[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4299-4305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1259, VA ACCOUNTABILITY FIRST ACT 
OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1367, IMPROVING AUTHORITY 
  OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO HIRE AND RETAIN PHYSICIANS AND 
OTHER EMPLOYEES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1181, VETERANS 
                      2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 198

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1259) 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. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-7. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as 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 in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1367) to improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-6. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the

[[Page 4300]]

     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1181) to amend 
     title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 
     which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally 
     incompetent for certain purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Our veterans have paid a high price. Dispatched to foreign lands to 
fight for our freedom, many returned injured, grief-stricken over lost 
friends, and torn apart by the violence of war.
  We owe them our time, our energy, our gratitude, and our protection. 
That is why we are here on the floor today: to protect the 
constitutional rights of our heroes and to make sure we are taking care 
of them like we promised we would.
  H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, ensures that 
government cannot strip our heroes of their constitutional rights 
without due process. Under current law, if the VA determines that a 
veteran needs a guardian or fiduciary to help manage their benefits, 
then that veteran's name must be sent to the NICS database, prohibiting 
them from purchasing a firearm.
  The decision to strip any constitutional right from anyone, most 
importantly our veterans who have put their lives on the line to defend 
our Constitution, needs to be made with due process. The VA was never 
designed to adjudicate the removal of constitutional rights. This 
decision should be made by a judge or judicial authority.
  Instead of stripping veterans of constitutional rights, our VA should 
be focused on protecting veterans. That is exactly what the other two 
bills under consideration do.
  H.R. 1259 gives the Department of Veterans Affairs greater ability to 
discipline employees for misconduct or poor performance.
  We entrust our VA employees with the health and well-being of our 
veterans. Most of these employees do a great job, working hard to make 
sure our heroes are cared for; but, occasionally, a VA employee engages 
in misconduct, behavior that can endanger the very lives of our 
veterans.
  These men and women sacrificed to serve our Nation. The least we can 
do is enable them to receive the best care possible at the VA. That is 
why we need H.R. 1259, to allow the VA, under an expedited process, to 
fire or suspend or demote employees who are putting our veterans at 
risk.
  The legislation also allows the VA to recoup the money paid in 
bonuses or relocation grants to employees convicted of a felony.
  Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve the best. They deserve the best 
employees. They deserve the best medical staff. That is what the third 
bill under consideration, H.R. 1367, will achieve. This legislation 
improves the VA's ability to recruit the best medical staff, offering 
the agency direct hiring authority to fill key positions with critical 
staffing needs.
  It also creates a fellowship program to train up VA management for 
the best performance. It is time to improve the personnel practices at 
the Veterans Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the floor today is vital for our 
Nation's veterans. Their constitutional rights and their well-being 
stand in the balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate, and I rise to debate the rule 
providing for consideration of the three bills related to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs--interestingly, all under one rule. We 
have been doing two bills under one rule. We are now headed to three. I 
recommend we just put all of our bills under a rule and save us a lot 
of time.
  The first bill under today's rule, to improve the authority of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other 
employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the bipartisanship 
reflected in this bill is certainly a rarity in this body and, frankly, 
could have easily come before us under the suspension of the rules.
  There are nearly 47,000 job vacancies for doctors, nurses, and other 
medical professionals throughout the Veterans Administration's 
healthcare system. The VA is consistently rated as one of the worst 
Federal agencies in terms of pay and leadership, and since 2009, the 
number of VA employees resigning or retiring has risen every year.

                              {time}  1245

  As of the new year, 547,000 patients were waiting more than 30 days 
for care at a VA hospital. It is clear that we must act to improve the 
VA on a holistic level, and this bill is a good start.
  This legislation establishes staffing, recruitment, and retention 
programs to enable the VA to build a stronger workforce.
  However, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee majority did not 
make in order an amendment that I offered to this measure, which would 
have allowed the Secretary of the VA to fill any existing vacant 
positions within the Veterans Administration, regardless of whether the 
position was vacated before or after the reckless hiring freeze imposed 
by Donald John Trump.
  I would also note that Representatives Schrader and Moulton offered 
an amendment that would fully lift the hiring freeze, but the Rules 
Committee blocked this amendment as well from receiving a vote on the 
House floor. I remain disheartened at the way the majority continues to 
operate the business of the House of Representatives.
  The bipartisanship this bill enjoys dissipates when we move to 
another bill wrapped in today's three-rule measure, and that is H.R. 
1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. Before I launch into 
all of my remarks regarding this, I want to make it very clear that I 
and most Members of the House of Representatives will do everything we 
can to protect the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens and 
veterans especially.
  This legislation, however, if enacted, would immediately enable 
approximately 174,000 veterans currently deemed mentally unfit by the 
VA to purchase firearms. At its core, this bill assumes that all 
veterans with mental illness should have unfettered access to guns, 
regardless of whether they will turn the weapon on themselves or their 
loved ones, and that any determination otherwise is simply wrong. The 
broadly reaching bill arbitrarily removes every veteran flagged by the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System from its rolls, 
literally putting tens of thousands of lives at risk.
  Let's look at the facts. Under procedures currently in place by the 
VA and the Department of Justice, an individual who lacks the mental 
capacity

