[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8662-8683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER 
                         PROTECTION ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S. 1094, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1094) to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     improve the accountability of employees of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been 
reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, with an amendment to 
strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the 
following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
     Protection Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

     TITLE I--OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Establishment of Office of Accountability and Whistleblower 
              Protection.
Sec. 102. Protection of whistleblowers in Department of Veterans 
              Affairs.
Sec. 103. Report on methods used to investigate employees of Department 
              of Veterans Affairs.

 TITLE II--ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND OTHER 
                               EMPLOYEES

Sec. 201. Improved authorities of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
              improve accountability of senior executives.
Sec. 202. Improved authorities of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
              improve accountability of employees.
Sec. 203. Reduction of benefits for Department of Veterans Affairs 
              employees convicted of certain crimes.
Sec. 204. Authority to recoup bonuses or awards paid to employees of 
              Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 205. Authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf 
              of employees of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Time period for response to notice of adverse actions against 
              supervisory employees who commit prohibited personnel 
              actions.
Sec. 207. Direct hiring authority for medical center directors and VISN 
              directors.
Sec. 208. Time periods for review of adverse actions with respect to 
              certain employees.
Sec. 209. Improvement of training for supervisors.
Sec. 210. Assessment and report on effect on senior executives at 
              Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 211. Measurement of Department of Veterans Affairs disciplinary 
              process outcomes and effectiveness.

     TITLE I--OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
                   WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 323. Office of Accountability and Whistleblower 
       Protection

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Department an office to be known as the `Office of 
     Accountability and Whistleblower Protection' (in this section 
     referred to as the `Office').
       ``(b) Head of Office.--(1) The head of the Office shall be 
     responsible for the functions of the Office and shall be 
     appointed by the President pursuant to section 308(a) of this 
     title.
       ``(2) The head of the Office shall be known as the 
     `Assistant Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower 
     Protection'.
       ``(3) The Assistant Secretary shall report directly to the 
     Secretary on all matters relating to the Office.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 308(b) of this title, the 
     Secretary may only assign to the Assistant Secretary 
     responsibilities relating to the functions of the Office set 
     forth in subsection (c).
       ``(c) Functions.--(1) The functions of the Office are as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Advising the Secretary on all matters of the 
     Department relating to accountability, including 
     accountability of employees of the Department, retaliation 
     against whistleblowers, and such matters as the Secretary 
     considers similar and affect public trust in the Department.
       ``(B) Issuing reports and providing recommendations related 
     to the duties described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Receiving whistleblower disclosures.
       ``(D) Referring whistleblower disclosures received under 
     subparagraph (C) for investigation to the Office of the 
     Medical Inspector, the Office of Inspector General, or other 
     investigative entity, as appropriate, if the Assistant 
     Secretary has reason to believe the whistleblower disclosure 
     is evidence of a violation of a provision of law, 
     mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a 
     substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
       ``(E) Receiving and referring disclosures from the Special 
     Counsel for investigation to the Medical Inspector of the 
     Department, the Inspector General of the Department, or such 
     other person with investigatory authority, as the Assistant 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(F) Recording, tracking, reviewing, and confirming 
     implementation of recommendations from audits and 
     investigations carried out by the Inspector General of the 
     Department, the Medical Inspector of the Department, the 
     Special Counsel, and the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, including the imposition of disciplinary actions and 
     other corrective actions contained in such recommendations.
       ``(G) Analyzing data from the Office and the Office of 
     Inspector General telephone hotlines, other whistleblower 
     disclosures, disaggregated by facility and area of health 
     care if appropriate, and relevant audits and investigations 
     to identify trends and issue reports to the Secretary based 
     on analysis conducted under this subparagraph.
       ``(H) Receiving, reviewing, and investigating allegations 
     of misconduct, retaliation, or poor performance involving--
       ``(i) an individual in a senior executive position (as 
     defined in section 713(d) of this title) in the Department;
       ``(ii) an individual employed in a confidential, policy-
     making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating position in 
     the Department; or
       ``(iii) a supervisory employee, if the allegation involves 
     retaliation against an employee for making a whistleblower 
     disclosure.
       ``(I) Making such recommendations to the Secretary for 
     disciplinary action as the Assistant Secretary considers 
     appropriate after substantiating any allegation of misconduct 
     or poor performance pursuant to an investigation carried out 
     as described in subparagraph (F) or (H).
       ``(2) In carrying out the functions of the Office, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall ensure that the Office maintains a 
     toll-free telephone number and Internet website to receive 
     anonymous whistleblower disclosures.
       ``(3) In any case in which the Assistant Secretary receives 
     a whistleblower disclosure from an employee of the Department 
     under paragraph (1)(C), the Assistant Secretary may not 
     disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of 
     the employee, except in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 552a of title 5, or as required by any other 
     applicable provision of Federal law.
       ``(d) Staff and Resources.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the Assistant Secretary has such staff, resources, and access 
     to information as may be necessary to carry out the functions 
     of the Office.
       ``(e) Relation to Office of General Counsel.--The Office 
     shall not be established as an element of the Office of the 
     General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary may not report to 
     the General Counsel.
       ``(f) Reports.--(1)(A) Not later than June 30 of each 
     calendar year, beginning with June 30,

[[Page 8663]]

     2017, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the activities of the Office during the calendar year in 
     which the report is submitted.
       ``(B) Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include, for the period covered by the report, the following:
       ``(i) A full and substantive analysis of the activities of 
     the Office, including such statistical information as the 
     Assistant Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(ii) Identification of any issues reported to the 
     Secretary under subsection (c)(1)(G), including such data as 
     the Assistant Secretary considers relevant to such issues and 
     any trends the Assistant Secretary may have identified with 
     respect to such issues.
       ``(iii) Identification of such concerns as the Assistant 
     Secretary may have regarding the size, staffing, and 
     resources of the Office and such recommendations as the 
     Assistant Secretary may have for legislative or 
     administrative action to address such concerns.
       ``(iv) Such recommendations as the Assistant Secretary may 
     have for legislative or administrative action to improve--
       ``(I) the process by which concerns are reported to the 
     Office; and
       ``(II) the protection of whistleblowers within the 
     Department.
       ``(v) Such other matters as the Assistant Secretary 
     considers appropriate regarding the functions of the Office 
     or other matters relating to the Office.
       ``(2) If the Secretary receives a recommendation for 
     disciplinary action under subsection (c)(1)(I) and does not 
     take or initiate the recommended disciplinary action before 
     the date that is 60 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary received the recommendation, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives a detailed justification for not taking or 
     initiating such disciplinary action.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `supervisory employee' means an employee of 
     the Department who is a supervisor as defined in section 
     7103(a) of title 5.
       ``(2) The term `whistleblower' means one who makes a 
     whistleblower disclosure.
       ``(3) The term `whistleblower disclosure' means any 
     disclosure of information by an employee of the Department or 
     individual applying to become an employee of the Department 
     which the employee or individual reasonably believes 
     evidences--
       ``(A) a violation of a provision of law; or
       ``(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse 
     of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 
     health or safety.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 308(b) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) The functions set forth in section 323(c) of this 
     title.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 3 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

       ``323. Office of Accountability and Whistleblower 
           Protection.''.

     SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking sections 731, 732, 734, 735, and 736;
       (2) by redesignating section 733 as section 731; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sections:

     ``Sec. 732. Protection of whistleblowers as criteria in 
       evaluation of supervisors

       ``(a) Development and Use of Criteria Required.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of 
     Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, shall develop 
     criteria that--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall use as a critical element in any 
     evaluation of the performance of a supervisory employee; and
       ``(2) promotes the protection of whistleblowers.
       ``(b) Principles for Protection of Whistleblowers.--The 
     criteria required by subsection (a) shall include principles 
     for the protection of whistleblowers, such as the degree to 
     which supervisory employees respond constructively when 
     employees of the Department report concerns, take responsible 
     action to resolve such concerns, and foster an environment in 
     which employees of the Department feel comfortable reporting 
     concerns to supervisory employees or to the appropriate 
     authorities.
       ``(c) Supervisory Employee and Whistleblower Defined.--In 
     this section, the terms `supervisory employee' and 
     `whistleblower' have the meanings given such terms in section 
     323 of this title.

     ``Sec. 733. Training regarding whistleblower disclosures

       ``(a) Training.--Not less frequently than once every two 
     years, the Secretary, in coordination with the Whistleblower 
     Protection Ombudsman designated under section 3(d)(1)(C) of 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), shall 
     provide to each employee of the Department training regarding 
     whistleblower disclosures, including--
       ``(1) an explanation of each method established by law in 
     which an employee may file a whistleblower disclosure;
       ``(2) the right of the employee to petition Congress 
     regarding a whistleblower disclosure in accordance with 
     section 7211 of title 5;
       ``(3) an explanation that the employee may not be 
     prosecuted or reprised against for disclosing information to 
     Congress, the Inspector General, or another investigatory 
     agency in instances where such disclosure is permitted by 
     law, including under sections 5701, 5705, and 7732 of this 
     title, under section 552a of title 5 (commonly referred to as 
     the Privacy Act), under chapter 93 of title 18, and pursuant 
     to regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-191);
       ``(4) an explanation of the language that is required to be 
     included in all nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements 
     pursuant to section 115(a)(1) of the Whistleblower Protection 
     Enhancement Act of 2012 (5 U.S.C. 2302 note); and
       ``(5) the right of contractors to be protected from 
     reprisal for the disclosure of certain information under 
     section 4705 or 4712 of title 41.
       ``(b) Manner Training Is Provided.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that training 
     provided under subsection (a) is provided in person.
       ``(c) Certification.--Not less frequently than once every 
     two years, the Secretary shall provide training on merit 
     system protection in a manner that the Special Counsel 
     certifies as being satisfactory.
       ``(d) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish on the 
     Internet website of the Department, and display prominently 
     at each facility of the Department, the rights of an employee 
     to make a whistleblower disclosure, including the information 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a).
       ``(e) Whistleblower Disclosure Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 323 of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended--
       (1) by striking the items relating to sections 731 through 
     736; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new items:

``731. Adverse actions against supervisory employees who commit 
              prohibited personnel actions relating to whistleblower 
              complaints.
``732. Protection of whistleblowers as criteria in evaluation of 
              supervisors.
``733. Training regarding whistleblower disclosures.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 731 of such title, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) making a whistleblower disclosure to the Assistant 
     Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, 
     the Inspector General of the Department, the Special Counsel, 
     or Congress;''; and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by clause (ii), 
     by striking ``complaint in accordance with section 732 or 
     with'' and inserting ``disclosure made to the Assistant 
     Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection,''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``through (F)'' and 
     inserting ``through (E)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Whistleblower Disclosure Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 323(g) of this title.''.

     SEC. 103. REPORT ON METHODS USED TO INVESTIGATE EMPLOYEES OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 540 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary 
     for Accountability and Whistleblower Protection shall submit 
     to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on 
     methods used to investigate employees of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs and whether such methods are used to 
     retaliate against whistleblowers.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the use of administrative 
     investigation boards, peer review, searches of medical 
     records, and other methods for investigating employees of the 
     Department.
       (2) A determination of whether and to what degree the 
     methods described in paragraph (1) are being used to 
     retaliate against whistleblowers.
       (3) Recommendations for legislative or administrative 
     action to implement safeguards to prevent the retaliation 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (c) Whistleblower Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``whistleblower'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     323 of title 38, United States Code, as added by section 101.

 TITLE II--ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND OTHER 
                               EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 201. IMPROVED AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR 
                   EXECUTIVES.

       (a) In General.--Section 713 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 8664]]



     ``Sec. 713. Senior executives: removal, demotion, or 
       suspension based on performance or misconduct

       ``(a) Authority.--(1) The Secretary may, as provided in 
     this section, reprimand or suspend, involuntarily reassign, 
     demote, or remove a covered individual from a senior 
     executive position at the Department if the Secretary 
     determines that the misconduct or performance of the covered 
     individual warrants such action.
       ``(2) If the Secretary so removes such an individual, the 
     Secretary may remove the individual from the civil service 
     (as defined in section 2101 of title 5).
       ``(b) Rights and Procedures.--(1) A covered individual who 
     is the subject of an action under subsection (a) is entitled 
     to--
       ``(A) advance notice of the action;
       ``(B) be represented by an attorney or other representative 
     of the covered individual's choice; and
       ``(C) grieve the action in accordance with an internal 
     grievance process that the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Assistant Secretary for Accountability and Whistleblower 
     Protection, shall establish for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(2)(A) The aggregate period for notice, response, and 
     decision on an action under subsection (a) may not exceed 15 
     business days.
       ``(B) The period for the response of a covered individual 
     to a notice under paragraph (1)(A) of an action under 
     subsection (a) shall be 7 business days.
       ``(C) A decision under this paragraph on an action under 
     subsection (a) shall be issued not later than 15 business 
     days after notice of the action is provided to the covered 
     individual under paragraph (1)(A). The decision shall be in 
     writing, and shall include the specific reasons therefor.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the grievance process 
     established under paragraph (1)(C) takes fewer than 21 days.
       ``(4) A decision under paragraph (2) that is not grieved, 
     and a grievance decision under paragraph (3), shall be final 
     and conclusive.
       ``(5) A covered individual adversely affected by a decision 
     under paragraph (2) that is not grieved, or by a grievance 
     decision under paragraph (3), may obtain judicial review of 
     such decision.
       ``(6) In any case in which judicial review is sought under 
     paragraph (5), the court shall review the record and may set 
     aside any Department action found to be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with a provision of law;
       ``(B) obtained without procedures required by a provision 
     of law having been followed; or
       ``(C) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Provisions of Law.--Section 
     3592(b)(1) of title 5 and the procedures under section 
     7543(b) of such title do not apply to an action under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered individual' means--
       ``(A) a career appointee (as that term is defined in 
     section 3132(a)(4) of title 5); or
       ``(B) any individual who occupies an administrative or 
     executive position and who was appointed under section 
     7306(a), section 7401(1), or section 7401(4) of this title.
       ``(2) The term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.
       ``(3) The term `senior executive position' means--
       ``(A) with respect to a career appointee (as that term is 
     defined in section 3132(a) of title 5), a Senior Executive 
     Service position (as such term is defined in such section); 
     and
       ``(B) with respect to a covered individual appointed under 
     section 7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title, an 
     administrative or executive position.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7461(c)(1) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``employees in senior executive 
     positions (as defined in section 713(d) of this title) and'' 
     before ``interns''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 713 and inserting the following 
     new item:

``713. Senior executives: removal, demotion, or suspension based on 
              performance or misconduct.''.

     SEC. 202. IMPROVED AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF EMPLOYEES.

