 
circumstance is the House would pass a short-term extension of the 
current FAA legislation and leave the Senate bill hanging.
  Many of the folks in this Senate who have served longer than I have 
would recognize the history of this issue, where one extension after 
another was required because consensus was never developed, and the 
leadership was not provided to resolve the differences over the years 
on FAA reauthorization. The point I wish to make by being on the Senate 
floor and expressing my views to my colleagues is, do not allow us to 
get into this position again where we would have a series of extensions 
of the FAA legislation.
  We need the House to act on the Senate bill that is pending in their 
committee, that is pending on the House side, and differences need to 
be resolved. At the moment, the House has not passed an FAA 
reauthorization bill. Time is short. On July 15, the current law 
expires. My plea to my colleagues in the House, where I formerly 
served, is to take up the Senate bill, address the issues you want as 
Members of the House, representing your constituency, and send the bill 
back to us so we can conference this issue and have a more long-term 
reauthorization bill.
  Certainty matters. Certainty matters to the manufacturers in Kansas. 
Certainty matters to the airports and the pilots who utilize those 
airports. Do not allow us, once more, to be in this circumstance of an 
extension one time after another and the uncertainty that provides.
  It is my view that it would be a shame if the important reforms 
included in the bill the Senate approved in such an overwhelming 
fashion were held up by the House, in large part because of a 
significant controversial proposal to privatize the national air 
traffic control system. It sharply divides Congress. Everything I have 
read publicly and everything I have heard from my friends and 
colleagues, former colleagues in the House, is that there are not the 
necessary votes present to pass that provision in the House. From my 
own experience in the Senate, those votes don't exist in the Senate 
Commerce Committee and they do not exist on the Senate floor.
  So let's not tie up this bill over a proposal that does not have the 
votes to pass, and let's not lose the opportunity to take advantage of 
the reforms that were included in the Senate FAA reauthorization bill. 
We should not consider what would be called a clean extension of the 
FAA, when the authorization under our bill is the same length. The 
House is talking about sending us an 18-month extension. The Senate 
bill, as passed, is an 18-month extension. What would be missing are 
reforms we have worked so hard to include after significant amounts of 
testimony, after a number of hearings and conversations within the 
Commerce Committee to make certain we were doing good work. Don't let 
that opportunity pass us by.
  So my point in having this, in this case, monologue--hopefully a 
dialogue with my colleagues on the Senate floor--is, first of all, to 
make sure we stand firm. I am a Senator who would be opposed to a 
short-term, even 18-month extension, if it does not include the broad 
array of things the Senate has included in our bill.
  My message to my House colleagues and friends is this: Don't bog this 
process down in a way that makes it impossible for us to pass the 
reauthorization legislation to begin with. These are important issues 
that we ought not let be sidetracked by a proposal that remains 
dubious, and with great concern is considered by Members of Congress. 
As I said earlier, every indication that I know and see is that this 
proposal would not receive support in the Senate or even in the House.
  So my request once again to the House of Representatives is this: 
Please take up the Senate bill and work your will in that bill but send 
us something more than just a short-term extension that doesn't include 
the
important and necessary reforms and

[[Page 9667]]

improvements that the Senate-passed bill does.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation 
about this topic.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, whenever government acts, it does so 
inevitably, unavoidably necessarily at the expense of individual 
freedom, at the expense of individual liberty and autonomy. This 
doesn't mean every act by government is bad--quite the contrary.
  We need government. We need it to protect us from those who would 
undermine our liberty, those who would interfere with it, those who 
would harm us personally, whether physically or in some other way. But 
just as it doesn't mean that every act by government is bad, we should 
also not be too quick to leap to any conclusion that any and every act 
of government is good.
  We have to balance liberty, privacy, autonomy with our corresponding 
needs for security and physical protection. These things need not be 
deemed irreconcilable with one another. They can exist in the same 
universe. In fact, when they are properly balanced, our privacy and our 
liberty become far from incompatible with our physical security, far 
from at odds with our need for protection. They can become part of the 
same whole. In other words, in this respect, our privacy is not at odds 
with our security. Our privacy is in fact part of our security.
  To be truly secure means there are limits as to what the government 
can do to you. It means there are limits as to what information the 
government can obtain. There are limits as to how the government may go 
about getting information about you. There are limits as to what the 
government can do to you in depriving you of any of your fundamental 
rights.
  We are here this week, as we had been last week, in the wake of a 
tragedy, a horrible tragedy in Orlando, one in which 49 people were 
killed. Forty-nine people lost their lives at the hands of Omar Mateen, 
an individual who had pledged allegiance to ISIS. This is the worst 
terrorist attack we have seen on U.S. soil since that tragic day on 
September 11, 2001.
  I do want to make clear that pretending this attack was simply a 
crime of gun violence would be an exercise in willful denial and in 
political theater. Ignoring it altogether is also not something we can 
or should do, but it is important to make clear, even when--and I would 
argue especially when--a tragedy like this prompts Congress or any 
legislative body to act.
  It is in those moments we have to be very careful of how we act. We 
have to remember there is this tension. We have to remember, especially 
in those moments when we are feeling the anxiety of an attack, feeling 
the anxiety of some tragedy, that we have to be very careful to make 
sure the rights of our fellow Americans are not undermined as we try, 
in our zeal, perhaps with the best intentions, to make sure we do what 
we can to protect ourselves.
  We have been addressing a couple of provisions this week. One we 
voted on earlier today is a proposal brought forward from the senior 
Senator from Arizona, an individual for whom I have great respect. 
Nonetheless, his proposal is one that troubles me. His proposal is one 
that would have given law enforcement officers, law enforcement 
agencies the power to access Americans' Internet browsing history and 
email metadata. These are things that can be analyzed to reveal the 
most intimate details of a person's life, the most intimate details of 
how a person thinks, a person's thought processes, and to do so, 
moreover, without a warrant, without probable cause, without any kind 
of judicial review by a Federal court or any other court, for that 
matter, is a problem.
  This interferes with some of our most fundamental rights, and I 
believe it is incompatible at least with the spirit, if not also the 
letter, of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 
provides that in order for the government to gain access to your 
papers, your person, your residence, it has to do so in a particular 
way. For example, if it wants to get a warrant to search through your 
papers, it has to go to court, and it has to establish what is called 
probable cause. It has to show evidence demonstrating probable cause 
that a crime has been committed and a reason to look at a particular 
thing in a particular place. It can't simply say: Trust us. We have a 
good reason. A government agency or a group of government agents can't 
simply say: Trust us. We are doing the right thing here. We have your 
security interests at heart. No, they have to go to a judge--somebody 
who is in a different branch of government. They have to show evidence 
they need it; that they need it based on evidence demonstrating 
probable cause of a crime, showing some kind of a connection between 
what they want to search and the crime.
  This was understood by the founding generation. The founding 
generation may not have been familiar with the Internet. In fact, it 
didn't exist. It wouldn't be invented for a couple of centuries after 
that, but they were very familiar with these same concepts. They were 
very familiar with the need for privacy, the need to restrain 
government, and the need to make sure people don't live in constant 
fear that the government is going to start rifling through their 
personal effects without some reason, without probable cause. Nor were 
they unaware of the fact that tragedies would happen.
  The Founding Fathers fully understood that tragedies arise. They 
understood that violence erupts from time to time and that people 
engage in lawless behavior from time to time that threatens not only 
the lives of individual citizens but also threatens to undermine the 
very foundations of our society. Yet, notwithstanding this well-
developed grasp they had of the existence of tragedy and the risk that 
people could do harm, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves had 
been revolutionaries just a few years earlier, and notwithstanding that 
many of these people who had a hand in the drafting of our Constitution 
and drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights had themselves been 
revolutionaries and had themselves witnessed and in some cases even 
been a part of the violence that propelled the American Revolution, 
they understood it was imperative that we constrain the power of 
government relative to the liberty interest protected within the Bill 
of Rights, relative for our purposes here to the zone of interest of 
the Fourth Amendment. They understood that, and they understood it 
well.
  They also understood that if someone had papers in their home, those 
papers would be protected by the Fourth Amendment regardless of whether 
the papers had been written by the person residing in that home. They 
likewise understood the possibility that in some instances the papers 
might not even be kept at home; they might be kept somewhere else. But 
they understood that there were zones in which people had a legitimate 
and reasonable expectation of privacy, and it is in those areas where 
things need to be protected, regardless of who wrote the papers in 
question or where they might be located. If they were in an area where 
there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government has to 
follow certain procedures.
  Here is why I worry about the measure offered by the Senator from 
Arizona. It is because this would get at the very privacy interest that 
is supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment. If passed, this 
would give law enforcement agencies the authority to access your 
Internet browsing history and email metadata, meaning data about whom 
you emailed, who emailed you, and when the transmissions occurred, 
without probable cause, without a warrant, without any review by a 
Federal court and without any review by any court.