[[Page 4301]]

to contract or to manage his or her own affairs can be prevented from 
purchasing a gun. This term applies to veterans with severe mental 
illnesses who require a fiduciary to help manage their VA benefits. If 
the veteran thinks there was an error or that he or she was unfairly 
disqualified, the veteran can utilize the same due process and appeals 
procedures that are available for other VA decisions.
  Under the current process, which was codified in the 21st Century 
Cures Act just a few months ago, the veteran is allowed a hearing 
before the Board of Veterans Appeals and given several opportunities 
for judicial review and appeal in Federal court.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill turns this sensible and humane approach on its 
head. It is time that we acknowledge where we are as a country. It is 
time that we deal with the fact that we are in the midst of a veterans' 
suicide epidemic. Twenty veterans kill themselves every day. That is 
7,300 of our finest and bravest persons in our society. Two-thirds of 
these suicides are carried out using firearms.
  A Department of Veterans Affairs report, provided to Congress in 
2015, revealed that nearly 20,000 veterans diagnosed with 
schizophrenia, 15,000 diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, 
and thousands more diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer's, and serious 
depression were on the NICS rolls. Under this bill, these individuals 
and many more would be given immediate access to guns, putting 
themselves and others in danger.
  Even as our Nation suffers shooting after shooting, Congress has not 
acted. Democrats held a sit-in in this very room in that well in this 
last Congress to protest the callousness of the House Republican 
leadership in preventing us from even considering legislation to 
protect our citizens with reference to guns. Rather than act to address 
gun violence, we instead considered legislation like this, which will 
actually lead to more gun violence, Mr. Speaker. The logic and lack of 
compassion in such an approach absolutely escapes me.
  Our country has witnessed horrific shootings in the past few years. 
Dozens of children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Nearly 50 people were 
killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. One of our very own from this 
Congress was nearly assassinated while holding a townhall event in 
2011. We continue to ignore the ramifications of shootings at Oak 
Creek, Aurora, Virginia Tech--I could go on and on--Charleston. The 
list just continues. 32,000 Americans lose their lives every year from 
gun violence.
  We have grieved together. And I, along with several of my colleagues, 
have stopped standing down here in the well for a moment of silence and 
then going back to our regular business after hundreds of our people 
are killed throughout this society. We have demanded change together, 
and we have been shocked by the paralysis that has gripped this 
institution when it comes to taking commonsense steps to end our 
country's gun violence epidemic.
  Today, we see in this bill another measure coming out of Republican 
leadership that sprints toward the goal set by this country's powerful 
gun lobby. Listen up, NRA, there are people like me that aspire to have 
a zero rating by you every year. And it is not just the gun lobbyists, 
it is gun manufacturers as well. It may be great for the gun 
manufacturers' bottom line and the NRA's bottom line, but it is 
terrible for those brave men and women who have served this country so 
fully, those brave men and women who suffer wounds that may not be 
visible to the naked eye, but are no less real and worthy of our 
attention.
  With each new tragedy that occurs, whether it be a mass shooting or 
the 20 servicemembers we lose every day to suicide, those who stand in 
the way of legislation to address our country's gun violence epidemic 
are increasingly culpable for its continuation. I am disgusted with 
this morally bankrupt obfuscation, and I think the American people are, 
too.