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

     ``Sec. 714. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based 
       on performance or misconduct

       ``(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary may remove, demote, or 
     suspend a covered individual who is an employee of the 
     Department if the Secretary determines the performance or 
     misconduct of the covered individual warrants such removal, 
     demotion, or suspension.
       ``(2) If the Secretary so removes, demotes, or suspends 
     such a covered individual, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) remove the covered individual from the civil service 
     (as defined in section 2101 of title 5);
       ``(B) demote the covered individual by means of a reduction 
     in grade for which the covered individual is qualified, that 
     the Secretary determines is appropriate, and that reduces the 
     annual rate of pay of the covered individual; or
       ``(C) suspend the covered individual.
       ``(b) Pay of Certain Demoted Individuals.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any covered 
     individual subject to a demotion under subsection (a)(2) 
     shall, beginning on the date of such demotion, receive the 
     annual rate of pay applicable to such grade.
       ``(2)(A) A covered individual so demoted may not be placed 
     on administrative leave during the period during which an 
     appeal (if any) under this section is ongoing, and may only 
     receive pay if the covered individual reports for duty or is 
     approved to use accrued unused annual, sick, family medical, 
     military, or court leave.
       ``(B) If a covered individual so demoted does not report 
     for duty or receive approval to use accrued unused leave, 
     such covered individual shall not receive pay or other 
     benefits pursuant to subsection (d)(5).
       ``(c) Procedure.--(1)(A) The aggregate period for notice, 
     response, and final decision in a removal, demotion, or 
     suspension under this section may not exceed 15 business 
     days.
       ``(B) The period for the response of a covered individual 
     to a notice of a proposed removal, demotion, or suspension 
     under this section shall be 7 business days.
       ``(C) Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of section 7513 of 
     title 5 shall apply with respect to a removal, demotion, or 
     suspension under this section.
       ``(D) The procedures in this subsection shall supersede any 
     collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such 
     agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall issue a final decision with 
     respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 
     section not later than 15 business days after the Secretary 
     provides notice, including a file containing all the evidence 
     in support of the proposed action, to the covered individual 
     of the removal, demotion, or suspension. The decision shall 
     be in writing and shall include the specific reasons 
     therefor.
       ``(3) The procedures under chapter 43 of title 5 shall not 
     apply to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 
     section.
       ``(4)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (d), 
     any removal or demotion under this section, and any 
     suspension of more than 14 days under this section, may be 
     appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which shall 
     refer such appeal to an administrative judge pursuant to 
     section 7701(b)(1) of title 5.
       ``(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal, 
     demotion, or suspension may only be made if such appeal is 
     made not later than 10 business days after the date of such 
     removal, demotion, or suspension.
       ``(d) Expedited Review.--(1) Upon receipt of an appeal 
     under subsection (c)(4)(A), the administrative judge shall 
     expedite any such appeal under section 7701(b)(1) of title 5 
     and, in any such case, shall issue a final and complete 
     decision not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     appeal.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, 
     the administrative judge shall uphold the decision of the 
     Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend an employee under 
     subsection (a) if the decision is supported by substantial 
     evidence.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding title 5 or any other provision of 
     law, if the decision of the Secretary is supported by 
     substantial evidence, the administrative judge shall not 
     mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(3)(A) The decision of the administrative judge under 
     paragraph (1) may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board shall uphold the decision of 
     the Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend an employee under 
     subsection (a) if the decision is supported by substantial 
     evidence.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding title 5 or any other provision of 
     law, if the decision of the Secretary is supported by 
     substantial evidence, the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     shall not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(4) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot 
     issue a decision in accordance with the 180-day requirement 
     under paragraph (1), the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     shall, not later than 14 business days after the expiration 
     of the 180-day period, submit to the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the House of Representatives a report that explains the 
     reasons why a decision was not issued in accordance with such 
     requirement.
       ``(5)(A) A decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     under paragraph (3) may be appealed to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to section 
     7703 of title 5 or to any court of appeals of competent 
     jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(B) of such 
     section.
       ``(B) Any decision by such Court shall be in compliance 
     with section 7462(f)(2) of this title.
       ``(6) The Merit Systems Protection Board may not stay any 
     removal or demotion under this section, except as provided in 
     section 1214(b) of title 5.
       ``(7) During the period beginning on the date on which a 
     covered individual appeals a removal from the civil service 
     under subsection (c) and ending on the date that the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a 
     final decision on such appeal, such covered individual may 
     not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, 
     differentials, student loan repayments, special payments, or 
     benefits related to the employment of the individual by the 
     Department.
       ``(8) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall provide to the Merit Systems

[[Page 8665]]

     Protection Board such information and assistance as may be 
     necessary to ensure an appeal under this subsection is 
     expedited.
       ``(9) If an employee prevails on appeal under this section, 
     the employee shall be entitled to backpay (as provided in 
     section 5596 of title 5).
       ``(10) If an employee who is subject to a collective 
     bargaining agreement chooses to grieve an action taken under 
     this section through a grievance procedure provided under the 
     collective bargaining agreement, the timelines and procedures 
     set forth in subsection (c) and this subsection shall apply.
       ``(e) Whistleblower Protection.--(1) In the case of a 
     covered individual seeking corrective action (or on behalf of 
     whom corrective action is sought) from the Office of Special 
     Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice 
     described in section 2302(b) of title 5, the Secretary may 
     not remove, demote, or suspend such covered individual under 
     subsection (a) without the approval of the Special Counsel 
     under section 1214(f) of title 5.
       ``(2) In the case of a covered individual who has made a 
     whistleblower disclosure to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, the Secretary 
     may not remove, demote, or suspend such covered individual 
     under subsection (a) until--
       ``(A) in the case in which the Assistant Secretary 
     determines to refer the whistleblower disclosure under 
     section 323(c)(1)(D) of this title to an office or other 
     investigative entity, a final decision with respect to the 
     whistleblower disclosure has been made by such office or 
     other investigative entity; or
       ``(B) in the case in which the Assistant Secretary 
     determines not to the refer the whistleblower disclosure 
     under such section, the Assistant Secretary makes such 
     determination.
       ``(f) Termination of Investigations by Office of Special 
     Counsel.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Special Counsel (established by section 1211 of title 5) may 
     terminate an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice 
     alleged by an employee or former employee of the Department 
     after the Special Counsel provides to the employee or former 
     employee a written statement of the reasons for the 
     termination of the investigation.
       ``(2) Such statement may not be admissible as evidence in 
     any judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent 
     of such employee or former employee.
       ``(g) Vacancies.--In the case of a covered individual who 
     is removed or demoted under subsection (a), to the maximum 
     extent feasible, the Secretary shall fill the vacancy arising 
     as a result of such removal or demotion.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered individual' means an individual 
     occupying a position at the Department, but does not 
     include--
       ``(A) an individual occupying a senior executive position 
     (as defined in section 713(d) of this title);
       ``(B) an individual appointed pursuant to sections 7306, 
     7401(1), 7401(4), or 7405 of this title;
       ``(C) an individual who has not completed a probationary or 
     trial period; or
       ``(D) a political appointee.
       ``(2) The term `suspend' means the placing of an employee, 
     for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without 
     duties and pay for a period in excess of 14 days.
       ``(3) The term `grade' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 7511(a) of title 5.
       ``(4) The term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.
       ``(5) The term `political appointee' means an individual 
     who is--
       ``(A) employed in a position described under sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5 (relating to the Executive Schedule);
       ``(B) a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), 
     respectively, of section 3132(a) of title 5; or
       ``(C) employed in a position of a confidential or policy-
     determining character under schedule C of subpart C of part 
     213 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or successor 
     regulation.
       ``(6) The term `whistleblower disclosure' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 323(g) of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clerical.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
     chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 713 the following new item:

``714. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based on performance 
              or misconduct.''.
       (2) Conforming.--Section 4303(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) any removal or demotion under section 714 of title 
     38.''.

     SEC. 203. REDUCTION OF BENEFITS FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.

       (a) Reduction of Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 719. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of 
       certain crimes

       ``(a) Reduction of Annuity for Removed Employee.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall order that the covered service of an employee 
     of the Department removed from a position for performance or 
     misconduct under section 713, 714, or 7461 of this title or 
     any other provision of law shall not be taken into account 
     for purposes of calculating an annuity with respect to such 
     individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the individual is 
     convicted of a felony (and the conviction is final) that 
     influenced the individual's performance while employed in the 
     position; and
       ``(B) before such order is made, the individual is 
     afforded--
       ``(i) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 
     not later than ten business days following receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(C) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later 
     than five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(2) Any individual with respect to whom an annuity is 
     reduced under this subsection may appeal the reduction to the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to 
     such regulations as the Director may prescribe for purposes 
     of this subsection.
       ``(b) Reduction of Annuity for Retired Employee.--(1) The 
     Secretary may order that the covered service of an individual 
     who the Secretary proposes to remove for performance or 
     misconduct under section 713, 714, or 7461 of this title or 
     any other provision of law but who leaves employment at the 
     Department prior to the issuance of a final decision with 
     respect to such action shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of calculating an annuity with respect to such 
     individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that individual is convicted 
     of a felony (and the conviction is final) that influenced the 
     individual's performance while employed in the position; and
       ``(B) before such order is made, the individual is 
     afforded--
       ``(i) notice of the proposed order;
       ``(ii) opportunity to respond to the proposed order by not 
     later than ten business days following receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(C) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later 
     than five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(2) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the individual shall have an opportunity to 
     appeal the order to the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management before the date that is seven business days after 
     the date of such issuance.
       ``(3) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall make a final decision with respect to an appeal under 
     paragraph (2) within 30 business days of receiving the 
     appeal.
       ``(c) Administrative Requirements.--Not later than 37 
     business days after the Secretary issues a final order under 
     subsection (a) or (b) with respect to an individual, the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 
     recalculate the annuity of the individual.
       ``(d) Lump-Sum Annuity Credit.--Any individual with respect 
     to whom an annuity is reduced under subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual's 
     lump-sum credit as is attributable to the period of covered 
     service.
       ``(e) Spouse or Children Exception.--(1) The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall prescribe regulations that may provide for 
     the payment to the spouse or children of any individual 
     referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of any amounts which 
     (but for this subsection) would otherwise have been 
     nonpayable by reason of such subsections.
       ``(2) Regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall be 
     consistent with the requirements of section 8332(o)(5) and 
     8411(l)(5) of title 5, as the case may be.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered service' means, with respect to an 
     individual subject to a removal for performance or misconduct 
     under section 719 or 7461 of this title or any other 
     provision of law, the period of service beginning on the date 
     that the Secretary determines under such applicable provision 
     that the individual engaged in activity that gave rise to 
     such action and ending on the date that the individual is 
     removed from or leaves a position of employment at the 
     Department prior to the issuance of a final decision with 
     respect to such action.
       ``(2) The term `lump-sum credit' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 8331(8) or section 8401(19) of title 5, as 
     the case may be.
       ``(3) The term `service' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 8331(12) or section 8401(26) of title 5, as the case 
     may be.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 717 the following new 
     item:

``719. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of certain 
              crimes.''.

[[Page 8666]]

       (b) Application.--Section 719 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply to any 
     action of removal of an employee of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs under section 719 or 7461 of such title or 
     any other provision of law, commencing on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORITY TO RECOUP BONUSES OR AWARDS PAID TO 
                   EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 203, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 721. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees 
       of Department

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may issue an order directing an employee 
     of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the 
     amount, of any award or bonus paid to the employee under 
     title 5, including under chapters 45 or 53 of such title, or 
     this title if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that the individual engaged 
     in misconduct or poor performance prior to payment of the 
     award or bonus, and that such award or bonus would not have 
     been paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor 
     performance been known prior to payment; and
       ``(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded--
       ``(A) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 
     not later than 10 business days after the receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(3) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than 
     five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(b) Appeal of Order of Secretary.--(1) Upon the issuance 
     of an order by the Secretary under subsection (a) with 
     respect to an individual, the individual shall have an 
     opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management before the date that is seven 
     business days after the date of such issuance.
       ``(2) The Director shall make a final decision with respect 
     to an appeal under paragraph (1) within 30 business days 
     after receiving such appeal.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 203(a)(2), 
     is further amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 719 the following new item:

``721. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of 
              Department.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Section 721 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
     an award or bonus paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     to an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act may be construed to modify the certification 
     issued by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office 
     of Management and Budget regarding the performance appraisal 
     system of the Senior Executive Service of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 205. AUTHORITY TO RECOUP RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO OR 
                   ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 204, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 723. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf 
       of employees of Department

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may issue an order directing an employee 
     of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the 
     amount, paid to or on behalf of the employee under title 5 
     for relocation expenses, including any expenses under section 
     5724 or 5724a of such title, or this title if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that relocation expenses 
     were paid following an act of fraud or malfeasance that 
     influenced the authorization of the relocation expenses;
       ``(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded--
       ``(A) notice of the proposed order; and
       ``(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order not 
     later than ten business days following the receipt of such 
     notice; and
       ``(3) the Secretary issues the order--
       ``(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than 
     five business days after receiving the response of the 
     individual; or
       ``(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an 
     individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 
     after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 
     paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(b) Appeal of Order of Secretary.--(1) Upon the issuance 
     of an order by the Secretary under subsection (a) with 
     respect to an individual, the individual shall have an 
     opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management before the date that is seven 
     business days after the date of such issuance.
       ``(2) The Director shall make a final decision with respect 
     to an appeal under paragraph (1) within 30 days after 
     receiving such appeal.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is further amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 721, as added by section 
     204(b), the following new item:

``723. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf of employees of 
              Department.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Section 723 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
     an amount paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to or on 
     behalf of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     for relocation expenses on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 206. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ADVERSE 
                   ACTIONS AGAINST SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHO 
                   COMMIT PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTIONS.

       Section 731(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, as 
     redesignated by section 102(a)(2), is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``14 days'' and inserting 
     ``10 days''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``14-day period'' and 
     inserting ``10-day period''.

     SEC. 207. DIRECT HIRING AUTHORITY FOR MEDICAL CENTER 
                   DIRECTORS AND VISN DIRECTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Directors of medical centers and directors of 
     Veterans Integrated Service Networks with demonstrated 
     ability in the medical profession, in health care 
     administration, or in health care fiscal management.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7404(a)(1) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``The annual''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``and 7401(4)'' after ``7306''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Section 5377 of title 5 shall apply to a position 
     under section 7401(4) of this title as if such position were 
     included in the definition of `position' in section 5377(a) 
     of title 5.''.