[[Page 9668]]

  This is a problem, and it is a problem because, as I think most 
Americans can appreciate--certainly most Americans outside Washington, 
DC, can appreciate--the papers referenced in the Fourth Amendment would 
absolutely have to include electronic papers, such as records regarding 
your browsing history. Your browsing history is just like papers you 
might collect in your home for your own reading, and regardless of 
whether you had authored the papers in question, they wouldn't lose 
their protection simply because someone else had authored them. The 
fact that you had them in your home and the fact that you had obviously 
been reviewing them by virtue of their location in your home says a 
lot, perhaps, about what your interests are. We understand that your 
interests are not necessarily the government's business simply because 
someone in the government arbitrarily decides that is going to be the 
case.
  There is another measure that we will be reviewing and that we expect 
to vote on later this week, and it is an amendment that has been 
proposed by another one of my esteemed colleagues, the senior Senator 
from Maine. This amendment would prevent anyone appearing on a 
particular list, such as the no-fly list or selectee list--these lists 
are maintained for the purpose of trying to track those who should 
perhaps not be allowed to board an airplane or, in the case of the 
selectee list, individuals who have been determined to be candidates 
for additional screening at airports before boarding a plane--from 
purchasing firearms, denying Americans their Second Amendment rights 
based on a mere suspicion that the FBI might have information which 
shows that the person in question is engaged in terrorist activity.
  There are a couple of things that worry me about this, 
notwithstanding the good intentions underlying it. This one implicates 
not only the Second Amendment, which protects Americans and their right 
to bear arms, but it also implicates the Fifth Amendment, which 
guarantees that we won't be deprived of life, liberty, or property 
without due process of law. If this provision, as it is now written and 
as I have read it in its current formation, were to become law, it 
would, as I understand it, allow the government to take away your 
Second Amendment rights--anyone's Second Amendment rights--based on a 
mere suspicion and not based on probable cause, although I don't 
believe that in and of itself would be enough either.
  It would allow that right to be taken away, and it would do so 
without any opportunity for the citizen affected by this action to 
challenge this decision prior to the deprivation. It would, to be sure, 
set up a procedure whereby someone could go into court and challenge 
the action taken by the government, but, as I read the proposal, the 
government would end up winning. It would end up winning based on this 
same reasonable suspicion standard.
  Let me explain what that means. Reasonable suspicion refers to the 
relatively low threshold of legal justification required before a 
police officer may initiate a stop--what we call a noncustodial stop or 
what lawyers sometimes refer to as a Terry stop--to engage in a 
conversation with a citizen. Before a police officer pulls you over--
for example, if you are driving in your car, the police officer has to 
have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a law has been violated, 
and that reasonable, articulable suspicion can't be just based on an 
unparticularized suspicion or a hunch but must be based on some type of 
objective observation indicative of a possible violation of the law. 
But it is a relatively low threshold, and for that reason--when 
reasonable suspicion exists and therefore justifies a brief 
noncustodial stop--that stop may continue only for as long as it takes 
for the officer to either confirm or refute the initial basis for the 
suspicion, and usually that means not very long unless, of course, 
during the stop they learn more information which may lead to probable 
cause.
  That leads us to probable cause. What does that do? Well, probable 
cause is there. Probable cause is the standard used. It is a higher 
standard and requires more evidence, more of a showing, and more of a 
likelihood that some kind of a violation of the law has occurred.
  I mentioned probable cause a moment ago as being the standard used to 
determine whether the government can get a warrant. It is also a 
standard used in deciding whether the police have authority to 
undertake an arrest, but it is not a permanent thing. Those persons who 
are convicted and in custody have the right to a trial. At the end of 
that trial, they have a right to have a jury make a determination about 
guilt. The jury is supposed to make that determination on the basis of 
a standard that says that based on the evidence, they can conclude 
beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.
  It seems odd that we would allow a court to take away a fundamental 
constitutional right without any review prior to that constitutional 
deprivation and thereafter purport to allow a challenge to that action 
by the government but say that the government will prevail if the 
government can show reasonable suspicion on the part of the person 
whose due process rights have been deprived.
  Again, we have to get back to the fact that we have very good 
intentions that are animating the legislative proposals we have been 
reviewing. We have an understandable reaction to these tragic deaths 
that have occurred in Orlando, FL. Yet even in those circumstances--and 
I would add especially in those circumstances--we have to be especially 
vigilant and not less vigilant about protecting the rights of each 
individual American citizen. Those rights are fundamental. They are not 
to be tinkered with.
  The dignity of the human soul is at the core of our constitutional 
Republic. It is the very reason it is so important that we have to 
balance the government's action and the interest that we pursue in the 
name of security with liberty and privacy. The two don't have to be at 
odds with each other; they can be in conflict. And in the end I believe 
that our security is not at odds with our privacy. Properly understood, 
our privacy is part of our security. In fact, we cannot be truly secure 
unless we are secure from unlawful, unwarranted, and unjust actions by 
the government, and this is why we can't be too quick to jump. This is 
why we can't be too eager to expand government authority without 
analyzing the basic constitutional and fundamental liberties that are 
at stake.
  I have been inspired by the example of an Englishman named John 
Wilkes, who was a member of Parliament. John Wilkes found himself 
living through a very real deprivation of liberty and a very real 
intrusion into his privacy. He found himself at the receiving end of a 
general warrant issued by the administration of King George III. His 
offense was criticizing the administration of King George III in a 
publication called the North Briton. The North Briton 45 criticized the 
King and the King's ministers, and for that, John Wilkes had his house 
aggressively searched. It was effectively ransacked by officers who 
were searching for something, and they were doing so pursuant to a 
general warrant, a warrant that basically said: Those involved in the 
publication of North Briton 45 have engaged in illegal activity. Go 
find the people responsible for this and search any and all places and 
things that might contain relevant information regarding this offense. 
There was no particular area that was required under that warrant.
  Well, this was incompatible with the rights of Englishmen at the 
time, and so John Wilkes fought the King's officials in court. He 
eventually won not only his freedom, but he also secured a civil 
judgment against the King and was awarded substantial money damages.
  As a result of this fight, John Wilkes became a hero throughout 
England and in America at the time. The number 45 associated with North 
Briton 45, the offending publication, became synonymous with the name 
of John Wilkes, and both the name of John Wilkes and the number 45 
became synonymous with the cause of liberty on both sides of the 
Atlantic because of the fact that