  Let me lay down a marker. Of the 435, plus six Members of the House 
of Representatives and the 100 U.S. Senators, I want to see the first 
person when this measure goes into effect, if it does, and 174,000 
veterans are taken off of the NICS rolls and can access guns, the first 
one that dies--and I hope we track it--I want everybody to stand up and 
remember that we had a chance to stop it here. Don't tell me, if 20 
veterans are killing themselves every day and if 7,000-plus of them are 
killing themselves every year--and we won't even mention domestic 
violence and the horror that comes from those guns--if we continue this 
effort, we will allow more deaths along those lines.
  Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the 
final bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability 
First Act of 2017, and the Republicans' continued assault on the 
working people of this country.
  At its core, this bill is an attack on workers' rights, plain and 
simple, and will do more harm than good in our efforts to improve care 
at the Veterans Administration. This legislation would strip the 
collective bargaining rights of VA workers. It weakens an employee's 
right to appeal. It weakens protections for VA workers who speak up 
against mismanagement and patient harm.
  Republicans claim they want to help fix our VA system, yet, with this 
bill, they do that by insulting, undermining, and attacking the very 
employees who serve and care for our veterans, including the over 
120,000 veterans who work for the VA. Yesterday, one of our colleagues 
presented at the Rules Committee a statistic that I didn't know. Of the 
2 million Federal employees in this great Nation of ours, 640,000 of 
them are veterans. So when we get ready to pare back this government 
that somehow or another people have targeted for all sorts of cuts, if 
you read today's budget proposal by Donald John Trump, you will see 
that lots of these veterans will be losing their jobs, in addition to 
all of the things that we have already discussed.
  We need to make improvements at the VA. Everybody knows that. That is 
clear. But singling out VA employees and their protections is 
counterproductive, to say the least, and only compounds manpower 
shortages plaguing the agency.
  This legislation will exacerbate recruitment problems and impair 
retention at the agency. It threatens the agency's ability to build a 
robust clinical workforce by threatening the quality of care that the 
VA will be able to provide.
  I don't know what the pique is by my Republican colleagues with 
reference to workers in this country. They talk a very good game about 
protecting workers and we are going to bring back jobs and we are going 
to do all of these things that are going to protect the middle class.
  I will get a chance to talk about this a little bit more, but I am 
very proud of the unions in this Nation. They are the unions that 
people like my father and countless of us who served in the House of 
Representatives worked in and helped build this Nation. They are the 
people that our veterans from the Second World War, the Korean 
conflict, and Vietnam who became union members and went on to do things 
for collective bargaining that made workers' rights be better for 
people in America. And I don't see tearing them down--let alone in the 
VA administration--is something that we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle know exactly 
where their priorities lie with this bill, and it is certainly not with 
improving the quality of care of our veterans, but rather in exploiting 
yet another opportunity to attack the rights of working men and women 
across our country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Florida and I were in committee yesterday and heard 
testimony from one of our colleagues that this bill, as it pertains to 
veterans' gun rights, is not reactive. It does not go back to those 
individuals who have been denied their due process rights, who have 
been denied their Second Amendment rights.
  This bill is prospective only. It will only affect those who in the 
future have been denied those rights. And I