     SEC. 208. TIME PERIODS FOR REVIEW OF ADVERSE ACTIONS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Physicians, Dentists, Podiatrists, Chiropractors, 
     Optometrists, Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and 
     Expanded-function Dental Auxiliaries.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 7461(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(2) In any case other than a case described in paragraph 
     (1) that involves or includes a question of professional 
     conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was not 
     taken, such an appeal shall be made through Department 
     grievance procedures under section 7463 of this title.''.
       (b) Major Adverse Actions Involving Professional Conduct or 
     Competence.--Section 7462(b) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, within the aggregate time period specified in paragraph 
     (5)(A),'' after ``is entitled'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``At least 30 days advance written notice'' 
     and inserting ``Advance written notice'';
       (ii) by striking ``and a statement'' and inserting ``a 
     statement''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``and a file containing all the evidence 
     in support of each charge,'' after ``with respect to each 
     charge,''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``A reasonable time, 
     but not less than seven days'' and inserting ``The 
     opportunity, within the time period provided for in paragraph 
     (4)(A)'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph (3):
       ``(3) After considering the employee's answer, if any, and 
     within the time period provided for in paragraph (5)(B), the 
     deciding official shall render a decision on the charges. The 
     decision shall be in writing and shall include the specific 
     reasons therefor.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph (A):
       ``(A) The period for the response of an employee under 
     paragraph (1)(B) to advance written under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall be seven business days.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``30 days'' and 
     inserting ``seven business days''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5)(A) The aggregate period for the resolution of charges 
     against an employee under this subsection may not exceed 15 
     business days.
       ``(B) The deciding official shall render a decision under 
     paragraph (3) on charges under this subsection not later than 
     15 business days after the Under Secretary provides notice on 
     the charges for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(6) The procedures in this subsection shall supersede any 
     collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such 
     agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.''.
       (c) Other Adverse Actions.--Section 7463(c) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the same notice and 
     opportunity to answer with respect to those charges as 
     provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 7462(b)(1) 
     of this title'' and inserting ``notice and an opportunity to 
     answer with respect to those charges in accordance with

[[Page 8667]]

     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 7462(b)(1) of this 
     title, but within the time periods specified in paragraph 
     (3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, within the aggregate time period specified in paragraph 
     (3)(A),'' after ``is entitled'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``an advance written 
     notice'' and inserting ``written notice''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a reasonable time'' 
     and inserting ``time to answer''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (3):
       ``(3)(A) The aggregate period for the resolution of charges 
     against an employee under paragraph (1) or (2) may not exceed 
     15 business days.
       ``(B) The period for the response of an employee under 
     paragraph (1) or (2)(B) to written notice of charges under 
     paragraph (1) or (2)(A), as applicable, shall be seven 
     business days.
       ``(C) The deciding official shall render a decision on 
     charges under paragraph (1) or (2) not later than 15 business 
     days after notice is provided on the charges for purposes of 
     paragraph (1) or (2)(A), as applicable.''.

     SEC. 209. IMPROVEMENT OF TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     provide to each employee of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs who is employed as a supervisor periodic training on 
     the following:
       (1) The rights of whistleblowers and how to address a 
     report by an employee of a hostile work environment, 
     reprisal, or harassment.
       (2) How to effectively motivate, manage, and reward the 
     employees who report to the supervisor.
       (3) How to effectively manage employees who are performing 
     at an unacceptable level and access assistance from the human 
     resources office of the Department and the Office of the 
     General Counsel of the Department with respect to those 
     employees.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Supervisor.--The term ``supervisor'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 7103(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Whistleblower.--The term ``whistleblower'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 323(g) of title 38, United 
     States Code, as added by section 101.

     SEC. 210. ASSESSMENT AND REPORT ON EFFECT ON SENIOR 
                   EXECUTIVES AT DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than two years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall--
       (1) measure and assess the effect of the enactment of this 
     title on the morale, engagement, hiring, promotion, 
     retention, discipline, and productivity of individuals in 
     senior executive positions at the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the findings of the Secretary 
     with respect to the measurement and assessment carried out 
     under paragraph (1).
       (b) Elements.--The assessment required by subsection (a)(1) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) With respect to engagement, trends in morale of 
     individuals in senior executive positions and individuals 
     aspiring to senior executive positions.
       (2) With respect to promotions--
       (A) whether the Department is experiencing an increase or 
     decrease in the number of employees participating in 
     leadership development and candidate development programs 
     with the intention of becoming candidates for senior 
     executive positions; and
       (B) trends in applications to senior executive positions 
     within the Department.
       (3) With respect to retention--
       (A) trends in retirement rates of individuals in senior 
     executive positions at the Department;
       (B) trends in quit rates of individuals in senior executive 
     positions at the Department;
       (C) rates of transfer of--
       (i) individuals from other Federal agencies into senior 
     executive positions at the Department; and
       (ii) individuals from senior executive positions at the 
     Department to other Federal agencies; and
       (D) trends in total loss rates by job function.
       (4) With respect to disciplinary processes--
       (A) regarding individuals in senior executive positions at 
     the Department who are the subject of disciplinary action--
       (i) the length of the disciplinary process in days for such 
     individuals both before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and under the provisions of this Act described in subsection 
     (a)(1); and
       (ii) the extent to which appeals by such individuals are 
     upheld under such provisions as compared to before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act;
       (B) the components or offices of the Department which 
     experience the greatest number of proposed adverse actions 
     against individuals in senior executive positions and 
     components and offices which experience the least relative to 
     the size of the components or offices' total number of senior 
     executive positions;
       (C) the tenure of individuals in senior executive positions 
     who are the subject of disciplinary action;
       (D) whether the individuals in senior executive positions 
     who are the subject of disciplinary action have previously 
     been disciplined; and
       (E) the number of instances of disciplinary action taken by 
     the Secretary against individuals in senior executive 
     positions at the Department as compared to governmentwide 
     discipline against individuals in Senior Executive Service 
     positions (as defined in section 3132(a) of title 5, United 
     States Code) as a percentage of the total number of 
     individuals in senior executive positions at the Department 
     and Senior Executive Service positions (as so defined).
       (5) With respect to hiring--
       (A) the degree to which the skills of newly hired 
     individuals in senior executive positions at the Department 
     are appropriate with respect to the needs of the Department;
       (B) the types of senior executive positions at the 
     Department most commonly filled under the authorities in the 
     provisions described in subsection (a)(1);
       (C) the number of senior executive positions at the 
     Department filled by hires outside of the Department compared 
     to hires from within the Department;
       (D) the length of time to fill a senior executive position 
     at the Department and for a new hire to begin working in a 
     new senior executive position;
       (E) the mission-critical deficiencies filled by newly hired 
     individuals in senior executive positions and the connection 
     between mission-critical deficiencies filled under the 
     provisions described in subsection (a) and annual performance 
     of the Department;
       (F) the satisfaction of applicants for senior executive 
     positions at the Department with the hiring process, 
     including the clarity of job announcements, reasons for 
     withdrawal of applications, communication regarding status of 
     applications, and timeliness of hiring decision; and
       (G) the satisfaction of newly hired individuals in senior 
     executive positions at the Department with the hiring process 
     and the process of joining and becoming oriented with the 
     Department.
       (c) Senior Executive Position Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``senior executive position'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 713 of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 211. MEASUREMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   DISCIPLINARY PROCESS OUTCOMES AND 
                   EFFECTIVENESS.

       (a) Measuring and Collecting.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     measure and collect information on the outcomes of 
     disciplinary actions carried out by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs during the three-year period ending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and the effectiveness of 
     such actions.
       (2) Elements.--In measuring and collecting pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall measure and collect 
     information regarding the following:
       (A) The average time from the initiation of an adverse 
     action against an employee at the Department to the final 
     resolution of that action.
       (B) The number of distinct steps and levels of review 
     within the Department involved in the disciplinary process 
     and the average length of time required to complete these 
     steps.
       (C) The rate of use of alternate disciplinary procedures 
     compared to traditional disciplinary procedures and the 
     frequency with which employees who are subject to alternative 
     disciplinary procedures commit additional offenses.
       (D) The number of appeals from adverse actions filed 
     against employees of the Department, the number of appeals 
     upheld, and the reasons for which the appeals were upheld.
       (E) The use of paid administrative leave during the 
     disciplinary process and the length of such leave.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2017, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report on the disciplinary procedures and actions 
     of the Department.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) The information collected under subsection (a).
       (B) The findings of the Secretary with respect to the 
     measurement and collection carried out under subsection (a).
       (C) An analysis of the disciplinary procedures and actions 
     of the Department.
       (D) Suggestions for improving the disciplinary procedures 
     and actions of the Department.
       (E) Such other matters as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (3) Appropriate committees of congress.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee-
reported substitute amendment to S. 1094 is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 3 hours of debate, 
equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today on the 73rd 
anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, Omaha Beach, and Sword Beach 
by 156,000 brave Americans who saved our freedom and liberty, for the 
American

[[Page 8668]]

people as well as all of Europe, who put an end to the reign of Adolph 
Hitler, and remind me every day as chairman of the Veterans' Committee 
why I am here in the U.S. Senate--and that is to see to it that we take 
care of those who have taken care of us.
  Somebody asked me this morning: Is it coincidence that D-day was 73 
years ago today? I said: It is Divine providence that we are on the 
floor today paying back those brave 156,000 who invaded those beaches 
to make the Veterans' Administration a more favorable agency than it is 
already.
  I am proud to be on the floor to lead a part of the debate with 
Senator Tester--my ranking member on the committee and my dear friend--
on a bill that I think is of great significance. It is the Veterans 
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act.
  The best quote is not one I could come up with or I doubt that Jon 
could come up with. The best quote really was come up with by the Iraq 
and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the IAVA. When asked, they said: 
``This is the strongest VA accountability measure that can be signed 
into law.'' I want to reiterate that: the strongest accountability 
measure of the VA that can be signed into law. Which means we are 
reaching into every corner of problems in the VA which have existed 
over the last years. We are making sure we make the corrections 
necessary to make the VA an accountable organization, and we are doing 
it in a bipartisan fashion together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
  As I have said very often, there aren't Republican casualties and 
Democratic casualties on the battlefield. They are American citizens 
who have fought and died for this country. So there is no room for 
partisanship when it comes to providing them with the benefits that are 
necessary and seeing to it that they get what they deserve.
  I thank all the members of the committee; in particular, Ranking 
Member Tester for his work; Senator Moran, who did such great work for 
us on the accountability measure; Senator Rubio, who is not a member of 
the committee but did a great job in terms of accountability, and he 
will speak later on the floor--as I am sure others will--about this.
  We have had a great committee working for a long period of time. We 
passed a bill--almost--last year and then failed at the last few 
moments of the session to get it done. So we are back a second time, 
but we are back with a bill that has come unanimously from the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I hope will leave this Senate floor 
unanimously so we send a clear signal to our veterans: We will hold 
ourselves accountable to you.
  What specifically does the legislation do that is important? One, it 
makes what President Trump referred to in an Executive order about 3 
weeks ago, the veterans whistleblower protection act, a reality and 
codifies it into law. Second, it removes many of the bureaucratic 
hurdles currently in place, making it easier for the VA Secretary to 
remove employees of all departments in the VA who are found guilty of 
wrongdoing or misconduct, and I underscore found guilty of wrongdoing 
or misconduct.
  The bill shortens the removal process for employees of the VA and 
ensures an individual appealing removal from the VA is not kept on VA's 
payroll indefinitely while they appeal. The Department of Veterans 
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act also prohibits 
the VA from awarding bonuses to employees found guilty of misconduct. 
The bill would remove the bureaucratic Merit System Protection Board 
from appeals by the senior management--top management--of the Veterans' 
Administration.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protection Act establishes the Office of Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection to make it permanent in the United States of 
America.
  In essence, and very simply, this bill ensures and codifies into law 
the accountability of this agency and its operation to the American 
people and to the veterans of the United States of America for all they 
have done for each and every one of us.
  It is very important to appreciate that this does not come to us by 
some Senator or some Representative coming up with a bunch of crazy 
ideas at the last minute. This is a response to what we have seen 
happen over and over again over the past few years. Most, if not all, 
of the employees in the Veterans' Administration are hard-working, 
dedicated, committed individuals, but there have been, from time to 
time, questions that have arisen about the handling of certain 
situations: the situation that took place in Phoenix, AZ, in terms of 
appointments; the rash number of suicides and mishandling of 
pharmaceuticals in the Atlanta office of Clairmont, near where I am in 
my office in Atlanta, GA; the situation of transfers in Philadelphia, 
PA, where people were transferred rather than disciplined and were paid 
their moving expenses and cost-of-living adjustments upward--all to get 
rid of somebody in one office but move them to another, instead of 
handling them in the way in which they should have been, which holds 
them accountable, rather than making sure they work somewhere else. We 
took instances where people themselves were breaking the law and 
violating the law, and we are now holding them accountable because of 
what is written into the VA accountability and whistleblower act.
  Simply put, we have taken the worst performance, in isolated cases in 
the past few years, and did what was right. We have corrected it where 
it needed to be corrected, we have eliminated it where it needed to be 
eliminated, and we have given the authority to the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs and employees under the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
to discipline people who work for them and hold them accountable for 
doing the wrong thing and encourage them to do the right thing.
  I reiterate, though, that we are not singling out an agency which has 
a large number of people who are not performing. We are singling out an 
agency which has had some situations where a few employees have done 
some egregious things that need to be addressed. They were addressed 
but couldn't be addressed under the current status of the law, which 
now will be able to be addressed under the status of the new law and 
held accountable for their actions.
  Nothing happens when one person does it. Everything happens when 
people come together as a team. It has been a pleasure for me to have a 
great teammate in this effort; that is, Jon Tester from Montana. I have 
been on the committee 12 years, and I think Jon has been on the 
committee 8 or 9 years.
  You are on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, first of all, because you 
want to be on it. It is what we refer to as a B committee, which means 
it is a second tier. A lot of times it is a fill-in committee for 
Members of the Senate or the House, but for me and for Jon, it is our 
principal and primary responsibility. We know to whom we owe 
everything, and that is our veterans to whom we owe everything.
  Jon Tester has been a great teammate. He has been great to work with. 
He has helped us get through some times of difficulty and some good 
times of common understanding and settlement, and I appreciate that 
very much.
  I want Jon to tell me what the people of Montana are telling him 
about our Veterans' Administration and the need for stronger 
accountability in the VA of Montana. Tell us what they are saying in 
Montana, Jon.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank Chairman Isakson.
  Before I answer the question, I want to echo and say thank you very 
much for your leadership on this committee. It has been great to work 
with you. You have a reputation of being a man of honesty, integrity, 
and fair dealing, and you have once again lived up to that reputation. 
I could not ask for a better chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee than you. I very much appreciate the work you have done on 
this bill.
  I, too, want to thank Senators Rubio, Moran, Shaheen, Blumenthal, 
Angus King, Donnelly, Baldwin, and Duckworth. There are a number of 
folks on both sides of the aisle who