[[Page 9669]]

truth resonates with people, particularly with those people who believe 
in freedom. People on both sides of the Atlantic understood that John 
Wilkes's cause was a just cause and that he should be congratulated for 
this. It was the example of John Wilkes that was still well known at 
the time of the American Revolution. It was still fresh in the minds of 
the American people at the time the Constitution was drafted in 1787 
and took effect a couple of years later and by the time the Fourth 
Amendment was ratified and amended after that.
  These early Americans and these patriots on the other side of the 
Atlantic understood this very same principle: that our liberty and our 
privacy on the one hand are not inevitably incompatible or 
irreconcilably at odds with our security and our protection. The two 
can be balanced, and that balance has been struck. That balance was 
struck more than two centuries ago. It was struck and put in place in 
our Constitution.
  Our Constitution does contain these protections, at least three of 
which are relevant to our discussions here with the Second Amendment 
and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. We cannot sidestep 
them just because something bad is happening. In fact, it is especially 
when something bad has happened that we realize we are not the first 
generation of Americans to experience bad things, to experience 
violence. We are not the first generation of Americans who have 
understood that when we give government too much power in those 
circumstances, other bad things will happen.
  We can protect ourselves and at the same time protect our liberty. We 
can do both. The Constitution requires both.
  So I say to those who think this is a fool's errand, we can, in fact, 
do these things. We can, we must, and together I hope and I pray that 
we will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Veterans First Act

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee of the Senate, I am pleased to be joined on the floor today 
by Senator Tillis, Senator Rounds, Senator Cassidy, and Senator 
Blumenthal, who will follow later, to take about 45 minutes to discuss 
with the citizens of our country, Members of the U.S. Senate, and, most 
importantly, those people who have served in our military around the 
world for years and years, the Veterans First Act, accountability in 
the Veteran's Administration, and ensuring the proper services to our 
veterans who served our country so well.
  As chairman of the committee, first I want to say how indebted I am 
to Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, my ranking member, who has done 
outstanding work in developing this legislation. Senator Tillis, 
Senator Rounds, and Senator Cassidy have done great work. We are proud 
to be a part of what is a great piece of legislation that will address 
many of the questions that have been raised about the treatment of our 
veterans over the years.
  There is a chart here, and I wish to read these headlines that every 
American has read over the last year and a half.
  ``VA abandons law aimed at firing employees.'' That was June 17 of 
this year in the Stars and Stripes, where Loretta Lynch, the Attorney 
General of the United States, and Secretary McDonald of the VA 
announced they were not going to enforce the Veterans Choice Act and 
the laws that gave them the authority to bring about accountability and 
discipline at the VA. Why did that come about? I will tell you why it 
came about.
  This headline is from November 11, 2015: ``Veterans Affairs pays $142 
million in bonuses amidst scandals.'' That rocked the country, it 
rocked our committee, and it rocked the U.S. Senate.
  June 3, 2016: ``Half a million veterans still waiting a month or more 
for VA care.''
  February 1, 2016: ``Judge overturns demotion of VA official accused 
in job scam.''
  In the past 2 years, we have had people fired by the VA in Arizona 
and in Pennsylvania who appealed their firing and were reestablished by 
the courts or the Merit Systems Protection Board at full pay back in 
the jobs they had. There is no accountability.
  Secretary McDonald, as good a job as he tries to do, has no teeth 
behind whatever it is that he says. The 314,000 employees who are part 
of the veterans health system have an ability, if they are fired, to 
appeal. That appeal can be drug out over periods of time as long as 9 
months, and they can serve with pay until the appeal is finally heard. 
There is no swift judgment in the VA. There is no accountability in the 
VA. There is no culture of accountability in the VA.
  I have been joined by members of the committee, and 3\1/2\ weeks ago 
every member of the committee, Republican and Democrat alike, voted 
unanimously for the Veterans First bill. There was not a single 
dissenting vote. Why? Because it first of all hits the heart and 
strikes the point we all know needs to be struck. That is No. 1. No. 2, 
it is bipartisan and has as many Republican proposals as it does 
Democratic proposals, but most importantly it has American proposals. 
When you are on the battlefield, when you have that 
M-14 rifle, when you are charging the hill, you are not a Republican, 
you are not a Democrat, you are an American. Our veterans, who have 
served us, fought for us, risked their lives for us, and in some cases 
died for us, deserve the respect, the treatment, and benefits they were 
promised when they signed up for duty.
  So we have introduced the veterans accountability bill; it is called 
the Veterans First bill. I wish to speak very quickly and briefly about 
why it brings accountability to the VA.
  First of all, there are 434 senior managers of the Veterans' 
Administration, the executive leadership, the senior executive 
leadership--434 of them. Every one of those people now can be fired 
unless they go before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which can 
reinstate them. We take away the Merit Systems Protection Board 
protections for senior management and give Secretary McDonald the power 
to hire them and the power to fire them, and if they appeal their 
firing, they appeal to Secretary McDonald, not to some innocuous court 
or some third party. So the boss is really finally the boss, and on his 
shoulders becomes the responsibility for performing at the VA.
  Secondly, in terms of the rank-and-file members of the VA, we say: 
Yes, if you are fired, you have a right to appeal. If you are fired, 
you get 10 days to respond, and when you make an appeal, you get 11 
days for an answer. Once you get that answer, if you appeal it, you go 
home without pay until the appeal is over. In other words, justice is 
swift, accountability is swift, and the employee responds accordingly.
  Thirdly, we all know that whistleblowers are an integral part of an 
accountability system. Having the protection and the ability for an 
employee within an agency to go out and say: Look, I have seen 
something wrong in my agency. I want to tell you about it, but I want 
the protection as a whistleblower to be protected by the management--we 
put an office of whistleblower protection in the Veterans' 
Administration so those employees will know we want to hear their 
criticism and we want to know when they see something going wrong, and 
we want to give them the protection to do so. If they abuse it, they 
will be punished, but if they use it for the right reasons, we will 
have a better VA and a more responsible and a more accountable VA.
  Talking about accountability, what is the least accountable thing 
that has happened for years in the VA? The overprescription of opioids 
and the Tomah case in Wisconsin. This bill reforms opioid treatment in 
the Veterans' Administration. It moves away from handing out opioids 
like candy. Instead, it addresses the real problems of mental health 
and PTSD and TBI.
  We go through all of those issues that have confronted the Veterans' 
Administration that serves our veterans. We do everything we can to 
improve it, but first and foremost, we have accountability.
  The VA doesn't lack for money. They have averaged 9.2 percent more 
money