[[Page 4302]]

think it is absolutely important that we understand the Republican 
Party in the House of Representatives is committed to make sure that 
those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, their 
Second Amendment rights in the past, we will find a solution. We will 
help those individuals.
  Right now, we are focused on making sure that others have the ability 
to a fair, open hearing where they can present their side of the story 
before they are denied their constitutional rights.
  My friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) also talks about 
the fact that H.R. 1259 will do more harm than good; that somehow 
disciplining those who are delivering poor services to our veterans is 
unfair to unions. The truth is that 35 percent of the VA's workforce is 
made up of veterans.

                              {time}  1300

  But the fact is that veteran employees believe employees that are not 
meeting acceptable standards for their fellow veterans should be 
removed, period, regardless of their service while on Active Duty.
  Are opponents of removing poor-performing employees and those whose 
misconduct warrant removal saying that a veteran employee who cannot do 
the job or is guilty of misconduct be kept on the job?
  On the contrary, veterans know that the strictest accountability 
standards apply to them during their military service, and millions of 
hardworking Americans in the private sector do not enjoy anything close 
to the protections enjoyed by Federal employees.
  The only employees who need to be concerned with reasonable reform 
that would be made by this legislation are those who aren't doing their 
jobs on behalf of the veterans who they serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying this. I was prompted 
to say this by the remarks from my colleague from Florida just now.
  I believe that there is absolutely nothing that is common sense about 
preventing those who defend America from having the opportunity to 
defend themselves. There is no common sense in that whatsoever.
  I listened to your emotional remarks here, and I listened as you gave 
zero specifics on the mental illness that my colleague specifically 
talked about being worried about.
  Specifically, what mental illnesses is it that had you concerned?
  I would encourage you to have the courage to be specific and say 
exactly what it is that you mean so that there is no confusion.
  Now, the true intent of my remarks today are to talk about my 
favorite part of going to the VA, and that is sitting next to my fellow 
veterans when I sit down at one of the clinics at my local VA hospital. 
Whether it is a marine from Iraq, whether it is a sailor from World War 
II, a soldier from Vietnam, an airman from Korea, whenever we sit down 
next to each other, there is a camaraderie that exists immediately.
  One of the first things that is said is usually some sort of off-
topic joke about the branch that the other person comes from. It is 
that camaraderie of shared service that unites us in a way that half a 
century of age can't divide. I can tell you, we have common 
experiences, and we have common healthcare challenges as well.
  It is important for veterans to come together and for the VA to 
establish and maintain expertise in providing for our unique healthcare 
needs. Unfortunately, too many VA facilities have lost their hunger to 
provide care. They have lost the passion to meet the individual needs 
of veterans, and it has become way too much of a rarity that a 
veteran's needs are truly met when they enter the VA facility.
  You cobble that together with enough bad experiences from 
underperforming employees, and it forces veterans to ask: Where else 
can I go for my care?
  That is why I am excited to see the House bring forward two bills 
this week that get at the crux of the matter: authority to hire the 
best employees and the ability to remove underperforming employees.
  Today we will debate the VA Accountability First Act. We will provide 
the VA Secretary the flexibility to either remove, demote, or suspend 
an employee for misconduct. It can be very little that is more 
important to go on at the VA.
  Tomorrow we will debate H.R. 1367 that will bolster the Secretary's 
situational awareness to recruit and retain the very best employees.
  You know, when a veteran like myself or my peers goes to the VA, we 
are not given a choice in our provider. We go there, and they look at a 
person like me and they say: Your last name is Mast. We are going to 
assign you to Alpha clinic. This is your provider, and there is no 
choice.
  The veterans deserve nothing less than the kind of care and 
accountability that these bills endeavor to provide.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
rule and to bring each of these bills to the floor.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my colleague whose district abuts a portion 
of my district in Florida. I want to make it very clear that it is 
important to listen to what a person says. My colleague just commented 
that I did not offer the specifics with reference to persons who 
suffered some form of mental illness; and he said that, in my 
passionate remarks, I failed to provide those specifics.
  Let me go back and read you my remarks again. A Department of 
Veterans Affairs report provided to Congress in 2015 revealed that 
nearly 20,000 veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia, 15,000 diagnosed 
with post-traumatic stress disorder, and thousands more diagnosed with 
dementia, Alzheimer's, and serious depression.
  Is that specific enough for you, or do I need to add additional 
reasons?
  Evidently my colleague didn't hear that.
  Mr. MAST. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MAST. I appreciate that. When I get to speaking about the 
specifics of this matter--and you used a very broad, general term, like 
the term ``post-traumatic stress disorder.'' That is something that is, 
unfortunately, layered upon nearly every veteran that exits service 
today. So to go out there and have this ability to put people into this 
NICS, who have this sort of label placed upon them, that is exactly the 
crux of this that I am getting to that is not specific enough. It does 
not point to what is specifically an issue that anybody is facing.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Reclaiming my time, is schizophrenia one of those 
things that isn't specific enough for you?
  Mr. MAST. If the gentleman would yield, that is certainly an issue 
that we can point to. But when you talk about post-traumatic stress and 
so many other issues that are diagnosed by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs----
  Mr. HASTINGS. Reclaiming my time, that is what you should have said 
rather than say that I didn't offer specifics, and I just want to make 
that very clear to you.
  I don't think that people with diagnosis of schizophrenia, that have 
been allowed--that their fiduciaries have determined that their mental 
illness allows that they should not get a gun, I suggest to you and to 
anybody that those persons that have a gun--and I made the distinction. 
You evidently didn't hear that part either. I made the distinction 
about the Second Amendment and how much I support it and I support 
veterans, and I support veterans' rights to defend themselves. But I 
don't support crazy people having guns, whether they are veterans or 
not, and it is just that simple.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members of both sides of the aisle are 
reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from