[[Page 8669]]

have stepped up--some on the committee, some off the committee--who 
have done such a great job making sure we ended up here today.
  Chairman Isakson knows this. We got a bill over from the House, we 
sat down together, and we negotiated. We gave and took and massaged the 
bill. We ended up with a bill that probably Johnny would not have 
written and probably I wouldn't have written, but it is a bill that is 
going to work, and it is going to give the VA what they need to hold 
people accountable.
  I also echo what Johnny said. Veterans across this country are very 
happy with the care they get at the VA, and it is because of the great 
people on the ground within the VA, but every once in a while we get a 
bad apple, and the VA needs to be able to remove that bad apple because 
that bad apple reflects poorly on everybody within the VA. So this bill 
is about making sure the VA has the tool it needs to hold itself 
accountable and hold itself accountable to the veterans.
  What I hear from the folks in Montana is: How come it took so long?
  We have been at this for a while, and I hope it is worth the wait. I 
think we have a good bill here. I think we have a bill that really 
holds folks accountable while protecting workers' rights moving 
forward.
  The VA is a different kind of animal than any other agency. We owe it 
to the people who put it on the line for this country. When things 
don't go just right, we have a problem, and we have a problem that 
needs to be fixed and not fixed yesterday--fixed today. These folks 
have given their all to this country, and they have earned these 
healthcare benefits. We need to make sure that when they need them, 
they have them and there aren't any mistakes made.
  What I also hear from veterans in Montana, other than it took so 
long, is: How can we rebuild the VA to make it all it can be? I think 
this bill is going to help with that, too, by making sure we have the 
best of the best there, by making sure we have training for our 
hospital administrators and being able to hire hospital 
administrators--that is part of this bill, too--while holding the VA 
accountable when folks screw up in areas of misconduct.
  So there is a bunch in this bill. I think this bill will fit the 
needs, not only of veterans in a rural or frontier State like Montana 
but in more populated areas like Atlanta, GA. I think it gives the 
Secretary of the VA the tools at his disposal to be able to make the VA 
as strong as it can possibly be.
  I will say that this bill would not have happened without the good 
work of Johnny and his staff and my staff coming together and getting 
stuff done. I think this is one of the days in the Senate where we can 
look back and say that folks came together as Democrats and Republicans 
and did the right thing for the veterans of this country.
  Johnny, I am curious to know from you what kind of stuff you are 
hearing in Georgia about this bill and bringing accountability to the 
VA.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Senator Tester, like you, I get my best information at 
the Legion, the IAVA, and from folks around my State. I am a member of 
the American Legion post at Loganville, GA, and go every once in a 
while to the bar and get a drink just to find out what is going on. I 
find out more there in an hour socializing than I find out by reading 
every newspaper in the United States of America.
  Let me tell you what some of the organizations are saying--because 
these veterans service organizations are the voice of the American 
people who served in our military, and they are the people who 
communicate to us in committee.
  The VFW wants the Secretary to weed out misperformers and especially 
the criminals, regardless of whether the crime was committed on or off 
duty.
  The VFW wants a bill passed because maintaining the status quo does 
not work for those who have borne the battle and borne the fight.
  They want to make sure the VA holds their employees to the standards 
the veterans of America feel they have committed themselves to as 
veterans serving in our military.
  The American Legion applauds the bipartisan effort to provide 
Secretary Shulkin the additional tools to increase accountability and 
address poor performance within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  I underscore this, because in the bill Jon and I ensure we motivate 
management to understand it is their job to seek out nonperformance and 
correct it before it runs amuck. So this bill incentivizes management 
of the Veterans' Administration to find those employees who are not 
performing well and turn them around and reward those employees who are 
turned around to be an example they set for all the rest of the 
employees.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protection Act will give Secretary Shulkin the authority he needs to 
hold Department employees responsible for their actions. ``We strongly 
agree with the Senate to take the bill immediately and pass it,'' said 
Dan Caldwell of Concerned Veterans of America.
  So, once and for all, all around our State our VSO organizations are 
getting a response to the questions they have asked of all of us, and 
that is what this bill does.
  There is misinformation out there. There are rumors flying around in 
Montana, some flying around in Georgia. Can the Senator help clear up 
some of the errors?
  Mr. TESTER. There is a lot of misinformation about this bill. I will 
tell you what this bill does not do. It does not trample on workers' 
rights. This bill maintains bargaining rights of union workers at the 
VA. One of the problems we had with the House-passed bill was it did 
away with the ability of members to use the bargaining process. This 
does not. It maintains it. It does not gut due process protections. It 
keeps all the existing due process protections under current law. 
Unlike the House bill, it doesn't shorten or eliminate the appeals 
process for employees who are fired. Moreover, we provide a judicial 
review to employees who are directed to repay a bonus and other 
protection. Finally, this bill does not allow VA supervisors to get 
away with firing anyone who just challenges them. Evidence is still 
required in order to take action, and that evidence must go through 
general counsel for review before an action is proposed.
  This is all critically important, as we go forth, to give 
accountability and yet be able to protect the rights of the workers who 
are doing the job. I think we found the sweet spot there.
  More important than anything else in this bill--and it does a lot of 
things--it is really about a culture of accountability at the VA.
  Can the Senator tell us here in the Senate what else this bill does 
for veterans?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I want to talk about the culture the Senator just 
mentioned. He is exactly right. The main thing the American people are 
going to see from the Veterans' Administration now is a culture 
throughout that organization of excellence to serve the veterans the 
way they should be served. And where there might be an isolated 
problem, make sure it is sought out, rooted out, and corrected within 
the agency. Our veterans deserve the highest quality care.
  Secretary Shulkin has asked for more authority to hold accountable 
those who are not meeting standards. He wants to recognize those who 
have not only met but exceeded standards as well.
  This bill gives VA the authority to expedite the removal of a bad 
employee, but it doesn't motivate them to get rid of people, it gives 
them the parameters by which people should be dealt with if, in fact, 
they are behaving poorly. It shortens the process for removing an 
employee to 15 days. That doesn't mean you act recklessly or quickly, 
it means you act expeditiously to see to it that if you have a problem, 
it is addressed quickly for the benefit of all the agencies.
  It removes the Merit Systems Protection Board from the appeal process 
for senior executives. There is some bad talk out there about removing 
the Merit Systems Protection Board for all employees. It doesn't do 
that at all.

[[Page 8670]]

But the most senior employees of the Veterans' Administration deserve 
to be held accountable without lots of hoops you have to go through 
before ever getting to them. So by taking the Merit Systems Protection 
Board away from those senior executives, you are holding them totally 
accountable in the bright light of day for their own actions, without 
some hoop to go through for the agency trying to remove them.
  It prohibits bonuses and relocation expenses for employees guilty of 
wrongdoing. I mentioned this in my earlier remarks, and I will 
reiterate. This deals with things like what happened in Pennsylvania, 
where two employees were reassigned for a discipline, yet they were 
given bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments in their pay upward for 
doing something wrong. That sends exactly the wrong signal to any 
employee in the Veterans' Administration.
  For anyone doing a good job, it pats them on the back and lets them 
know they can do an even better job.
  It expedites the hiring of VA medical center directors, which is 
absolutely critical. We have far too many people in the VA healthcare 
system today who are acting. They are acting director or acting 
assistant. We don't need any more ``acting'' in the Veterans' 
Administration; we need performance.
  That is what this bill ends up being about--the performance of 
delivery of quality healthcare to our veterans, rewarding those 
employees who are doing a good job, encouraging those who aren't to do 
a better job, and seeing all American veterans get the services they 
deserve to get.
  The need for this bill does not come out of thin air. I say to 
Senator Tester, can you tell me why the VA and veterans need this 
legislation to strengthen accountability at the VA?
  Mr. TESTER. I sure can. I talked previously about this. It has been a 
while. It has been 3 years. We talked about this accountability issue a 
lot in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and here on the floor. I think 
the context is important for folks who do make the claim that there is 
no need for this particular bill, that we are simply playing politics. 
That couldn't be further from the truth.
  If you remember, back in August of 2014, in response to systemic 
failures in the Veterans Health Administration, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability 
Act of 2014. We were both members of the committee back then. We both 
helped draft that bill. It passed by a vote 91 to 3. As my colleagues 
on the Veterans' Affairs Committee are well aware, the bill included a 
provision to hold senior executives of the VA more accountable. That 
provision was in response to multiple reports from both the Obama 
administration and an independent VA inspector general documenting the 
need to bring greater accountability to the VA.
  While much of the attention has been focused on senior-level 
employees, hospital administrators, and the like, there are employees 
across the system who need to be effectively held accountable for 
misconduct and inappropriate behavior. Last Congress, the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee reported bipartisan legislation that would 
give the VA greater authority to improve accountability for all 
employees. Unfortunately, we never got floor time for that bill.
  This Congress, the House passed a VA accountability bill that, at 
least in my view, needed some fixing. I appreciate that my Republican 
colleagues worked closely with us--with me--on these changes, and we 
got to this point today.
  But make no mistake about it--veterans in Montana and all the major 
veterans service organizations support giving the VA the authority to 
expedite disciplining and firing bad employees. Let me say that one 
more time. Every major veteran service organization supports giving the 
VA the authority to expedite disciplining or firing bad employees. The 
President and the VA Secretaries--both McDonald and Shulkin--have asked 
for this authority. Former VA Secretary McDonald repeatedly asked 
Congress to give him the tools he needed to hold employees accountable. 
Secretary Shulkin has followed and done the same. So we have this bill 
up today.
  I would like to end where I started, and that is by thanking Chairman 
Isakson for his leadership and his willingness to work together in a 
bipartisan way to reach a compromise and make ``collaboration'' a good 
word again, to get to a point where we can get a bill, as the IAVA 
said, that can pass and that can pass the Senate and that hopefully 
will pass the Senate within the next few hours.
  I thank Chairman Isakson.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Tester.
  I started my remarks a few minutes ago by saying that this will be 
the 73rd anniversary of D-day. Nobody who charged Omaha Beach or 
climbed those cliffs in Normandy had second thoughts about what they 
were doing or asked questions about their leadership or tolerated 
anything but the best they could out of themselves. Because of that, 
they won.
  Today, our veterans are winning. Our committee--the Senate is going 
to pass in I think a unanimous or near-unanimous fashion a piece of 
legislation that is a byproduct of a good bipartisan effort to see to 
it that we correct the problems of the past, give the Secretary of the 
VA the ability to do it in the future, and if he or she doesn't do it, 
it gives us the ability to change them so they are held accountable as 
well.
  It has been a pleasure to work with you and a privilege to work for 
our veterans.
  On this special day, we honor those who served America 73 years ago 
by the beginning of the end of World War II, thank them for their 
service, and thank all veterans who provide service to the people of 
the United States of America.
  I want to end by noting that we have 32 sponsors of this legislation, 
which is almost exactly one-third of the Senate, Republican and 
Democrat alike. That sends the proper signal that this is the right 
bill at the right time for the right people--veterans of the United 
States of America.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to start by commending my 
colleagues from Georgia and Montana for their compassion and care for 
our veterans and specifically for their continued efforts to ensure we 
have accountability at the VA. They worked hard on this legislation. I 
hope the Senate moves expeditiously to vote for it and to help our 
veterans to be able to have the kind of responsibility and 
accountability they deserve.


                         Remembering Les Spaeth

  Mr. President, I also rise today to talk about veterans. I am going 
to focus on World War II veterans.
  Last Monday was Memorial Day. I was in Mason, OH. I was in Warren 
County, OH. My mom grew up there, and my family still has a lot of ties 
there. I was there at a ceremony for the veterans memorial, one of the 
most beautiful memorials in the State of Ohio. I happened to be there 
about 15 years ago when it was first began, and it was great to be 
back. At the ceremony, I got to see a World War II buddy of mine. His 
name is Les Spaeth. He is also a good friend of my father's and 
grandfather's. As always, seeing him brought back great memories, and I 
was able to speak about him during my remarks.
  Two days later--a few days ago--we got word that Les Spaeth died at 
age 92. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to this man who gave so 
much to his country and to his community.
  Les was a marine corporal during World War II. He signed up after 
graduating from Mason High School in 1942. He served in the Pacific, 
including the occupation of Japan after the war, helping that country 
make a difficult transition to democracy. Thanks in large part to 
American soldiers like him, by the way, the transition worked. Japan 
has become one of our greatest allies.
  Les came back to Mason, OH, and started a small business called 
Spaeth Brothers Cleaners. He had that optimism so many of the World War 
II generation had. He had the courage to

[[Page 8671]]

take a risk and help build jobs and help the economy of his hometown. 
My dad did the same thing after World War II.
  Les was a businessman, but he was also a public servant for more than 
half a century. He served six terms as Warren County auditor. He served 
on the Board of Elections for 25 years. He chaired the Warren County 
Republican Party for 17 years.
  He was very active in the community in so many other ways too. He was 
one of the very first volunteer firefighters in Mason, OH, starting way 
back in 1948. He was elder at his church, Heritage Presbyterian, where 
his service will be held. For 70 years, he was a freemason and member 
of the American Legion. He helped set up the American Legion Buckeye 
Boys Program, a great program where they are teaching young men about 
State, local, and Federal government and values and leadership. His 
whole life was centered around his community--through the family 
business, through military service, through elected office, and through 
volunteerism.
  In 2009, Mason High School started having a distinguished alumni 
graduation speaker every year. For all the reasons I talked about a 
moment ago, a few years ago, in 2013, I wrote a letter and recommended 
that they honor Les Spaeth. They agreed with me. That spring of 2013, 
it was time to receive his award. He gave a beautiful speech. He talked 
about his love for this country and counting our blessings as 
Americans. He received a standing ovation from the graduating class. I 
know that meant a lot to him. That ovation shows the respect and esteem 
people in Warren County have for Les Spaeth across generations.
  On behalf of Ohio, I want to express my condolences to the family of 
Les Spaeth. I also want to thank them for sharing Les with the rest of 
us in Ohio for these past 92 years. He was a dedicated servant to the 
people of Warren County, an American hero for his military service, and 
a good friend to so many.