[[Page 9670]]

every year in appropriations over the last 4 years. That is bigger than 
any agency of government. They are not short of employees. It is the 
second largest agency of the Federal Government, with 414,000 
employees. They have a singular mission, and that is to take care of 
the veterans who have taken care of us. We need to see to it that they 
do it and if they don't, that they are held accountable.
  The VA is full of employees who do a great job. In fact, I will tell 
you from having run a company myself, it is always the 99 percent who 
do a good job; it is the 1 percent who do a bad job, and they give us a 
bad name. But if you have a system to hold that 1 percent accountable 
when they fall and don't do well, you have a system that works together 
and you create teamwork.
  We are all about creating a change in the culture of the Veterans' 
Administration, so we improve the Veterans' Administration for its 
service to our veterans. The Veterans First Act, which is now pending 
and will soon come to the floor, hopefully under a UC, is an act that 
does exactly that.
  So when you go home to your constituents who say, What is it is about 
these bonuses going to people who aren't doing their job? What is it 
about veterans waiting longer than 30 days for an appointment? What is 
it about a Veterans' Administration job scam getting overturned by a 
judge to get their job back? What is it about an agency that can't seem 
to enforce discipline and have accountability in the agency? You tell 
them that is no more because this Senate, this Congress, this country 
is going to see to it that our veterans get the service they deserve 
and that our Veterans' Administration has the accountability it needs 
and must have.
  With that said, I would like to take a second, if I can, and yield to 
the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Rounds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, it is truly an honor to work with the 
Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. 
I can tell you that on behalf of the 72,000 veterans from South Dakota, 
it is work that needs to be done. We appreciate the service of the 
chairman and the service of the ranking member in making this a 
bipartisan effort.
  Unfortunately, many of our Nation's heroes aren't receiving the 
quality of health care they have been promised due to decades of 
mismanagement and ongoing problems with the VA. It is not acceptable, 
as the chairman has pointed out. In fact, of all the calls we receive 
in my State asking for help with Federal agencies, over half of all of 
those calls are coming from veterans seeking help with VA issues. These 
veterans in South Dakota and across the entire country continue to 
experience problems with health care delivery at the VA, including 
backlogs, long wait times, and frequent billing errors.
  As we seek to address these issues within the entire VA system, 
accountability is as important as it has ever been. The Veterans First 
Act takes meaningful steps to hold the VA accountable and in turn 
improve the care for our veterans, which is the most important priority 
of all.
  This legislation, the Veterans First Act, puts the needs of our 
veterans first by addressing the lack of accountability at the VA. 
Unfortunately, the administration last week announced that it would not 
defend a provision of the Veterans Choice Act, which was passed with 
strong majorities in both Chambers of Congress in 2014 and was signed 
by the President. In response, the VA announced last week it would no 
longer use its expedited removal authority to hold VA senior executives 
accountable, given this Justice Department decision. Regardless of the 
legal arguments surrounding this issue, the fact is that as a result of 
the VA's decision, we are now back to pre-Phoenix scandal 
accountability at the VA.
  We owe it to our veterans to make certain they receive the best care 
possible and not have the agency responsible for that care refuse to 
remove nonperforming or even criminally acting officials from important 
positions, as Congress granted the VA the right to do in the Veterans 
Choice Act 2 years ago.
  This is also important given that until recently, the VA didn't have 
a permanent inspector general, or IG, in the last 2 years. Inspectors 
general are impartial and independent units within most Federal 
agencies whose duty it is to provide accountability and oversight to 
combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the government. During that same 
timeframe, the VA has been plagued with some of the worst scandals and 
mismanagement in the agency's history, and our veterans have paid the 
price. Some have even died.
  While I am glad that Inspector General Missal is now in office and 
can begin to address some of the VA's fraud and waste allegations, it 
is still too little too late.
  That is why the bipartisan Veterans First Act is so important. Our 
bill will take strong, definitive, immediate steps to hold VA employees 
accountable for their actions.
  Let me give some examples of what this bill includes. It will shorten 
the grievance process, making it easier to dismiss VA officials who 
breached the trust of the veterans they are supposed to serve. It will 
remove the Merit Systems Protection Board from the appeal process for 
senior executives, and it expedites, when necessary, the removal of any 
employees at the--executives and rank-and-file employees alike.
  You don't have to take my word for it, and you don't have to take the 
word of any Senator in this body; you can simply listen to the words of 
Secretary McDonald himself. On Monday he stated--this is a quote from 
Secretary McDonald of the VA:

       The answer to the whole thing in my opinion is the Veterans 
     First Act. The provisions that Senator Isakson and Senator 
     Blumenthal have put in the Veterans First Act we all support. 
     VA supports them. The Republican party in the Senate supports 
     them. The Democratic party in the Senate supports them. We 
     really think that this is the ultimate answer. I'm hoping the 
     Veterans First Act will get passed soon.

  This bill also includes a number of provisions that I have offered to 
improve accountability and care at the VA, such as the Veterans Choice 
Equal Cost for Care Act, which amends the Choice Act by eliminating the 
secondary payer clause to make certain veterans do not pay more for 
private care under the Choice Act than they would have if they were 
seen at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facility.
  The key to that is right now we have veterans going in and getting 
care at a private facility and assuming that the VA is going to pick up 
the cost for them, and then they find out that under the current plan 
where the VA is a secondary payer only, they have to pick up their own 
deductibles, which they are not being reimbursed for, because the VA is 
secondary, not primary. That is wrong. That was not the intent of the 
Choice Act in the first place. The Veterans First Act takes care of 
that issue and will take care of a huge amount of the challenges we 
have right now with the Choice Act.
  Also, the Veterans Health Administration Spending and Transparency 
Oversight Act is legislation that requires the Veterans Health 
Administration, or VHA, to produce an annual report to Congress 
detailing the cost of the health care that it provides to our veterans. 
Having accurate cost accounting by the VHA will help Congress identify 
legislation options aimed at better health care for our Nation's 
veterans.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Veterans First Act, and 
I thank the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, especially 
Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and all the Members here 
today for working together to produce meaningful bipartisan reforms at 
the VA.
  Our Nation's veterans, who are now defending and have selflessly 
defended and protected our freedoms, deserve that same commitment from 
the country they so proudly fought for and defended.
  With that, Mr. President, I would like to yield back to the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. I

[[Page 9671]]

appreciate his commitment to the committee and to the many men and 
women of the armed services from the Dakotas and from all the United 
States of America.
  I am pleased to recognize Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina--
the home of Camp Lejeune and the home of many military installations, 
such as Fort Bragg--and I am proud to have him as one of the cosponsors 
of the Veterans First bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am proud to represent North Carolina. North Carolina has nearly 1 
million veterans in the State. When you add to that the members of the 
armed services inactive and in the Reserve and the National Guard, we 
are over 1.2 million people. They, too, will become veterans someday. 
We need to fix this so that the problems our veterans are experiencing 
today are not experienced by the men and women who are fighting for our 
freedom wherever we ask them to go.
  Mr. President, I know you know a lot about the lack of accountability 
in the VA within your great State of Colorado. We have problems. We 
have to increase the accountability in the VA. In 2014, in the wake of 
the Phoenix wait list scandal, Congress came together and demanded 
accountability. That is why they passed the Veterans Choice Act. When 
the President signed the bill into law, he stated:

       If you engage in unethical practice, if you cover up a 
     serious problem, you should be fired. Period. It shouldn't be 
     that difficult.