[[Page 4303]]

California (Mr. Takano), the vice chair of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In its current form, 
H.R. 1181 would endanger veterans in crisis and serve as another 
obstacle to addressing the crisis of veteran suicide.
  We had hoped to introduce amendments which would protect veterans' 
rights while ensuring their safety. By bringing this bill to the floor 
under a closed rule, the majority has prevented us from doing so, from 
considering other possibilities to come together in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  There are changes that could be made to this legislation to ensure 
that it is good public policy. For instance, we could consider a 
streamlined appeals process that would allow veterans erroneously 
flagged by the background check system to have their status changed.
  I do acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from Florida that 
people with PTSD on this list may have been inappropriately flagged to 
be on this list, and we could have discussed a streamlined process. We 
could conduct a study of the VA's existing practices for submitting 
records of veterans to the background check system.
  But rather than subject that whole list to being dismantled and 
freeing people that should not be free to have weapons--crazy people 
from having weapons--at the very least, we should understand the impact 
this change would have on veteran suicide, as Ms. Esty suggested when 
she tried to offer an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to 
require a study into the number of veterans who have committed suicide 
by firearm, who should have been prevented from accessing a firearm 
under current policies.
  I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to dispute the gentleman from Colorado's 
contention that this is only about going forward, that it affects going 
forward. I maintain there is considerable concern that this will affect 
those that exist on the list currently.
  These are sensible ideas that I offered, that we could have 
considered instead of being forced to vote on the legislation we have 
now. We could come together under unanimity to solve this issue.
  But under this rule, we are forced to vote only on legislation that 
would make veterans and their communities less safe. Accordingly, I 
call on my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Florida talked about the specificity that he used in 
describing the conditions of these veterans, but that is not what the 
rule says.
  What the rule says, Mr. Speaker, is that if someone--if a veteran 
needs a fiduciary, they will be denied the ability to own, possess, 
purchase a firearm. It doesn't say if they are schizophrenic. It 
doesn't say if they have PTSD. It doesn't say if they have depression, 
and if they have PTSD or depression that is somehow linked to further 
violent behavior. It doesn't say that.
  What it says is, if you can't balance your bank account, you can't 
have a gun to protect yourself. There is no relationship between those 
two.
  Now, if the gentleman from Florida would go to the Veterans 
Administration and talk to them about the need to link that finding of 
a fiduciary with future violent behavior, we may not be here today.
  But so many people have been trapped in this overbroad rule that we 
are going to make sure that those people that have a fiduciary and are 
listed by the VA have a due process right to show that they are 
nonviolent; that they don't have a propensity to commit a crime with a 
weapon; that they are not a harm to themselves or to others.
  And if the VA or an independent judicial officer finds that they are, 
then yes, list them on the NICS report, but give them that due process 
right. That is where the majority believes this rule created during the 
Clinton administration and by the Veterans Administration falls.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I take issue with a term that was thrown 
around far too loosely twice in just the last couple of minutes by my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle here where each of them 
used the term ``crazy.'' They used the term ``crazy'' twice. I take 
serious issue with that.
  This is the reality: our servicemembers that endeavor onto the 
battlefield, they face snipers that are targeting them. They face 
mortars being dropped on their head. They face improvised explosive 
devices like the ones that took my legs and so many of my friends. 
There are aviators that fly beyond the lines of our enemy. They face 
the threat of being shot down or captured. There are marines, there are 
sailors. And all of us--you know, the reality is we do come home with 
demons that are associated with a life that is surrounded by death. 
That is certainly the truth.
  But to say for one moment that that is something that allows the term 
``crazy'' to be layered upon any one of these heroes that goes out 
there and serves in defense of this country, that goes out there and 
has the willingness to have their uniform stained with the blood of 
their friends, I find that to be a disgusting use of that word. I 
resent the fact that it has been done, Mr. Speaker, and I would 
respectfully ask that there be an apology made to those that put on the 
uniform and go out and defend this country on behalf of every single 
American.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friend from Colorado to 
know that I have no additional speakers and I am prepared to close if 
he is prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 17\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from 
the Rules Committee yielding me time.
  I can't be in any more agreement with my friend from Florida just 
now. We talked about this actually in the Rules Committee yesterday. If 
you look at the actual language in the rule, it gets down to the fact 
that you are adjudicated a mental defective. That is language that has 
to be stopped in this. I know my friend from the Rules Committee, and 
we serve on Judiciary together, we are going to actually look into 
this. Because if we really want to start talking about veterans and 
suicide, then we need to start addressing it head-on in real terms and 
in real ways with the issues that they face and not simply saying that 
we are going to take a right away.
  It is amazing to me that we are discussing this issue. What about the 
other amendments? Well, we are just going to do the Second Amendment.
  In fact, what is happening right now among many, and for those who 
need to understand this, many of our VA colleagues who want to go to 
the Veterans Administration, have stopped going. If we want to actually 
worry about some of this stuff that they are worrying about with their 
mental health, then we need to take impediments away from them getting 
help, to let them know that just because they have problems that they 
can't process, getting help from the VA is something that should not be 
predicated on a fiduciary or somebody helping them.
  If they have got real issues, then follow the law. Follow the law. 
Adjudicate this. Don't give just simple carte blanche to say: We are 
going to take this away, and then, oh, by the way, go fix it yourself.
  I said yesterday in the Rules Committee: I am still in the Air Force. 
I am an attorney and a chaplain. I served in Iraq. I have delivered 
these death notifications. I have counseled those who have called 
saying: I don't find a reason to live, Chaplain.
  When we begin to throw around loosely these terms as we did yesterday