                       73rd Anniversary of D-day

  As was noted, as we talk about World War II, today is also the 73rd 
anniversary of D-day. As Chairman Isakson just said, it was really the 
beginning of the end of that war. And 73 years ago this morning, Les 
Spaeth was in theater in the Pacific, as I said, risking his life for 
all of us. But in Europe on that same morning, the largest amphibious 
invasion in the history of the world was taking place. Men as young as 
18 years old were crossing the channel, carrying packs weighing 80 
pounds. More than 160,000 Allied soldiers--mostly Americans--and more 
than 5,000 ships backed by more than 10,000 aircraft were fighting to 
liberate Europe from Hitler. The outcome was far from certain. The 
Nazis had spent 2 years fortifying the coast to prepare for this 
moment. It was Hitler's so-called Atlantic Wall. The beautiful 
coastline of France was covered in barbed wire, land mines, and 
bunkers.
  A little more than a month before D-day, by the way, the Allies had 
conducted a trial run. They practiced on beaches in western England 
that were most like those of Normandy. The practice run was a disaster. 
In fact, Germans spotted the Allied ships and attacked them. Hundreds 
of American troops died in that practice session.
  COL George Taylor told his troops as they were about to land on 
Normandy: ``Only two kinds of men are going to be on this beach--the 
dead, and those about to die. So get moving.'' This was tough stuff. 
They had an enormous task, and the stakes could not have been higher.
  Erwin Rommel--and Rommel was leading the Nazi defense at that time--
said at that time: ``The fate of Germany depends on . . . the first 24 
hours of this invasion.'' He was right.
  Well-known historian Douglas Brinkley said that D-day was ``the 
single most important moment in the 20th Century.'' It was one of the 
bloodiest too. It was the beginning of the end of the most difficult 
war in human history, and the lives of millions of people depended on 
the outcome.
  They depended on the success of brave, young Americans like Eugene 
Lyons of University Heights, OH. Eugene was a medic. His ship hit a 
mine in the English Channel and sank off the coast. He swam to shore 
while German planes shot at him, missing him by a matter of inches. Or 
the Napier brothers of Warren County, like Les Spaeth. Five brothers 
all served during World War II. Two of them were there on the beaches 
that day; one died. Or Jim ``Pee Wee'' Martin from Dayton, OH, who 
served in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and parachuted behind 
German lines before dawn that day. Jim received both the Purple Heart 
and the Bronze Star for his service that day. Or Sigmund Czelusniak of 
North Royalton, OH, who was wounded by a mortar shell on Omaha Beach. 
Sigmund later said, as he lay wounded: ``In my heart, I didn't think 
I'd ever come back.''
  More than 10,000 Allied troops did not come back.
  While those brave men and hundreds of thousands of others were 
fighting, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took to the airwaves, as you 
would expect a President to do. As you know, he was known for what were 
called fireside chats. These were informal speeches he would give to 
the Nation during difficult times. But on that day, he did something 
very different. Instead of giving a speech, he was called to lead the 
Nation in prayer. This prayer brought our country together. It 
strengthened our resolve. It comforted us at a very difficult and 
frightening time for our country, and it briefly encapsulated, as you 
will hear in a second, what our purpose was--not just in World War II 
but what our purpose was as Americans. He made an indelible mark on our 
history.
  Three years ago, after the 70th anniversary of D-day, then-President 
Obama signed into law legislation that I had authored to add the words 
of this famous prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. 
Since then, the site for the plaque has been approved. The architect is 
continuing to work with the National Park Service on the design. I have 
been told that the Park Service intends to present the design options 
to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning 
Commission during their meetings this summer. Construction could begin 
as soon as December and be completed by next June.
  Frankly, I am discouraged this has taken so long because this prayer 
belongs on the World War II Memorial, and Congress has said so. I urge 
the Park Service to move as expeditiously as possible to complete this 
project, to bring those words to so many veterans and others who visit 
that beautiful memorial.
  As has been my tradition since the time we were trying to get that 
legislation passed, I would like to read the words President Roosevelt 
spoke on D-day 73 years ago.
  He started by saying:

       My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you . . 
     . I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and 
     our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater 
     operation. It has come to pass with great success thus far. 
     And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in 
     prayer.

  This was his prayer:

       Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have 
     set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our 
     Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free 
     a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give 
     strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, 
     steadfastness in their faith.
       They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and 
     hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. 
     Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return 
     again and again; and we know by Thy grace and by the 
     righteousness of our cause our sons will triumph. They will 
     be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until the 
     victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. 
     Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice 
     arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They 
     yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the 
     haven of home.
       Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive 
     them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
       And for those of us at home--fathers, mothers, children, 
     wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose 
     thoughts

[[Page 8672]]

     and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to 
     rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of 
     great sacrifice.
       Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single 
     day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the 
     desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a 
     continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again 
     when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, 
     invoking Thy help to our efforts.
       Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to 
     redouble the contributions we make in the physical and 
     material support of our armed forces.
       And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, 
     to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our 
     sons wheresoever they may be.
       And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in 
     our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. 
     Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not 
     the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but 
     fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable 
     purpose.
       With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces 
     of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and 
     racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and 
     with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a 
     sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy 
     men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, 
     reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
       Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.

  Those were the words he spoke and the words that will soon be 
inscribed on the World War II monument.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                            Paris Agreement

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate 
agreement.
  In 1992, under President George H.W. Bush, the Senate unanimously 
approved a treaty to allow the United States to join the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since then, we have been 
engaged in a global conversation with nations around the world to 
tackle the challenges of climate change and ensure that we leave future 
generations a planet that is not plagued by catastrophic drought, 
famine, floods, wildfire, and a rising sea level.
  After years of intense negotiation, the world finally reached an 
international agreement that resulted in a global commitment, and 195 
countries from around the world, except for 2, came together. Nicaragua 
abstained; they wanted a stronger agreement. Syria was another country 
that stepped aside and didn't take part, for obvious reasons. 
Representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, 
these 195 countries committed to reducing their carbon emissions to 
prevent the average global temperature from rising by more than 2 
degrees.
  I cannot fathom why any President of either political party would 
want to isolate the United States from the rest of the world, from our 
allies and trading partners, by leaving this agreement.
  President Trump justified this decision with concern for American 
jobs and American business. Yet, since the election, American business 
leaders have called him on the phone, sent a barrage of public letters, 
and paid for full-page ads in newspapers, trying to get the message 
through to him in any way possible that American business strongly 
supports the Paris Agreement, which President Trump has walked away 
from.
  Tech companies and retailers, insurance companies, and even energy 
companies, such as ExxonMobil and BP, support global engagement on 
climate. In fact, the World Economic Forum estimated that the Paris 
Agreement represents a $23 trillion investment potential due to the 
growing demand in every corner of the world for clean energy. Between 
consumers who want clean energy and local regulations that require it, 
the demand for clean energy will continue to grow here in the United 
States and around the world.
  While pulling out of the Paris Agreement might seem like a way to 
protect jobs, for example, in the coal industry, the truth is that when 
these jobs do go away, it is mostly due to other things: market forces 
and automation.
  I have been down in the coal mines of Southern Illinois, Central 
Illinois. I have seen the way they mine coal today. For those who have 
not been there and paid close attention, it may come as a surprise. It 
is largely automated. Massive machinery, known as continuous miners, 
literally chew away at the walls of coal, transporting it back up to 
the surface for transport.
  Back in the day, hundreds, if not thousands, of coal miners would 
head for their jobs with little more than a pick or an ax or a shovel 
or some drill. Today, it is an automated industry, and fewer jobs are 
creating more and more coal opportunities because automation is a big 
part.
  In addition, there is a change in the global energy market. Because 
of fracking in States like North Dakota and South Dakota, we have seen 
an increase in the availability of natural gas at lower prices. Last 
year, for the first time in modern history, we had more electricity 
generated in 1 month in America from natural gas sources than from coal 
sources.
  We have turned a corner when it comes to the availability of 
alternatives in energy. Between consumers who want access to clean 
energy and local regulations that require it, clean energy is going to 
continue to grow in demand.
  Meanwhile, even in my own home State of Illinois, which is the fourth 
largest coal-producing State in the Nation, we already have thousands 
more workers in the solar industry than in the coal industry.
  Clean energy jobs are growing. Remaining engaged on climate change 
spurs new investment and strengthens American competitiveness for jobs 
in the future. These jobs include designing more efficient solar 
panels, wind turbines, batteries, and manufacturing the components for 
export all over the world. Why should other nations get to lead this 
growing industry of clean energy and the United States step away? We 
can create those jobs right here in America--American jobs for American 
workers in clean energy opportunities. We should lead the world in the 
creation of clean energy jobs.
  This decision by the Trump administration to turn its back on this 
revolution in energy is going to cost us dearly. When the coal jobs do 
decline, we have responsibilities to retrain the workers for clean 
energy jobs and other opportunities in the future. The Paris Agreement 
ensured that we have credibility as leaders, access to global markets, 
and reduced financial risk for our citizens and businesses associated 
with changing climate.
  By walking away from the agreement, America is not just giving up an 
environmental commitment, but it is giving up economic opportunity. We 
have given away our leadership, isolated ourselves from the rest of the 
world. They are not going to wait for us; they are going to move 
forward and look for other leaders than the United States. This 
President talked about making America first. His decision to walk away 
from the Paris Agreement puts America dead last when it comes to energy 
in the 21st century.
  Climate change is a dire threat to the global economy and global 
stability. It will cause catastrophic consequences for global health, 
food security, and habitat on land and in the ocean. My constituents in 
Illinois are already experiencing the adverse effects of changing 
climate.
  In recent years, our State--and, I might add, many others--has seen 
historic storms, floods, and droughts, causing millions of dollars in 
damage. Climate models suggest that if current global warming trends 
continue, Illinois will have a climate similar to the Texas gulf coast 
by the end of this century. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the 
environment have a direct effect on their livelihood and for all of us, 
a direct impact on our food supply.
  Climate change also has significant national security implications 
that affect our shores--ones we simply can't ignore. The crisis in 
Syria, the flow of refugees from unstable parts of the world, is an 
early warning of the link to climate change and how humanitarian 
crises, particularly from less

[[Page 8673]]

stable parts of our shared planet, are going to get worse if we 
continue to let climate change go unaddressed.
  Back in 2011, when pro-democracy protests began in Syria, many of 
those joining were displaced farmers who had suffered 4 years of 
drought, made worse by the effects of climate change. The National 
Academy of Sciences published findings earlier this year showing that 
extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was more likely due to 
climate change and that the drought was a factor in the uprisings in 
2011.
  Last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom 
Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa 
through the Sahara Desert to Libya, where people were hoping to 
eventually cross the dangerous trek across the Mediterranean Sea to 
Europe. He wrote: ``Just as Syria's revolution was set off in part by 
the worst four-year drought in the country's modern history--plus 
overpopulation, climate stresses and the Internet--the same is true of 
this African migration wave.''
  Former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell recently called President 
Trump's decision to pull the United States from the Paris climate 
agreement the worst decision made by this President so far.
  Mr. Morell pointed out that pulling out not only cedes American 
leadership in the world, but it harms our own national security by 
ignoring the impact of climate change on failed and fragile states that 
are homes to instability and violence. He further noted that we face 
three possible threats to our existence: nuclear war, a natural or 
manmade biological threat, or climate change. President Trump's 
dangerous decision, if not reversed, will contribute to that threat.
  Anyone in this Chamber claiming to be serious about national security 
simply cannot be credible without addressing the long-term threats 
posed by weak states and climate change in the decades to come.
  It is amazing to me that people around the world have come together 
to recognize the danger and the urgent need to act on climate change 
everywhere in the world except right here in the United States of 
America.
  I don't understand the other political party. I can remember a time 
when we would have a debate on climate change on the floor. We would be 
talking about the Environmental Protection Agency, created by a 
Republican President, Richard Nixon, and we would have Senators from 
both sides of the aisle actively debating climate change, realizing 
that it is a threat to our future. Those days have changed.
  Any debate now about environment is strictly one-sided. Was the 
science changed when it comes to global warming and climate change? Not 
at all. Ninety-eight percent of scientists agree that we have global 
warming, and the reasons for it relate directly to greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  So what has changed? Why isn't this a bipartisan debate anymore? The 
politics have changed. They have changed dramatically with the way we 
finance political campaigns in this country. Groups have emerged--one 
in particular, the Koch brothers, who have made their fortune in carbon 
industries and who have promised any Republican who steps out of line 
on climate change this: You are in for a fight; you are going to face a 
primary. Don't you dare stand up and talk about climate change here on 
the floor of the Senate.
  That is where we are today. We have come to a standstill, and now we 
have a President who has decided to walk away from this issue. This 
President has chosen politics over science and greed over 
responsibility. His decision is a fateful decision for our children, 
our grandchildren, and generations to come.
  There may be some momentary applause in some places because President 
Trump has walked away from this global agreement to deal with this 
global challenge, but I could tell you the cheers are short-lived. When 
we see the price that we are going to pay--and that our kids will pay--
for this gross irresponsibility, there will not be a lot of cheering.
  I have said this on the floor before, and I will say it again because 
I am waiting for someone on the other side to come to challenge me: The 
Republican Party of the United States of America is the only major 
political party in the world today that refuses to take climate change 
seriously. I have said that over and over, and I expect Senators from 
the Republican side to come to the floor and say: That is not true; we 
take it seriously. But they don't. Or I expect them to come to the 
floor and say: No, there is another major political party that also 
denies climate change.
  One Republican Senator, after I said this on the floor repeatedly, 
pulled me off to the side in the corridor, looked around, and 
whispered: There is a party in Australia that also doesn't believe in 
climate change.
  You think to yourself: So it has come to that. We have isolated 
ourselves in the eyes of the world when it comes to protecting this 
world for generations to come. We are going to pay a heavy price for 
that, but the biggest price is going to be paid by future generations.
  Can we make a little sacrifice today, drive more energy-efficient 
cars and trucks, and think about ways to heat our homes and to light up 
our rooms that don't consume so much energy? Well, of course, we can. 
We have already done it, and we can do so much more. Walking away from 
the Paris Agreement is not the path that should lead America into the 
21st century.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, earlier today, Majority Leader McConnell came to the 
Senate floor to, once again, be critical of the Affordable Care Act, a 
law that has resulted in more than 20 million Americans gaining health 
insurance. The law has lowered the uninsured rate to the lowest in 
American history. This law has put an end to insurance discrimination 
based on preexisting conditions or gender. It is a law that has made 
sure that Americans suffering from mental health or substance abuse 
addiction can get treatment. It is a law that extended the solvency of 
Medicare by a decade and decreased prescription drug costs for seniors 
by more than $1,000 for each senior in America. It is a law that has 
helped to reduce--cut in half--the number of bankruptcies filed in 
America because so many were the result of medical bills that people 
just couldn't pay. I was proud to vote for this law.
  Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be improved and strengthened? 
Yes, it should be. Improvements can be made the same way we have made 
improvements in Medicare, Social Security, and in so many other 
programs over the years, but not by repealing Social Security, not by 
repealing Medicare but by sitting down on a bipartisan basis to try to 
find a way to make sure that we don't deny health insurance coverage to 
23 million people in America because of the repeal of the Affordable 
Care Act and to find a way not to raise costs on older Americans, which 
the bill that passed the House of Representatives would do, and to find 
a way to make this law better for people living in rural America.
  My hometown is in downstate Illinois. I, as a Congressman and 
Senator, have represented a lot of small towns in sparsely populated 
counties. They value many things. They sure value their schools, their 
basketball teams and football teams. I will tell you what they value as 
much, if not more, than anything else--their local hospital.
  The local hospital makes such a difference in smalltown America. It 
is not only a lifesaver--it saves you from driving another 50 or 100 
miles for quality care--but it is also a source of great employment. 
Probably the best paying jobs in town are at the local hospital. If you 
want to keep a business or attract one, a local hospital is a good 
selling point.
  Do you know what the bill that passed the House of Representatives 
will do to the rural and smalltown hospitals in Illinois?
  Don't take my word for it. Ask the Illinois Health and Hospital 
Association. They anticipate losing 60,000 jobs in Illinois because of 
the healthcare repeal bill that passed the House of Representatives, 
and they know that many hospitals downstate and many in the inner city 
are going to be forced to cut