  Now we are hearing just recently that apparently in consultation with 
the President, Attorney General Lynch and the Justice Department have 
decided not to defend the Veterans Choice Act against the 
constitutional challenge from Sharon Helman, the former director of the 
Phoenix VA who sat on top of this scandal and was fired for her role 
denying veterans' access. This same disgraced VA executive also pled 
guilty to hiding more than $50,000 in gifts from lobbyists. She 
embodies the very worst of the worst of the small percentage of the VA 
who need to be held to a higher standard of accountability.
  Then we add insult to injury. The VA decided not to use its expedited 
removal authority to hold VA executives accountable. Because of these 
actions, we are now back to square one, as if the President did not 
even sign that bill.
  Now, I should have started at the beginning, though, to thank Senator 
Isakson for his yeoman's work in support of veterans. He is a fantastic 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He brings people together. 
That is why the Veterans First Act was unanimously supported in the 
committee. It is bipartisan on steroids. Everybody thinks that this 
bill needs to go into law and that the VA needs to be held accountable. 
We need to pass the Veterans First Act.
  There are a number of things in this act that even go beyond 
accountability, and I note in the colloquy that other elements of this 
act will be brought up. I will bring up a few of them. One of them has 
to do with the opioid safety act. What we are trying to do is improve 
the safety and supervision of treatment plans for veterans who 
legitimately need some sort of pain medication, possibly an opioid 
prescription regimen.
  As to the Whistleblower Protection Act, we need more people with 
their eyes and ears in the VA who are comfortable saying: Something 
isn't right here, and I need to be able to report up and know my job is 
not at risk because I am doing the right thing.
  That is in the Veterans First Act.
  The other thing we need to do is to get back to what we tried to 
accomplish in the 2014 bill--fire people who are not doing their job, 
fire people who are being unethical, fire people who are not putting 
veterans at the very top of the list. That is why the VA exists.
  The VA doesn't exist for their own sake. The VA exists for providing 
the care that the veterans deserve. They should get it on a timely 
basis. When there are no reasonable excuses for some of these wait 
times and we find that it is the people who are causing the problem, 
those people should be held accountable. The senior members should be 
held accountable, and they should be able to be terminated without any 
sort of review subject to the discretion of the Secretary of the VA.
  Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to act on the Veterans First 
Act. It is time for us to get back to fulfilling the promise that this 
President made just a couple of years ago. It is time to put veterans 
first.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues here. I want to thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who I know share this view. 
We need to get this bill out of the Senate, to the House, and to the 
President's desk with the promise this time that the President will 
stand with us and with the veterans to do what we need to do, and that 
is to put veterans first.
  I urge all the Members' support, and I appreciate again Senator 
Isakson's work to get it to this point, but now we need to get it done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Tillis for his dedicated work and 
representation for the people of North Carolina and the veterans of 
America.
  I am pleased now to yield to the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator withhold for just 1 minute?
  Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question? This is not 
to hold you up, but I do have a question for the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I yield.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is it 
the desire of the other party to be doing, like, a colloquy--an 
extensive colloquy--dealing with the Veterans First Act?
  I am trying to get the lay of the land here on the floor, because the 
Commerce-Justice act--this is really a parliamentary question to you.
  The pending business is the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill. We are now debating the Veterans First Act. I am not objecting to 
that, but could you tell me what the lay of the land is here?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Happily. The lay of the land is that we asked for 45 
minutes for a colloquy to discuss the Veterans First bill, which we are 
in the process of doing now. Senator Blumenthal, the ranking member, 
will join us in a minute, and we should be completed by 5:15, and that 
was the time we asked for.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, thank you, to the Senator. I, in no way, 
want to impede this conversation. I didn't realize that you had asked 
for 45 minutes, and I really found these comments by the supporters of 
the bill really quite instructive, and I appreciate the discussion and 
the debate.
  Why don't you proceed. I would just like to bring to the 
distinguished chairman's attention, though, that we are trying to get 
the VA-MILCON bill conference done--real money and the real checkbook--
to support the great work this authorizing committee is doing.
  I don't know if you know that the House is proposing a $500 million 
cut below the Senate level. So you and I should talk about that.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska, and please proceed with your 
colloquy.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and I 
am always interested in discussing the best interests of veterans in 
Maryland and in Georgia any time the Senator would like.
  I yield to Senator Sullivan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to rise to also support my 
colleagues on the Veterans Affairs' Committee. It is an honor to serve 
with the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senior Senator 
from Georgia, and the ranking member from Connecticut, Senator 
Blumenthal.
  One of the great honors about being on that committee is not just 
serving our veterans but that it is a committee that gets a lot of work 
done. It is a

[[Page 9672]]