[[Page 4304]]

in committee, when we send letters that say: if you vote for this, then 
you are actually making it free and easier--I think was the wording--to 
get guns to veterans. This is why this problem breaks down. This is why 
we use veterans as pawns. If you are against this, vote ``no,'' but 
don't use the cover of saying that you are helping people on suicide. 
Get to the issues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. When we understand this, I understand the 
discussions, and I understand the issues we have here, but not with 
this. Make your vote. But don't cloak it. Don't call it crazy people.
  Congressman Mast, that ain't what they are.
  They are hurting. They need help. If this is an impediment to that, 
then vote ``yes.'' If you want to vote ``no,'' fine, vote ``no.'' But 
at least get the issue right.
  The issue is that the Veterans Affairs is saying: We are going to 
take your constitutional right away without adjudication and make you 
do it on your own because we have an opinion about this that we think 
could happen because you have got a fiduciary, you can't do it on your 
own.
  When we understand what is really at the heart of this, I would 
encourage all to say: you know, the veterans, you just overstepped your 
bounds here. We are going to put this back where it needs to be, and 
then we are going to get on to the real issues of veterans who are 
needing help.
  I know my Florida appreciates that. We have talked about it before. 
These veterans need help. Our VA needs help. Our hospitals need help. 
The money and time that are spent to help these folks when they come 
back--they are not crazy, they are not defective. They are just people 
who have been through a tough time, and they need a little kindness, 
compassion, and help.
  They are not broken. I broke my leg. I stepped on a piece of glass, 
and I cut my achilles. That is what happened to me. But if my mind--
everybody said: Your cast looks interesting. Nobody talks about it, 
though, if I came home to say: I am depressed. I have an issue.
  We start backing away. We have got to break that in our country. 
Mental health has got to be a priority--this--to be against this and 
claim what we are claiming here on the floor is wrong.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend that sits on the Rules Committee, my colleague 
from Georgia, correctly speaks to this issue and its need to go to the 
Judiciary Committee or other committees to ensure that veterans have 
the appropriate adjudication.
  I don't know where he or my colleague from Florida would place 
schizophrenia. I am not a mental health expert, but I have spent a good 
portion of my career here in Congress dealing with issues and trying to 
address issues of mental health, be it veterans or not.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 696, Representative 
Schrader's bill to exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs from 
Donald John Trump's hiring freeze. As we have already discussed, my 
amendment to allow the VA Secretary to fill vacant positions, 
regardless of whether they were vacated before or after the hiring 
freeze, was blocked last night in the Rules Committee.
  There are nearly 47,000 vacant positions within the VA, and we should 
not be limiting the VA's authority to fill these positions, especially 
as we continue to work towards reducing patient wait times.
  On a bipartisan basis, Members of both the House and Senate have 
requested that the VA be exempt from the hiring freeze. Mr. Speaker, 
this is commonsense legislation to ensure that the VA can recruit and 
hire qualified staff to meet the needs of our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are gathered 
here, once again, to debate the same old, tired, irresponsible, and 
morally bankrupt policies championed by my friends across the aisle, 
policies that will, while we face a suicide epidemic among those 
servicemembers who have so bravely served this country, make it easier 
for them to take their own lives by increasing their access to guns. 
That may be good policy for the powerful gun lobby and gun 
manufacturers, but it is horrendous policy for the American people.
  We have before us legislation that will gut workers' rights for VA 
employees while also making it easier to reprimand those who are brave 
enough to speak out against the ills they see occurring at the VA--ills 
that have and will continue to undermine the quality of service our 
veterans are able to receive.
  All of this moral ineptitude is set against the backdrop of a 
healthcare plan recently put forth by Republicans that will raise the 
number of uninsured in this country to 24 million in under 10 years. 
This includes 14 million folks being unceremoniously kicked off of 
Medicaid and 7 million Americans kicked off of the health insurance 
plans they receive through their employers.
  This is a plan that will increase premiums for individual 
policyholders by up to 29 percent. This is a plan that will increase, 
particularly for older Americans, out-of-pocket healthcare expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, this is no plan at all but rather 
a shameful and cynical massive giveaway to the ultrawealthy at the 
expense of the middle class that will result in hardworking Americans 
paying far more for far, far less.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in this institution 25 years, and I have 
been on this Earth 80 years. I have seen an awful lot of trauma during 
that period of time. I served as a State court judge and had the 
responsibility of Baker Acting--it is called in Florida--people to 
mental institutions. I have established fiduciaries for people who were 
unable to take care of themselves. I worked actively when we had mental 
health hospitals to keep those mental health hospitals open.
  I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, so that you can say to the gentleman 
who asked that I apologize, that I apologize for nothing having to do 
with any remarks that I made within the confines of what is allowed in 
this institution. The simple fact of the matter is I used the term 
``crazy,'' and I had reference to schizophrenia. Now, it may very well 
be that these are not broken people, it is that they are brave people 
who came home with problems. But crazy is crazy, and I would say that 
until the day I die.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention and the attention of my 
colleague from Florida to a letter dated January 26, 2017, from the 
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of 
Representatives, Representative Roe, and the chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Chairman Isakson, to the President 
in which they asked for various positions to be exempted from the 
President's executive order concerning a hiring freeze.
  The next day, January 27, the Acting Secretary issued a memorandum 
under the authority of that Presidential memorandum, executive order, 
granting the chairman's request and exempting various positions.
  I would exceed my time limitations, Mr. Speaker, if I were to read 
all of these. But let me assure you there are dozens and dozens of 
positions at the Veterans Administration that have been exempted from 
the President's hiring freeze. They include social worker, science lab 
technician, practical nurse, nursing assistant, dietician, 
nutritionist, occupational therapist, on and on and on. And the need 
for the amendment that the gentleman presents is unnecessary.