[[Page 8674]]

back in services, if not close, as a result of it.
  What can we do to make this a better bill, to make the Affordable 
Care Act work more effectively? Let me give you a couple of ideas. 
First, we don't have anything in the law today that deals with 
prescription drug prices. We are at the mercy of people--pharmaceutical 
companies, investment bankers, and others--who come and control these 
pharmaceutical patents. They can literally raise the cost of these 
drugs beyond the reach of many families.
  I had a young man come see me. He is in high school. He has been 
fighting diabetes since he was a little boy. He and his mother talked 
about the dramatic increase in the cost of insulin that he has faced 
over the last several years. Insulin has been around a long time. This 
is not a new wonder drug. It is a critical, lifesaving drug, but the 
prices and costs of insulin are going through the roof, and there is no 
way under current law for us to deal with it. Should we take that up? 
Of course, we should.
  Blue Cross Blue Shield in Illinois told me recently that they spent 
more money last year on pharmaceutical costs than they did on inpatient 
hospital care, and the costs continue to go up. We need good, 
lifesaving drugs. We need to reward the companies that find them with a 
profit. But as to those who want to gouge prices and take advantage of 
people of modest income or folks who don't have insurance, there has to 
be a way to answer that and to deal with it honestly.
  Yesterday, I went with eight other Senators up to the National 
Institutes of Health. It is out in Bethesda, MD. It is the premier 
medical research facility in the world. We are lucky to have it right 
here in the United States.
  Time and again they told us about breakthrough drugs that were making 
a big difference that started with research at the National Institutes 
of Health. I asked at one point: Is it too much to ask the 
pharmaceutical companies that take your basic research idea and turn it 
into a profitable product to give some of those profits back to the NIH 
to continue their research? They said: We have tried to do it, but the 
pharmaceutical companies walk away. They don't want to give us a penny 
for our future research.
  Well, that is wrong. We ought to be investing in that research, 
rewarding the pharmaceutical companies for their development of these 
products, as well, but making certain we continue this leadership in 
the world when it comes to medical research and pharmaceuticals.
  The individual market on health insurance is one that troubles us 
because it is the area where people who don't have health insurance 
through their place of employment or don't qualify for a government 
health insurance plan--like Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, or the 
like--go to buy insurance on the insurance exchange. This is where the 
premiums have gone up. Now, why have the premiums gone up in that one 
sector? Because when it comes to individuals, those who are older and 
sicker are the first to sign up, but the healthier, younger ones are 
the last.
  We can sit down on a bipartisan basis and find ways to create an 
incentive so that we can increase the participation in this insurance 
pool and bring down the premium costs for those who are paying.
  The third thing we need to do is to make sure that no matter where 
you live in the United States, there is an option to choose when it 
comes to buying your health insurance. One of the things we can do is 
to take one of the most popular medical care programs in history--the 
Medicare Program itself--and duplicate it in a public option available 
to people across the United States. Do you want to buy a health 
insurance program that looks like Medicare, a not-for-profit program? 
This would be your chance.
  So those are three ideas that I think we could bring forward in an 
effort to make the Affordable Care Act even more responsive.
  Senator McConnell, the Republican Leader, comes to the floor 
frequently to talk about the choice to expand the Medicaid Program, as 
allowed under law in many States. I would welcome the opportunity to 
expand that program.
  Most people do not understand the Medicaid Program. Oh, that is 
health insurance for poor people. Well, in a way, it is, but it is so 
much more. For example, one out of every two births in Illinois is paid 
for by the Medicaid Program to keep mom healthy so she delivers a 
healthy baby and to keep that baby healthy as soon as it is born. It is 
paid for by Medicaid in 50 percent of the cases of new births. But that 
is not the most expensive thing.
  The most expensive thing under Medicaid is for your mom and your 
grandmother who is in a nursing home, living on Social Security and 
Medicare, and they need help. So they qualify for Medicaid to pay for 
the medical care they need so they can continue to live wholesome 
lives.
  The third area, of course, is medical insurance for the disabled who 
have ongoing needs. Those three areas make up Medicaid. When the 
Republican proposal that came out of the House wanted to cut $600 or 
$700 billion and give tax cuts to wealthy people, they took it out of 
Medicaid.
  So which of the groups that I just described to you would you take 
health insurance away from--mothers with new babies, elderly folks in 
nursing homes with no resources, or the disabled who live in our 
communities?
  I would think it is a step in the wrong direction to hit any of these 
groups. That is why Medicaid was expanded in so many States and why we 
should continue to find ways to expand it in a responsible fashion.
  As I go back home and talk to people about this Republican 
alternative that passed the House of Representatives, it is very clear 
they oppose it.
  I have challenged those Congressmen who voted for the Republican 
repeal bill to find one medical advocacy group in my State that 
supports their effort. There are none. The Illinois Health and Hospital 
Association, the Illinois Medical Association, the Illinois Nurses 
Association, and the Illinois pediatricians all oppose it.
  The AARP, or American Association of Retired Persons, opposes it 
because the bill removed the protection for elderly people when it came 
to the cost of premiums. The AARP believes--and I am afraid the facts 
bear it out--that what passed the House of Representatives will 
dramatically increase health insurance premiums for people between the 
ages of 50 and 64. We can do better, but we need to do it on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, just a little less than 2 weeks ago, 
President Trump released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, 
which would begin October 1. He named his plan ``A New Foundation for 
American Greatness.'' While unveiling this budget, Director Mulvaney, 
the OMB Director, declared that ``We are no longer going to measure 
compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those 
programs, but by the number of people we help get off of those 
programs.''
  When I read this and looked at the budget, I was reminded of the 
story of the two hikers who got to the top of a mountain. They stood 
near a big cliff and one hiker said: It is a beautiful vista.
  The other hiker said: I am so exhausted from hiking all the way up; I 
wish I could get down quickly.
  The first hiker then said: Let me help you with that. And he shoved 
him off the cliff.
  That is what this budget does. It doesn't help people get off 
programs through education and training; it shuts down the programs. It 
shoves people off the cliff.
  In this budget, millions of struggling, rural, middle-class, low-
income, and working Americans are thrown off the cliff. They are thrown 
out of these programs as these programs are just struck down, not 
because programs have served their purpose and are no longer needed but 
because the President wants to do two things. He wants to build a lot 
more in terms of the

[[Page 8675]]

military, and he wants to give a tax giveaway of some $6 trillion in 
the budget, with most of it going to the very richest Americans. This 
is not an ``America first'' budget; this is a ``billionaires first'' 
and a ``rural and working Americans last'' budget.
  We see this vision implemented through dramatic cuts to food stamps, 
children's healthcare, job training, after-school programs, scientific 
research, and other anti-poverty programs. One program after another 
designed to help American families who are devastated will be 
eliminated, all in the name of building a wall, building more missiles 
and more bombs, and giving this massive, massive giveaway of the 
Treasury to the privileged and powerful.
  Now there is good news. The good news is that I think we are going to 
have a bipartisan coalition we can build to defeat this budget. Even 
some of our colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus, who often talk 
about slashing government spending and eliminating programs, are saying 
that this proposal and its impact on rural Americans and rural America 
is draconian and unacceptable. It is not often that you hear folks 
throughout the entire political spectrum come together to say the same 
thing--that this budget is shortsighted and ill-conceived--but that is 
where we are now.
  This budget tells us a lot because a budget is an expression of 
values. When President Trump placed this budget before us, we gained 
insight into his values. What we quickly learned is that President 
Trump doesn't place value on struggling and working American families, 
helping them climb a ladder to a better point. What this budget does 
tell us is that our President is all about raiding the National 
Treasury for the privileged and the powerful--quite the opposite of 
what we heard when he was campaigning.
  Franklin Roosevelt once said that, as a nation, ``The test of our 
progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have 
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' By 
``enough'' he meant, do we provide a ladder of opportunity for families 
to get their economic footing, to be able to buy a house, to be able to 
find a job, to be able to educate their children?
  In this budget, President Trump puts out a different test. With this 
budget, he is saying that the test of our progress is whether we 
destroy programs for working Americans in order to fund a $6 trillion 
giveaway to the privileged and powerful. That is Donald Trump's test of 
progress, and I think we find very few in the country who might agree 
with that vision of making economic and educational progress for 
working Americans much more difficult. It is not an ``America first'' 
budget. It is not a foundation for American greatness. It is more akin 
to a great train robbery, a great raid on the National Treasury to 
benefit those who are already at the very top.
  It is a budget that hurts children. It is a budget that hurts 
struggling, hard-working Americans. It cuts 20 percent from the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, critical for the health of our 
children. Shouldn't every child in America have access to affordable 
healthcare? That is a value I can get behind. But slashing healthcare 
for children and making it harder for them to succeed in life--I can't 
agree with that.
  Let's make children hungrier by cutting the basic food stamp program 
or school programs that 44 million Americans rely on, cutting it by 
$193 billion. Making children hungrier doesn't help them learn. Helping 
children learn is a value I can get behind. Making it harder for them 
to succeed in school may be a Trump value, but it is not mine, and I 
don't think it is shared by many Members of this Chamber.
  We find that he proposes to get rid of the subsidization of interest 
on student loans, making the cost of college even more unaffordable for 
low-income and working graduates. He freezes the Pell grants that 
already have not kept pace with inflation. He proceeds to wipe out the 
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program that erases student loans after 
a decade of service to the public. All of this is about making college 
more expensive. I can get behind the value of making higher education 
more affordable, whether it is apprenticeship training, career 
technical education, or a 4-year college program. I can get behind 
making those programs more affordable, making community college 
programs more affordable because some form of education, whether it is 
in the technical education world or community college world or a 4-year 
program--some aspect of that is important to virtually every job in 
America.
  Making it more affordable is what virtually every other developed 
country has done. In Germany, going to a public university is free in 
terms of tuition--not so here in the United States of America. Our 
students are burdened by massive, massive debt. It is growing and 
growing and growing. I can get behind the value of saying we shouldn't 
make college a financial gauntlet because it is so essential to the 
success of our children. But Trump has a different value. His value is 
let's make it harder. Let's make it more difficult. Let's put students 
further into debt. Those are not values I can support. Again, I think 
very few in this Chamber would share in that.
  The list goes on and on. This isn't just an attack on the ladder of 
opportunity for working Americans; this is an attack on rural America. 
During the last couple of years, I served as the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development and 
FDA, and in that time I have seen the tremendous impact many of these 
programs have had in providing opportunity and strengthening the 
economy in rural America. I value making rural America stronger, but 
that is not the value Trump put into his budget. He put into this 
budget: Let's undercut, let's undermine, let's make it more difficult 
for rural America. This is truly a ``rural America last'' budget.
  It eliminates funding for Essential Air Service. The Essential Air 
Service is essential to key small towns across our Nation, including 
one in my home State. If the Essential Air Service is wiped out, the 
economy of that town, Pendleton, would be dramatically impacted.
  It slashes the Contract Tower Program that supports even more 
airports--six of them in my State--rural airports that need that 
contract tower support to be able to remain open. Small towns from 
Aurora to Klamath Falls would be dramatically impacted.
  How about rural infrastructure? He takes out the rural water and 
wastewater disposal program. As I hold townhalls around my State--and I 
go to every county every year, all 36. Before I hold a public townhall 
where people can ask any question they want, I meet with the local 
county commissioners, city commissioners, and all the locally elected. 
In virtually every county, every year, I hear about the challenge of 
water infrastructure, expanding the clean water supply or waste water 
treatment. These two challenges are enormous. Yet here is President 
Trump wiping out the rural water and wastewater programs.
  How about critical housing programs? Well, here is the issue. In our 
rural communities, often the economy is hindered by the lack of 
availability of affordable housing. I have been in town after town 
after town saying: We have interest by a company to move here because 
of some of the key assets we have. Then they decide not to because they 
don't have affordable housing in the community for them to be able to 
hire the staff they need. So we have these programs at the Federal 
level--direct single-family housing loans, direct multifamily housing 
loans, low-income housing repair loans, farm labor housing loans, self-
help housing grants. Here again, the Trump budget wipes them out.
  The Community Development Block Grant Program provides flexible 
strength for rural communities to address local problems. We talk a lot 
about flexibility in the Senate, enabling local areas to decide how 
best to use funds. The CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant, 
does exactly that. Yet it is not valued by our President, who probably 
doesn't even know what the program is, but he wiped it out.