very bipartisan committee, and that is why so many of us are coming to 
the Senate floor to talk about this important issue--accountability for 
the VA.
  I was home in Alaska this past weekend, and as I often do, I ran into 
veterans. Every State in the Union likes to talk about their veterans 
and brag a little bit. Well, in my State we have more veterans per 
capita than any State in the Union. We are very proud of that.
  I was talking to a Vietnam veteran on Friday in Anchorage, a combat 
veteran corpsman. He saved a lot of marines during his time. He had 
such deep frustration about this issue of accountability with the VA. 
As a matter of fact, he used to work at the VA. The one issue he raised 
with me was this: How can we do more with regard to accountability? He 
reads about it in the paper.
  The key here to that conversation and to so many conversations I had 
with veterans back home is that we must restore the bond of trust 
between the VA and the veterans that the VA serves because we all know 
that bond of trust has eroded. Trust is eroded when no one is 
accountable.
  Trust is eroded when no one is accountable. My colleagues have 
already talked about it, but once again, it is very disappointing to 
see the VA walking away from accountability as opposed to embracing it.
  Senator Tillis did a great job of describing the bill that was signed 
by the President in 2014, the Choice Act, which had some strong 
accountability measures. Yet, just recently, the Attorney General of 
the United States sided with the argument of a former Phoenix VA 
director who was at the helm when as many as 40 veterans died waiting 
for health care. The Attorney General of the United States sided with 
her argument and is not even testing the accountability provisions in 
this new law that was passed by this body and signed by the President. 
She just quit and didn't even let the courts declare that this law is 
unconstitutional. She just quit and sided with that argument. I think 
that is an outrage. What it does is undermine the issue of trust. It is 
also a dangerous precedent by allowing the head of the VA and the 
Attorney General of the United States to substitute the judgment of the 
Congress of the United States in a law, saying we are not even going to 
defend this issue anymore. It is a precedent that I don't think anyone 
in this body would agree with--essentially gutting the accountability 
provisions in a recently enacted law signed by President Obama and not 
even trying to defend them. This is exactly the kind of action that 
further erodes the trust between the VA and our veterans.
  Yesterday, in a hearing chaired by the senior Senator from Georgia, 
we demanded a bipartisan approach and that the Attorney General or her 
representative get before the VA committee very soon and explain what 
she is up to, because I don't think anyone in this body is agreeing 
with the actions they are taking.
  While we are waiting for answers from the Attorney General, we are 
not going to give up on the critically important issue of VA 
accountability, which is why moving forward on the Veterans First Act, 
which does focus on accountability, is so important, and why we are on 
the floor making the case for this.
  This bill which I cosponsor currently has 44 cosponsors and has 
support from multiple veterans service organizations. You have heard 
about some of the important accountability measures that are in this 
bill.
  I want again to thank the great leadership of Chairman Isakson and 
Ranking Member Blumenthal on this. What we need to do is move forward 
on this bill and restore this issue of trust. The best way we can 
restore trust is to let our veterans know that the leadership of the VA 
is accountable.
  Remember, the leadership of the VA works for our veterans, and when 
they see people getting away with malfeasance and incorrect behavior, 
that trust is further eroded.
  I yield the floor back to Chairman Isakson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I see the ranking member, Senator 
Blumenthal, has joined us on the floor. I might, with your permission, 
pose a question: If the Senator would not mind Senator Boozman making 
his remarks, and then Senator Blumenthal and I will close the debate; 
would that be OK?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That would be fine.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to Senator Boozman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to come down to the floor. 
Right now we are in the midst of discussing a very important bill, the 
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations act, funding law enforcement. 
We all know that we are in troubled times, and we are trying to get 
things sorted out in that regard. So why take 45 minutes to come down 
and speak on the Senate floor about such an important subject as what 
is going on in the VA?
  Last week the Secretary of the VA decided that he would no longer 
support the expedited removal authority that we allowed him when we 
passed the Choice Act. There was a case and the Attorney General 
decided that she felt like it might be unconstitutional. So the 
Secretary of the VA took it upon himself to no longer use that 
authority. The way that I found out, and I think the way the rest of 
the members of the committee found out, was to read this in the press. 
The Secretary didn't have the courtesy to contact us and tell us what 
was going on. He arbitrarily decided it was unconstitutional.
  I voted for it. Most of the Members in this body voted it. Most of 
the Members of the House of Representatives voted for it. If I thought 
it was unconstitutional, I certainly would not have voted for it--
again, acknowledging the duties of being a U.S. Senator.
  We passed it overwhelmingly and, as my colleague from Alaska has 
commented, the Secretary has set dangerous precedent by simply ignoring 
it.
  He went on to say on Monday that the accountability procedures we 
have had in place are working fine. If that is true, then why has the 
VA chronically had an issue with lackluster and negligent employees? He 
was very supportive of this authority until this case came up. In light 
of the VA's decision last week, it is even more imperative that this 
body move to pass the Veterans First Act, which will significantly 
improve accountability at the VA. This was a bipartisan, comprehensive 
initiative.
  The American Legion said: ``This legislation will shorten the 
grievance process, make it easier to dismiss VA officials that breach 
the trust of the veterans that they are supposed to serve.''
  For those of us on the committee, my only concern is that the 
Secretary at some point will decide this is unconstitutional and do his 
own thing.
  Again, this is such an important issue. It is something that the 
committee is working so hard on, but it is wrong. We have a situation 
now where we have employees who we know have abused their power.
  On the other hand, the vast majority of the people of the VA--the 
vast, vast majority--are hard-working and do a tremendous job. I am so 
proud of the VAs that I have in Arkansas, our facility in Little Rock, 
our facility in Fayetteville. There are no finer hospitals in the 
country.
  On the other hand, when people act up and they don't do what they are 
supposed to, we need to hold them accountable. We certainly need a 
Secretary of the VA who is more concerned about veterans than he is 
about labor issues.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator of Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, 
the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He has been an 
invaluable partner with me in the development of this legislation, the 
management of the committee, and he deserves tremendous credit.

[[Page 9673]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. First, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson of Georgia. To say that he 
has been a leader is certainly an understatement. He has devoted 
countless hours to forging a coalition in the best tradition of the 
U.S. Senate, a bipartisan coalition that enabled us to unanimously 
bring together Republicans and Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee in approving the Veterans First Act for consideration by this 
body.
  My reason for being here today is to say to our colleagues that we 
must move forward. We must seize this opportunity--no matter which side 
of the aisle we sit on--to move this bill forward, keep faith with our 
veterans, leave no veteran behind, and make sure we honor their service 
by fulfilling our obligations to our job. Our job now is to make sure 
we pass the Veterans First Act.
  I have listened with interest to some of my colleagues' comments on a 
decision by the Attorney General of the United States, and then the 
Secretary of the Veterans Administration, to decline to defend a part 
of the Choice statute. Quite frankly, I share their questions and a 
number of their concerns. I want to know from the Attorney General of 
the United States why the decision was made to decline enforcement of 
this statute on constitutional grounds, saying that it violated the 
appointments clause of the Constitution.
  After 40 years of practicing law, I can say I have done very little 
litigation involving the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. 
It is seemingly an arcane and abstruse section of law. I say that with 
great humility in light of the experience of the Presiding Officer. He 
and I may have a discussion away from the floor about the merits of 
this decision.
  The point is that we must look forward. We need to demand those 
answers--and I expect the Attorney General of the United States will be 
forthcoming--but let's look forward to the central task right now and 
avoid being distracted by what happened in the past and move forward on 
the Veterans First bill. This measure imposes accountability lacking 
for too long, laggard in too many instances. We saw it dramatically and 
tragically in Phoenix and many other areas around the country where 
still there has been inadequate or completely absent discipline and 
accountability imposed.
  This measure makes it easier for the VA to both hire and remove 
senior executives, giving the Secretary much needed flexibility in 
hiring and firing, improving the training of managers, and implementing 
an outside review.
  Yesterday we heard from an outstanding nominee, a veteran of years of 
leadership in the Marine Corps. That kind of quality person ought to be 
in the VA more commonly.
  This legislation also protects whistleblowers. In my view, that is 
critically important. They are the brave employees who see something 
wrong and say something, at risk to themselves. That risk should be 
eliminated. In this new proposal, the Veterans First Act, we create an 
office of accountability and whistleblower protection and require that 
the VA take the necessity of listening and protecting whistleblowers 
into account in its training and evaluation of supervisors.
  This measure goes well beyond accountability, although accountability 
is central to this bill. It also helps veterans of all eras who may 
have been exposed to toxic substances in their service. There are so 
many more unknowns on the battlefield now that can do harm to our 
soldiers--chemicals, radiation, and other toxic substances--so we can 
better understand and address the long-term effects of that toxic 
exposure. That is why the Vietnam Veterans of America fully supports 
this measure.
  Thanks to the work of Senator Baldwin, the Veterans First Act also 
addresses the opioid overprescription crisis among veterans. All too 
often and for far too long, the VA doctors have relied on powerful 
opioid painkillers when other kinds of medical care are more 
appropriate. This legislation will reduce the overuse and, thereby, the 
addiction of our veterans to these powerful painkiller.
  As I know from having spoken to Sarah Greene, a constituent of mine 
who lives in Branford, CT, whose husband perished in the post-9/11 wars 
while in combat, and her State Representative Lonnie Reed, this bill 
expands the GI benefits to surviving spouses and their dependents who 
lost a servicemember after 9/11.
  It also reinstates those benefits to veterans who attended a school 
that permanently closed, such as Corinthian Colleges. These predatory 
schools should not be permitted to deprive our veterans of those 
benefits that they need and deserve.
  This measure also provides support for caregivers, the moms, dads, 
brothers, sisters, and children who give of themselves and give up 
livelihoods and careers to care for their veteran family members. They 
should receive the kind of support they need and deserve. Their service 
is no less worthy and worthwhile than that of their family veteran 
members.
  The measure also includes important provisions to address the scourge 
of homelessness among veterans. I was pleased to work with Lisa Tepper 
Bates of the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness; and Margaret 
Middleton, leader of the veterans programs in Connecticut, principally 
the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, to create more permanent housing 
opportunities and provide legal services to homeless veterans.
  Finally, most important, this bill enhances programs to prepare 
veterans for careers through licensure, certification programs, and 
other programs to make sure that veterans have jobs. They need and 
deserve jobs.
  As a Member of the Senate, my priority has been jobs and economic 
progress for our veterans--for all the people of Connecticut. That is 
why I am pleased that this measure will help veterans find employment 
as they transition home with employers such as Frontier 
Communications--very proudly doing business in Connecticut--which is 
looking to make veterans 15 percent of its new hires.
  This measure includes many other provisions that are worthy of 
passage. The point is that we must pass it. I challenge my colleagues 
to do this bill before July 4, to move forward before we recess for the 
summer, to address the challenge of providing veterans what they have 
earned.
  We are not talking about handouts; we are talking about something 
veterans have earned--that we keep faith with them.
  This measure is bipartisan. Nothing stands in its way. There is no 
reason that merits its being stopped or blocked. I challenge my 
colleagues to move forward with this measure.
  I again thank my colleague from Georgia, who is not only a fellow 
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee but also a friend of mine and 
truly a friend of all veterans, the senior Senator from Georgia, Johnny 
Isakson.
  I yield the floor to Senator Isakson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his kind 
remarks and his steadfast, hard work on developing this legislation 
over the last 18 months. I thank all the members of the Committee, 
everyone who is a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the 44 Members of the 
Senate who have already cosponsored it and ask the remaining 56 to 
consider being a part of it.
  We owe our veterans no less than the absolute commitment that matches 
the commitment they made to us. It is time they had accountability for 
the benefits they have earned, the health care they deserve, and a VA 
that means what it says when it tells them it is going to take care of 
the veterans of the United States.
  I thank the Chair for giving us the time to bring out these issues 
today.
  I urge all our Members to contact either Senator Blumenthal or the 
committee staff or me if they have questions as we move forward before 
July 4 to make the Veterans First Act a reality, and once and for all 
put our veterans first, as always they should be and always they will 
be.