[[Page 4305]]

  I would also like to talk very briefly about the gentleman's argument 
that somehow those at the Veterans Administration are being harmed, and 
we are attacking a union in some way rather than trying to deal with 
real situations and improving the quality of care at the VA.
  I want to give a few examples of VA employees and just the time that 
it took to remove people. A VA employee was a willing participant in an 
armed robbery several years ago, and after a lengthy legal and 
administrative battle where the employee was supported by the Public 
Employees Union, the employee was reinstated in their previous position 
without any discipline.
  A VA nurse showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a 
veteran's surgery while under the influence of alcohol. Although the 
employee eventually resigned, to date, no other employees were 
disciplined for allowing the employee to participate in the veteran's 
surgery.
  In 2013, a vocational rehab specialist out of the Central Alabama 
Veterans Health Care System crashed a government car, and a passenger 
ended up dying. He was later indicted for a DUI. The VA confirmed that 
the employee was not removed from payroll until January of this year--
almost 4 years.
  In 2014, a VA employee at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care 
System took a veteran who was a recovering drug addict to a crack house 
where he purchased illegal drugs for the veteran, as well as purchased 
a prostitute for him, though the employee was still employed at the VA 
well over a year later after the incident until they were finally able 
to remove him.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up now for our veterans. 
They have performed their duty, and it is time for us to perform for 
them.
  Our duty is to take care of them. A ``yes'' vote restores their 
Constitutional rights and improves their quality of care.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``yes'' 
on the underlying bill. I thank Chairman Roe and Representative 
Wenstrup for bringing these bills before us.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 198 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     696) to prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 696.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________