[[Page 8676]]

  How about the Rural Business-Cooperative Service that offers programs 
to support business development and job training? It is gone too. His 
budget slashes USDA's rural development programs by about $1 billion, a 
little less than $1 billion. This is a part of the agency where 
programs focus on supporting economic development, housing, and 
infrastructure in rural communities.
  Then we have the impact on rural healthcare. This budget impacts 
rural healthcare in several different ways. It cuts the Rural Hospital 
Outreach Grant Program that helps small rural hospitals get resources 
to create collaboratives for long-term care facilities or with 
ambulance services. It eliminates the State offices of rural health.
  In addition, this budget destroys healthcare for 23 million 
Americans, and many of those live in rural America. In fact, in Oregon, 
about one out of three individuals, almost one out of three in our 
small towns find healthcare through the Oregon Health Plan, the Oregon 
Health Plan funded by Medicaid. Rolling back Medicaid would throw some 
400,000 people off of healthcare in Oregon just by itself, and that 
would make a huge impact in rural Oregon.
  I have been holding a lot of townhalls in rural Oregon. This year I 
have had over 12 in what you would see on a map as pretty red counties, 
and people are coming up to me at townhalls and saying that they are 
scared to death about this budget's impact on healthcare. They are not 
just scared; they are terrified. And they are not just terrified; they 
are angry because they finally have the peace of mind that if a loved 
one gets sick, that loved one will get the care they need, that loved 
one will not end up bankrupt. That is a huge improvement in quality of 
life, but this budget from the President destroys that peace of mind.
  It is not just impacting those who directly benefit from the Oregon 
Health Plan; it also impacts everybody else in the rural communities 
because the health plan has enabled our rural clinics and hospitals to 
do much better financially.
  Out in the northeast corner of my State--it is a very remote and 
beautiful place--a person told me that his local clinic had gone from 
20-some employees to about 50 employees, roughly doubling the 
healthcare provided. Why were they able to do that? Because they had 
had so much uncompensated care before people had access to insurance. 
Now that has dropped dramatically, and their finances are much better. 
So they are able to hire a lot more people and provide a lot more 
healthcare to this rural part of the State. But that changes with this 
Trump budget.
  Let me list a few more details about some of these areas, starting 
with the USDA Rural Development Water Programs.
  Last year, 14 projects in my State received $10.7 million in loans 
and $6.5 million in grants in order to provide reliable, clean drinking 
water and waste disposal, affecting 12,000 folks in rural Oregon. 
Vernonia, which is in northwest Oregon, relied on these programs so as 
to finally improve the town's wastewater system--a project almost 20 
years in the making. I have visited Vernonia a number of times. In 1996 
it suffered a terrible flood, and then, again, in 2007, there was 
another major flood. The floods overwhelmed Vernonia's wastewater 
treatment systems and lagoons and caused overflows on public and 
private properties as well as into the nearby Nehalem River. Thanks to 
loans and grants from the USDA's rural water programs, the town of 
Vernonia was able to purchase new equipment, upgrade its wastewater 
systems, and protect the water for its residents. That is just one 
community that has benefited.
  Let's talk a little bit more about housing. The budget singles out 
many housing programs to cut.
  It eliminates the USDA Rural Development's direct housing loan 
programs and most of the housing grant programs and community 
facilities programs, which include programs like the rural Single 
Family Housing Direct Loans, the rural Multi-Family Housing Direct 
Loans, the self-help housing program, housing repair loans, and the 
Farm Labor Housing Program.
  With so many States and so many communities across our Nation 
suffering from a shortage of affordable and available housing, how can 
we consider it a positive thing to slice and dice these programs?
  Last year, 6,000 rural Oregonian families were living in 211 
affordable apartment complexes thanks to USDA financing. But keeping 
these programs and strengthening our housing initiatives isn't just 
good for our Nation's families. It is also critical for the economic 
development of rural towns and communities. As I have mentioned so 
often, I have heard from town leaders that they have a potential deal 
within their grasp, and it falls out of their grip because of the 
shortage of housing. We need to do better in this area, not worse.
  Let's talk about another program--the Forest Service Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program. This program is an all-lands 
approach to collaboratively encouraging science-based ecosystem 
restoration of priority forest landscapes.
  Let me put it more simply.
  Often, in terms of forest health, we have a challenge. The work in 
the woods can be quite expensive to improve forest health, and, often, 
you have disputes between the environmental community and the timber 
community on just how this should be done. A collaborative brings 
together these elements--the environmental side and the timber side--
with the goal of both making the forest healthier and providing a 
steady supply of sawlogs to the mill.
  This is something that happened in the Fremont-Winema National 
Forest, and it has given environmental and conservation groups 
confidence that Fremont-Winema is on a track to having a healthier 
ecosystem. At the same time, their work has helped to ensure that there 
is a balance between the timber industry and environmental protection, 
which means that timber is still coming and will keep coming to the 
local mill, which will help to create local jobs, like at the Collins 
Mill in Klamath Falls. That mill is able to continue employing more 
than 80 workers because of the steady supply of logs that makes its way 
from Fremont-Winema due to the eco-friendly forest management 
practices.
  This ``billionaires first'' and ``rural America and workers last'' 
budget is going to die here in the Senate because there is going to be 
a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who say that 
undermining the success of our families in order to provide a massive 
giveaway--a raid, if you will, on the National Treasury--and a handout 
to the privileged and powerful is, simply, the wrong way to go. This 
is, really, Robin Hood in reverse. This is a situation in which the 
working families are undermined to provide a $6 trillion raid on the 
Treasury, with most being given away to our richest American families.
  I do not know that there is anyone in this Chamber who is not already 
aware that we have massive income inequality here in the United States 
of America. I do not think there is any Senator among the 100 Senators 
of the Senate who is unaware that we have a massive wealth gap in 
America. It has gotten larger and larger and larger until it has become 
equal to that level or near that level at which it was before the Great 
Depression. That is not a way for America to thrive--to raid working 
families in order to provide even more giveaways to those who have the 
most.
  I must say that this budget does not surprise me. It does not 
surprise me that the President submitted this. The President himself is 
a billionaire. The President lives in that world of billionaires, and 
he was persuaded to think that helping the billionaires to have even 
millions more would, somehow, be good for America.
  I would like to take the President to real working America so that he 
may see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural health 
clinics, see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural water 
systems, and see the real impact on the ground of destroying rural 
housing programs. We need to

[[Page 8677]]

get the President outside of his billionaire bubble and seeing the 
impact so that, somehow, he gets a grip on what it means to guide this 
country in education policy and economic policy and so that we 
strengthen that ladder of opportunity rather than destroy it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The Senator from South Dakota.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, everyone remembers President Obama's 
famous--or perhaps infamous--promise that he would sign a healthcare 
bill that would ``cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to 
$2,500 per year.'' Well, as everyone knows, that didn't happen. Between 
2009 and 2016, the average family with employer-sponsored health 
insurance saw its premiums rise by $4,767. That is just the beginning.
  Two weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services released a 
report comparing the average individual market insurance premium in 
2013--the year when most of ObamaCare's regulations and mandates were 
implemented--with the average individual market exchange premium in 
2017 in the 39 States that used healthcare.gov--so 2013 to 2017 
individual market premiums. Here is what they found. Between 2013 and 
2017, the average individual market monthly premium in the 
healthcare.gov States increased by 105 percent. In other words, on 
average, individual market premiums more than doubled in just 5 years.
  In my home State of South Dakota, premiums increased by 124 percent 
or $3,588 over 5 years. As I said, that is according to HHS reporting 
on the premiums in the individual market exchanges over the course of 
the past 5 years. So $3,588 in South Dakota is money that South Dakota 
families had to take from other priorities, like saving for retirement 
or investing in their children's education.
  Three States saw their premiums triple over those 5 years. The 
average monthly premium in Alaska went from $344 to $1,041. That is an 
increase of $697 per month or more than $8,300 a year. Think about 
that. Over the past 5 years, the average individual market yearly 
premium has increased by $4,800 in Arizona, by $3,648 in Louisiana, by 
$5,064 in North Carolina, by $4,488 in Tennessee, and by $5,292 in West 
Virginia. Those kinds of premium increases are just not sustainable.
  Some people, of course, received tax credits to help offset their 
premium payments, but many others are left to face these massive 
premium hikes by themselves. And most people do not have the money to 
easily absorb a 105-percent premium increase or more in many States, as 
I pointed out, over 5 years.
  Of course, premium increases show no signs of slowing down. Numbers 
for 2018 are emerging, and they are not looking good. Insurers on the 
New York exchange are requesting double-digit rate hikes. A Connecticut 
insurer requested an average rate hike of 33.8 percent. One Virginia 
insurer requested an average rate increase of 38 percent. Another has 
requested an average 45-percent rate hike. In Oregon, the average rate 
hike requested is 17.2 percent. Companies offering plans on the 
exchange here in Washington, DC, are requesting average rate hikes 
ranging from 13 percent to nearly 40 percent. In Maryland, average 
increases range from 18 percent to almost 59 percent. One insurer in 
Maryland has requested a rate increase of up to 150 percent--150 
percent for just one year.
  As if the premium hikes aren't bad enough, many Americans don't have 
a cheaper option to choose. In 2017, roughly one-third of U.S. counties 
have just one choice of insurer on their ObamaCare exchange--one choice 
in one-third of all the counties in America. So you pretty much have to 
take whatever rate they are going to quote you when that is the only 
option in town. Talk about a lack of competition.
  Several States, including Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Wyoming, 
have just one choice of insurer for the entire State. The entire 
State--in those States that I just mentioned--has one choice of 
insurer. Things are only getting worse.
  In 2018, a number of counties may lack any ObamaCare insurer at all. 
On Friday, the Omaha World-Herald announced that 100,000 Nebraskans 
could end up with zero options for individual market coverage in 2018. 
Iowa is facing a similar situation. In April, Wellmark Blue Cross and 
Blue Shield announced that it will withdraw from the individual market 
in Iowa in 2018. Days later, Aetna announced that it would pull out of 
the Iowa exchange. In the wake of these announcements, Medica, the last 
ObamaCare insurer for most of Iowa, announced that it will likely leave 
the State in 2018. That would leave 94 of the 99 Iowa counties with no 
ObamaCare insurer next year.
  Republicans in the Senate are currently working on legislation to 
repeal and replace ObamaCare. Why? Because, as I just pointed out, 
ObamaCare is broken. This law is not working. This law has never 
worked. It shows absolutely no sign that it is going to work in the 
future, particularly if those premium increases are any indication. 
From first to last, this law has been a disaster--high premium costs, 
high deductibles, customers losing health plans, customers losing 
doctors, fewer choices, failed co-ops, unraveling exchanges. I could go 
on and on because the list of the failures goes on and on.
  Given all of this, it is hard to believe the Democrats are still 
defending this disastrous law. I sometimes wonder just what it will 
take for my Democrat colleagues in the Senate to accept the staggering 
amount of evidence that says this law has failed. Do premiums have to 
triple? Do they have to quadruple? Does every American on the exchanges 
have to be reduced to just one choice of insurer or be without an 
insurer at all?
  ObamaCare was going to reduce premiums. It didn't. People were going 
to be able to keep their healthcare plans. They regularly found out 
that they couldn't. Buying insurance was going to be like shopping for 
a TV on Amazon--well, maybe if Amazon had only one brand of television.
  The responsible thing to do when a government program has turned out 
to be a disaster is to repeal it. That is what Republicans are working 
to do with ObamaCare. We are working to repeal this law and replace it 
with real healthcare reform. My colleagues in the House have made a 
good start. We are working to build on their bill in the U.S. Senate. 
Chairmen Alexander, Enzi, and Hatch have been leading the charge on 
this. I am grateful to them and their staffs for all of their hard 
work.
  Republicans are committed to restoring the millions of Americans 
trapped on the ObamaCare exchanges and lifting the burdens this law has 
foisted onto taxpayers. We are committed to addressing ObamaCare's 
skyrocketing premium increases. We are committed to preserving access 
to care for Americans with preexisting conditions. We are committed to 
making Medicaid more sustainable by giving States greater flexibility 
while insuring that those who rely on this program don't have the rug 
pulled out from under them. We need to make healthcare more affordable, 
more personal, more flexible, and less bureaucratic.
  It would be wonderful if at least some Democrats would join us in 
this effort and stop prioritizing partisanship over the needs of the 
American people. Republicans know that the American people are 
suffering under ObamaCare, and we are committed to bringing them 
relief. They are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and 
that is what Republicans intend to deliver.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is fitting that today, June 6, the 
anniversary of D-day in Europe and the Battle of Midway in the Pacific, 
we are talking about our country's veterans in the

[[Page 8678]]

debate that is going on in the Senate. The brave men and women who have 
served our country deserve the very best care our Nation can give them. 
That is why I rise today in support of the VA Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act, which I believe will pass by a voice vote 
in the Senate later this afternoon.
  This bipartisan bill will help improve the quality of care our 
veterans receive by reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
making it easier for the Secretary of the VA to fire poorly performing 
employees. The legislation will allow the VA to hold its employees more 
accountable. It will also create new protections for whistleblowers--
those who report wrongdoing. And it would ensure that any employee who 
is terminated has an adequate opportunity to appeal their dismissal.
  For years, the VA has been plagued by reports of inefficiency and 
long wait times. I might say that often we find those reports are true, 
but that is completely separate from the quality of medical care that 
is given through the VA healthcare system. If you talk to almost any 
veteran, they are very pleased with the quality of that medical care. 
It is the administrative stuff getting in the way, and that is what 
there has been such an outrage about.
  Well, this VA bill is going to help the VA get rid of the bad actors 
while protecting the good ones. I want to make it clear that the vast 
majority of VA employees perform their work admirably in an often 
thankless environment. These dedicated public servants work hard to 
provide the day-to-day care our veterans deserve, and they should be 
protected. That is why, while I believe it is important to hold poorly 
performing employees accountable, I also believe that it is important 
to protect the rights of the employees who may have been wrongly 
terminated, especially at the lower levels, by giving them the 
opportunity to appeal a supervisor's decision to fire them. This bill 
we are going pass does that. It is supported by dozens of veterans 
service organizations, the Office of Special Counsel, the Secretary 
himself. So I urge our colleagues to join me and join so many of us in 
voting in favor of the bill.
  I would also say that on this very famous day, this anniversary, June 
6, I have been to the beaches of Normandy, I have been to Omaha Beach. 
As a matter of fact, while there, it is impossible to walk into that 
cemetery on the cliff overlooking the beach--it is impossible to walk 
into that beautiful, beautiful American cemetery and not become very, 
very emotional, realizing what happened in 1944.
  I felt so strongly about this that at one point I wanted to put on my 
jogging shoes and run the 4 miles of that Omaha Beach. I wanted to 
reach back into time, having been there where so many sacrificed so 
much.
  Then, of course, the Battle of Midway, the time which turned the 
battle in the Pacific, where a young admiral showed his courage and his 
superiority in planning. As a result, that battle turned around the 
course of the war in the Pacific with Japan. What a day to remember, 
June 6.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, we are all united in support of a 
strong and effective VA that is able to provide topnotch services and 
support to the veterans who have served our country nobly. None of us 
can be satisfied with the current state of the Department, and I share 
the frustration of constituent veterans who are unable to get the basic 
care and treatment they need, from widows and families who have lost 
loved ones while under the care of the VA, and from dedicated VA 
employees who are frustrated with the waste and inept management that 
prevent them from providing the care they believe our veterans deserve. 
The revelations about the continuing problems at the District of 
Columbia VA medical center should serve as a new wake-up call that 
immediate attention is needed to make the VA right.
  I supported the nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be VA Secretary 
and gave him my full support to make changes to the organization to 
address the management problems and lapses in care that plague the VA. 
There is no question that the VA needs reforms that will make it more 
responsive to the needs of our veterans, and more accountable when it 
does not adequately serve them.
  The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act attempts to 
address these issues by making it easier for management to discipline 
and remove VA employees. It is essential that managers have this 
authority to remove employees who violate their duty to care for our 
veterans. It is also important that our removal process be implemented 
in a fair and impartial manner. The House bill failed to provide those 
protections, and I appreciate Senator Tester's work on this issue and 
his efforts to improve the bill that the House passed. I am concerned, 
however, that some provisions in the bill weaken the worker protections 
that are necessary to avoid arbitrary or politically motivated 
disciplinary actions. Our Nation's civil service protections are 
intended to allow Federal workers to do their jobs free of intimidation 
or political interference. Employees can be disciplined or removed, but 
only with due process that exposes the full facts of the case. Reforms 
that rely on fear of arbitrary discipline or removal are not truly 
reforms, but will create a toxic environment within the agency. While I 
have concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, we must 
provide veterans the care and support they need from the VA.
  I admire the dedication and commitment of our Federal workers at the 
VA, many of whom are veterans themselves. Most care deeply and go the 
extra mile to serve those who have served. I know that Secretary 
Shulkin recognizes the enormous talent in our Federal workers, and I 
believe he should strive to create a stronger team by rapidly filling 
the 45,000 vacant civil service positions currently at the VA and by 
building on the strong sense of purpose that motivates our VA Federal 
workforce and cares for our veterans.
  Mr. NELSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           The Budget Process