[[Page 9674]]

  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we just heard a very instructive 
discussion on legislation proposed by the veterans authorizing 
committee.
  I wish to compliment both the chair and the ranking member on the 
debate. It was content rich, it was civil, and there were moments where 
we learned things about what was going on at the VA that were new to 
many of us.
  What was so impressive was the fact that they worked together on a 
bipartisan basis. They saw that their first duty was a patriotic duty, 
which was to serve veterans. You just heard the distinguished chair and 
ranking member speak to that. I thought it was terrific. They took 
about 45 minutes off because the bill pending is the Commerce-Justice-
Science bill. Because I knew compromises were being worked on, this was 
time we were more than willing to share with them. So I want to 
compliment them.
  That also happened in the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Kirk, 
who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on MILCON-VA, and the 
ranking member, Senator Jon Tester, have worked hard too. Right now we 
are trying to get a conference report done so there are the financial 
resources to help implement the policy objectives my colleagues so 
eloquently and instructively presented to us just now. I would hope we 
have a conference that is worthy of the authorization that is being 
presented. I can assure you--again, in the spirit my colleagues 
represented here--our patriotic responsibility comes before personality 
or party, which is the way to go. That is what our team did in the 
Appropriations Committee under the very able chairmanship of Senator 
Thad Cochran and I hope the tone I have set as the vice chair. So stay 
tuned for this conference because we want to match the appropriations 
with the authorizing.
  I think this is the way we ought to be operating. Take our patriotic 
duty first, over party, over personality, over ego or party logo. I 
just want to say that as I sat here hoping to get compromises achieved 
on gun control, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, I think this is what the American people want: civility, 
intellectual rigor, commitment to responsibility, and fiscal 
responsibility.
  I would like to salute my colleagues. It was an excellent debate. I 
wish more could be like this. I thank my colleagues very much.
  Mr. President, as we are waiting on the Commerce-Justice-Science 
bill, this is what I hope is going on behind the scenes. I know we have 
had a spirited debate--at times quite tense and at times even terse on 
the issue of gun control--but for us it is not about gun control. It is 
about violence control. It is not about gun control because then people 
want to immediately grab their gun and say: What are you trying to do 
to us? Nobody is trying to do anything to any law-abiding citizen, but 
we are trying to control violence.
  Violence is a national epidemic. It has been a national epidemic for 
some time, and there are many reasons for it. This is not the day to 
talk about root causes, but it is time to talk about the mood and tone 
of the institution. Right now, the House is engaged in a sit-in. Can 
you believe that, a sit-in? Why would the House be sitting in? Well, it 
is not the House. It is the House Democrats. Why are they doing that? 
They are doing it simply because they cannot get a vote on the no-fly, 
no-buy. What does that mean? If you are on the no-fly list, you 
shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
  There are many different solutions to this problem. I am the first to 
recognize that. In our own institution, we had an amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that was 
rejected. There was an amendment offered on the other side of the 
aisle, and that was rejected. Now the Senator from Maine and Senators 
on both sides of the aisle are meeting to see if they can fashion a 
compromise.
  We believe ``compromise'' is not a word to be dismissed or 
denigrated. Compromise does not mean capitulation on principle. I can 
assure you, from those of us who want to control violence, we in no way 
want to impinge upon Second Amendment rights, but we do want to do what 
we can to curb violence in our country.
  In the spirit offered by the Senator from Maine, which she has done 
before, I hope we can achieve this. I think we ought to give her a 
chance, and I think that is happening now. I sure hope we give her idea 
a vote. I am not sure how I will vote on it until I know the substance, 
but I sure have an open mind on it.
  What I would like to do, using the words of my colleague from 
Maryland, Congressman Elijah Cummings--and we have just lived through 
quite a turmoil in Baltimore--is seek not only common ground but we 
seek higher ground. How can we kind of get above the muck and mire of 
partisan politics or personality, strutting or whatever, and focus on 
the issue of the day?
  I know people on both sides of the aisle want to curb violence. We 
have a set of solutions. They were rejected. Could we now, in the tone 
we just heard here, try to find this? What I do hope is that we don't 
block attempts to find solutions to parliamentary procedures.
  Too many people think about the Congress and the Senate, that when 
all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. This is what they 
are frustrated about. They are frustrated about many things--their 
future, their hope for their children, the safety and security of our 
country. This is what Senators should be thinking and talking about, 
and as we think and talk about it, though, we should do more thinking 
and less talking. In our thinking and doing less talking, maybe we can 
find this common ground and higher ground.
  I look forward to continuing to move the Commerce-Justice-Science 
bill. I so much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Shelby. We have put together a very good bipartisan bill. We would 
hope, as we move our bill forward--and we have done our best to fund 
the Justice Department, science, and technology, to talk about jobs 
today and the kind of research that will give us the jobs of tomorrow--
that we also now seriously take a deep breath and a deep dive into 
policy alternatives and come up with a compromise to curb violence in 
our country.
  Once again, I thank the Senator from Maine for taking the diplomatic 
role she has undertaken. I wish her well. I support all my colleagues 
involved in it. They will find no obstructionism in Barbara Mikulski.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


          Accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues--both Republican 
and Democratic--from the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee were on the 
floor just a few moments ago, and I wish to join them in expressing 
genuine concern about continued developments at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  Many of us remember the tremendous circumstances our veterans found 
themselves in at hospitals across the country, with long waiting lines, 
with lists that were inappropriate and didn't really exist--I suppose 
in an effort to camouflage the delay veterans were experiencing across 
the country. At the same time, to demonstrate that veterans were being 
cared for, the VA wanted to show that things were fine, and yet we saw 
that was not the case.
  Unfortunately, those headlines continue about the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. For years, we have heard reports of long wait lines, 
privacy issues, and failure to remove employees whose actions endanger 
the health and safety of our veterans. Many of us

[[Page 9675]]

have worked to try to give the leadership of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs greater authority to discipline and to discharge wrongdoers who 
are at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Generally, my focus has been 
on the upper echelon leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
generally considered to be the top 400 executives at the VA. I am 
always nervous about the issue of employees and staff who are actually 
providing care for our veterans in the hospital. I don't want them to 
be a scapegoat for problems at the hospital when I think the most 
serious challenge the VA faces is its leadership.
  Those stories are continuing, and we keep waiting for accountability 
to occur. It has been something the current Secretary of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs has said he cares greatly about, but even when it 
comes to the circumstances we found, particularly at the VA hospital in 
Phoenix, we still have yet to see disciplinary action take place. It is 
too long. It is 2 years. It seems to me 2 years is too long to see any 
real concrete effort to discharge those who wrongfully use their 
position and fail to provide the necessary care and treatment for 
veterans.
  In a ``60 Minutes'' interview back in November of 2014, which I 
happened to watch, the Secretary of the Department referred to a report 
generated in 2014 that listed more than 1,000 VA employees who should 
be removed from the VA for violations: ``people who violated our values 
. . . its integrity, its advocacy, its respect, its excellence.'' He 
also described, with multiple news outlets, that he would be taking 
``aggressive, expeditious, disciplinary action'' to address the 
wrongdoers who violated VA values.
  It was made abundantly clear that Congress needed to give him the 
necessary tools to discipline VA employees because he was ``hamstrung'' 
by the current process with the Merit Systems Protection Board and the 
appeals process. Congress did that. While we may not remember the 
provisions of the Choice Act--because it was known for the efforts to 
provide veterans across the country who live long distances from a VA 
facility or who can't get the services they need within 30 days from 
the VA, it gave them hometown local options. That is what this Choice 
Act was known for, but the Choice Act also included important 
accountability provisions. The Secretary has those provisions now with 
the passage of the Choice Act that occurred in August of 2014. Those 
authorities seemingly are the ones the Secretary has been reluctant to 
use. We have complained about the reluctance at the VA to use those 
authorities and to discipline members of the leadership, employees at 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, but now we just learned, as my 
colleagues earlier indicated, that the leadership of the VA refuses to 
use the authorities at all. So it is not just a reluctance. It is now 
an admission that we are not going to use them.
  As disappointed as I am, as a Member of Congress--as my colleagues 
are who spoke earlier in this VA decision, our frustration has to be 
nothing--nothing--compared to what our Nation's veterans experience in 
their dissatisfaction with a VA that declines to hold accountable those 
who work in leadership positions. We ought to be honoring their 
service. What Department would we expect to care for, to treat, to love 
and show compassion for more than our Department of Veterans Affairs? 
Whom would we expect to receive that kind of noble treatment? It would 
be those who serve us in our military. Americans--both veterans and 
nonveterans--are waiting for the VA to step up and do what is right by 
removing those who have no place within the VA system.
  I also would say, as I talk to employees of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs--those who actually work in the hospitals, provide the 
benefits, man the computers--they are dissatisfied too. They want to 
see change at the VA. So many employees are looking for leadership at 
the VA that holds accountable those in leadership who have failed to 
bring about the necessary change, and to have that necessary change 
takes discipline of those who are wrongdoers.
  I want to make certain people understand this is not an attack on 
those who work at the VA. They, too, want a VA system they can be proud 
to work for. I acknowledge and pay my respect and regard to the many, 
many, many employees of the Department who work every day to make 
certain that good things happen and that care is provided for those who 
served our Nation.
  It seems to me, it is unfortunate the VA blames everybody but 
themselves for the problems at the VA. In fact, earlier this year, a 
couple months ago, April of 2016, the Secretary indicated that the 
fault--the inability to fix these problems--lies with Congress for not 
giving the VA enough money. He said budgetary failure led to the 
crisis. We have worked hard to make certain--in fact, I have indicated 
that if you can show a demonstrated need for more money at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to take care of those who served our 
country, I am one who will vote for that. No one asked those who served 
our country about what it was going to cost to go to war. We ought not 
be unwilling to pay the price for those who did go to war on our 
behalf.
  I would say the VA's problems are not budgetary. President Obama 
himself stated that the VA is the most funded agency across the Federal 
Government, with an increase of more than 80 percent in resources since 
2009. I remember reading this quote. The President said that the most 
resourced agency in his administration, in his time in office, was the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The blame for the VA's inadequacies have nothing to do with the 
demand or insufficient funds but the management and lack of leadership. 
In fact, according to the VA's own data, veterans are waiting 50 
percent longer to receive health care services than they were in 2014 
when we realized the crisis existed. At the height of the crisis, we 
had a waiting list. That waiting list is now 50 percent longer than it 
was at that time. It has become clear that the VA seemingly is more 
concerned with protecting those who work there within their ranks and 
the leadership than protecting the veteran who has sacrificed so much 
for our Nation. The VA was created to serve veterans, not to serve the 
VA.
  Today my colleagues from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs were here 
raising their desire to give the Secretary even more authority and 
expressing their frustration, which I share, with the lack of urgency 
to hold bad actors accountable. In that process of the conversation 
that took place earlier, they were advocating for legislation that is 
pending before the Senate called the Veterans First Act that was passed 
by our Committee on Veterans' Affairs weeks ago, and they believe that 
legislation will give the Secretary even additional authorities. That 
is true.
  The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, the ranking member of 
the committee, and I worked to include in the Veterans First Act a 
number of accountability provisions to try to fix the VA at the root of 
its problem at the top.
  So while I agree with the desire to see the Veterans First Act passed 
into law and while I agree that it will give the Secretary and others 
at the Department of Veterans Affairs more authority to hold 
accountable bad actors at the VA, I think what we really need to make 
certain happens is that the Secretary and the leadership of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs use the authority they already had 
provided them by Congress in August of 2014 to hold people accountable.
  If actions this week tell us anything, we must push the VA to use the 
authorities they already have, and we would have cause, reason to be 
skeptical that even giving them greater authorities would result in a 
better outcome.
  Our Nation's veterans deserve better, and they deserve a VA in which 
those who do wrong pay a consequence for that bad behavior.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 9676]]

  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________