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, we have 50 workdays in the Senate before 
the end of this fiscal year--50 days. That does not include the 5 weeks 
we will be gone during the August State work weeks. I rise tonight to 
talk about what happens September 30. September is the end of the 
fiscal year. That means we have to have the Federal Government funded 
for fiscal year 2018, which starts October 1 of this year.
  Like most years--as a matter of fact, like every year since 1980--the 
Federal Government will probably not be funded by the end of this 
fiscal year in the manner it was supposed to be, according to the law 
that was done in 1974, the Budget Act of 1974. In the last 43 years, 
the Federal Government has only been funded four times, according to 
that bill. We have used 178 continuing resolutions, and therefore 
ongoing omnibuses and so forth, where six people get in a room, 
basically decide how we are going to spend $1 trillion.
  This is the only enterprise I can find anywhere in the world that 
funds its operations this way. The problem is, we have a system that is 
absolutely totally broken. It is a fraud that is being perpetrated on 
the American people. We have been asked, between now and September 30--
this is the way the budget process works. By the way, we should have 
started this back in January, but we couldn't do it because we were 
working on the fiscal year 2017 budget to do reconciliation so we could 
work on healthcare.
  Now we are going to, when that gets done, do a budget for 2018. We 
will do a reconciliation and hopefully do a tax package behind that, 
but wrapped up in all of that, here comes September 30 and 50 workdays 
from today to fund the Federal Government. Between now and then, in 50 
days, we are asked to do a budget for fiscal year 2018, to do full

[[Page 8679]]

authorizations for 16 different entities, committees, and then do 
appropriations for 12 committees.
  By the way, over the last 43 years, you have to fund 12 
appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government. It was 13 
appropriations bills up until around 2000. Since then, it has been 12, 
but of those 12, the average number of appropriations bills this body 
has appropriated each year is 2\1/2\.
  Now, by any measure, that is unacceptable, but we are now asked, 
between now and September 30, in a very truncated manner, to do the 
budget, do all 16 authorizations and all 12 appropriations. Now, I am 
not a betting man, but I will go to Vegas and short that idea right 
now. There is no way we are going to fund this government according to 
that policy--no way. It will not happen. It can't happen. It has not 
happened in 43 years that way except four times.
  Every single year this process breaks down. Like I said, we have used 
178 continuing resolutions. What does a CR do? It ties the hands of our 
military leaders, where they can't move money from one bucket to the 
other to help accommodate it. So what we have right now is a process 
that just has not worked. Yet, because of that, the Federal Government 
has exploded in size.
  In 2000, the Federal Government spent $2.4 trillion running the 
Federal Government. Last year, we spent $3.9 trillion. Those are 
constant 2016 dollars. Over the next 10 years, we are going to spend 
$53 trillion running the Federal Government. We are going to borrow a 
significant part of that--another $10 trillion.
  The irony is, the debate we are having between now and September 30 
is to fund the government, not on the full $4 trillion we are going to 
spend next year running the Federal Government, we are going to have 
this debate on only about $1.1 trillion, the discretionary side of the 
budget.
  If you do the math, in the last 8 years and, oh, by the way, in the 
next 10 years, according to the current CBO baseline budget, we borrow 
over 30 percent of what we spend as a Federal Government. Well, 
discretionary spending over the next 10 years is going to be less than 
that. So what that means is, over the last 8 years and over the next 10 
years, every dime we have spent on discretionary spending has, by 
definition, been borrowed.
  There is no other way to look at it. That means that every dime we 
have spent for our military, which is about $600 billion today, every 
dime we spend on our VA, which is a little less than $200 billion, and 
every dime we spend on all other domestic expenditures, including 
healthcare, by the way, comes to $1.1 trillion. Every dime of that 
today is borrowed money. That means we have to go to China and the rest 
of the world to fund all of our discretionary spending.
  Now, by anybody's estimate--conservative, liberal, whatever--that is 
not acceptable. Here is why it is not acceptable: It cannot be 
sustained over a long period of time. Yet we are sitting here with a 
budget today that goes for the next 10 years that says we are going to 
continue operating business as usual and add another $10 trillion to 
this already burdensome debt of $20 trillion.
  The debt crisis and the budget problem are interlinked. There is no 
way that we can solve the debt crisis unless and until we solve the 
budget process. The difficulty comes in trying to align the prospects 
within the process itself of getting to a determination.
  Right now, the budget process doesn't work for this very reason: The 
budget itself is not a law. It is a resolution, which means the 
majority party can cram down the throat of the minority its version of 
a political budget. That is all it is.
  Then you go to an authorization process, and, in the authorization 
process today, we have over $310 billion of Federal expenditures that 
are not authorized, including the State Department. Last year, we 
didn't even do an authorization for our military. Even then, after 
passing the appropriations bill in the Armed Services Committee 30 to 
0, we could not get that bill on the floor of the Senate. We tried six 
times. So it was not authorized or appropriated last year, but it got 
wrapped up in an omnibus, and that same thing will more than likely 
happen this year.
  This can be fixed. It is not that difficult. Several of us have been 
working behind the scenes, looking at other best practices around the 
world--other countries, companies, and even States. We have looked at 
best practices. What we found was that nobody else tries to fund their 
government or their enterprise the way we try to fund the Federal 
Government. This goes back to article I and article II of our 
Constitution.
  Article I says that funding the Federal Government is the 
responsibility of Congress. Yet we have absconded with that. The 1921 
act that created the Office of Management and Budget went well beyond 
what I think is called for in the original Constitution. So what we are 
looking at today is a legislative underreach and an executive overreach 
relative to funding government, out of necessity because of the 
dysfunction right here in the Senate relative to how we fund our 
government. There is no question that we will not fund this government 
without a continuing resolution and/or an omnibus come September 30.
  The fix is not that unreasonable. All we need is a politically 
neutral platform that brings all expenses into the budget process--all 
$4 trillion today. That would include discretionary and mandatory and 
that the budget become a law, which means that we have to get 
bipartisan support for the budget.
  Then, lastly, if we don't get the budget done by a certain date and 
we don't fund the government by the end of the fiscal year, then, 
severe consequences are borne by the people who have the responsibility 
to fund the government, and that is the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, and the people in the administration who are 
responsible for their part of it.
  It is not that complicated. Many other countries do it. Most other 
countries do it. In fact, in some countries, if they don't fund the 
government by the end of their fiscal year, their constitutions 
actually say that the government gets disbanded and they have an 
election. Well, that is not what I am calling for here. I don't think 
we have to do anything that severe.
  There are colleagues of mine right here in this body, on both sides, 
who have contributed--Senators Whitehouse, Enzi, Corker, Lankford, 
Tillis, Ernst, Rounds, Sullivan, Daines, and others--and who are 
weighing in on this. Governors, who have executive experience running 
large financial enterprises at the State level, have come into this 
body and bring enormous wealth of experience about how to get this 
done.
  My argument is that right now, during this period of dysfunctionality 
when we see firsthand the reality of not being able to take care of 
domestic needs, military needs, or any other discretionary enterprises 
that we want to fund because of our own budgeting intransigence, I can 
find no other time better than what we have right now to raise the 
question on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan 
conversation. Both sides are guilty, but let's come up with a 
politically neutral platform that would allow both sides, during the 
budget process, to talk about tax increases, tax expenditures, spending 
cuts, all the spending that we have, and all the responsibility we have 
in the Federal Government or in the Congress of funding the Federal 
Government. Why not?
  We have one suggestion that says: Pick a time in the future. Decide 
what percentage of your GDP should be covered by debt--no more than 
that--and have a limit on that, and then pick a roadmap back from that 
point in time to today with guardrails around that. That suggestion 
comes from the other side of the aisle, and I applaud that suggestion 
and I think it is very workable. I think we can find ways to make all 
of this work. This should not be a partisan conversation.
  I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and I sat on Foreign Relations 
the last 2 years. Both of those committees are really very strong 
bipartisan efforts by every Member.
  That is what is needed here, and yet the Budget Committee, 
ironically, is

[[Page 8680]]

one of the most partisan committees. The reason it is so is because of 
the law itself, because the budget is not a law. It is a resolution. My 
contention is that this is the root of this problem. It is one of the 
causative factors that cause this debt to be uncontrollable and to 
cause a dysfunction in this body from even being able to attempt to 
bring that under control.
  The solution is not just taxing more. It is not just spending more. 
It is not just growing more. The problem is much bigger than that. The 
debt problem will never be solved unless and until we solve this 
budgeting process.
  As we close in on the next 50 days, as we check off every single day, 
I want my colleagues in here to be reminded of what we are going to 
have to do to fund the government come October 1. Please, let's not get 
right up to September 30 with a gun to our head that says: Either do it 
this way, spend this money this way, or do not fund the government 
tomorrow. That is total irresponsibility, just like I believe this 
budget process is a fraud perpetrated by Washington on the people of 
America and it is not honest relative to what we have to face up to in 
terms of our responsibilities.
  We cannot afford to do all that we are doing. That is just pure fact. 
The world is no longer going to be able to loan us the money that we 
need over the next 10 years--another $10 trillion. There is some $200 
trillion of total debt in the world. Only $60 trillion of the $200 
trillion is sovereign debt, and we have one-third of that sovereign 
debt today. Now, most other countries have curtailed their borrowing. 
We are one of the few that continue to just race along this path of 
borrowing money at this breakneck pace and adding another $10 trillion. 
We could, potentially, have over half of the world's sovereign debt in 
the next 10 years. That cannot happen. The world bond risk and the bond 
markets will not, potentially, allow that to happen.
  So today is the day. As we go through the next 50 days, I believe we 
need to look for opportunities on both sides of the aisle to find a 
bipartisan way to stop this nonsense and to get to where we can fund 
the government in a responsible way each year, not just 1 year, and to 
get away from the past 43 years of total failure in terms of funding 
the Federal Government, such that when we get to September 30 of each 
year, we have already approved the budget and we have the 
appropriations lined up and funded for the needs that we have all 
agreed here in Congress need to be met.
  I can think of no other call on this body higher than this right now 
because it puts us at risk of doing the very things that we need to do; 
that is, to take care of our domestic needs, to take care of the people 
who need the safety net, to take care of these legacy programs of 
Social Security and Medicare, and yet defend our country. Because of 
this debt, we are limiting the opportunities that we have, and we will 
not solve that until we address this budget process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). The Senator from Washington.


                               TrumpCare

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to talk about TrumpCare, specifically, about what families 
back in my home State of Washington are saying about the harm that this 
bill will do and why, despite how often Republicans say they are 
struggling to find a way to jam TrumpCare through the Senate, now is 
the time to keep the pressure on.
  I have had to say this far too often: Right now people across the 
country are scared, and they have a right to be. The policies in 
TrumpCare would turn our healthcare system into a minefield of higher 
costs and worse care for our families. If you are a young person who 
needs mental healthcare, you could pay thousands more a year on top of 
what you are already paying for insurance. If you are a senior, your 
premiums could increase by as much as 850 percent. If you need 
maternity care, the independent analysis by the Congressional Budget 
Office shows you could pay as much as $1,000 more a month.
  Under TrumpCare, 23 million people across the country would lose 
coverage, and, because insurance companies would have far more power to 
lower their standards and offer skimpy, snake-oil plans, we would go 
back to the days when a trip to the emergency room could result in a 
truly devastating financial hit.
  I have just described some of the biggest impacts TrumpCare would 
have. None of them help patients and families. They instead do serious 
harm.
  But you know who would benefit from TrumpCare? Special interests in 
the healthcare industry that would get a massive tax break and, of 
course, President Trump, who is desperate for a political win.
  For these reasons and many more, people across our country are 
rejecting TrumpCare. They don't want the dramatically higher healthcare 
costs. They don't want this bill to create even more chaos in our 
healthcare system than Republicans already have, and they certainly 
don't think they should have to pay more, all to appease President 
Trump and those at the very top.
  Senate Republican leaders have said they expect their final product 
will look a whole lot like the version of TrumpCare that passed in the 
House. In fact, some of them said they expect to keep as much as 80 
percent of the House-passed version of TrumpCare. So it is no wonder 
that they are now having trouble figuring out how to cobble together 
enough votes to jam this disastrous bill through the Senate. If that is 
truly the case, then, I would again encourage them to drop this 
reckless repeal effort, to stop creating chaos in our healthcare 
system, which is driving up our premiums, and to work with Democrats on 
real solutions.
  We are ready, like we have always been, to find ways to bring down 
families' healthcare costs while making sure they get the same quality 
of care and finding ways to get families more affordable coverage. 
Unfortunately, we have not heard from any Republicans who are willing 
to reverse course. That is why, despite how much trouble Republicans 
may be having with their disastrous policies, I am here today urging 
anyone who rejects TrumpCare and what it means for our families' health 
and financial security to fight as hard as they can against this bill. 
Keep making those calls, keep rallying, and keep sharing your stories.
  Since the election, I have heard from family after family in 
Washington State about what the future holds for their healthcare. One 
of those is a constituent of mine named Marcy Jefferson. Her husband is 
a small business owner, and they purchase individual insurance.
  Well, in 2014 Marcy was diagnosed with cancer. She has had to have 
not one but two stem cell transplants since then, and her chemotherapy 
costs are over $3,000 each month.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, Marcy's health insurance had no out-
of-pocket limit. Without limits on how much insurance companies can 
charge patients--a protection that TrumpCare would take away--Marcy 
says she and her husband will most definitely face bankruptcy.
  Marcy also says that the ACA ``literally saved my life--and we could 
not afford the type of care I am receiving without it.''
  There are stories like Marcy's in literally every community in our 
country--in red States, in blue States, in purple States. It is 
appalling that instead of working with us to make healthcare more 
affordable and with higher quality and expanding coverage, instead of 
listening to people like Marcy and joining us at the table, Republicans 
are trying to jam through the Senate a plan that would do the 
opposite--one that would threaten lives and devastate our families 
financially.
  So I am going to do everything I can to fight back, and I will keep 
working hard against the deeply harmful TrumpCare plan that Republicans 
are determined to get signed into law. Families like Marcy's are 
bravely speaking up and making clear just how damaging TrumpCare would 
be, and that is exactly what Democrats here in the Senate are going to 
do as well.


                         the President's Budget

  Before I close, Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to 
talk

[[Page 8681]]

about President Trump's latest budget proposal, because even after last 
week's stunning move by President Trump to obstruct our fight against 
climate change and seeing another confirmation the week before that 
that 23 million Americans would lose their healthcare coverage under 
TrumpCare, we cannot lose sight of the grand scope of President Trump's 
cruel attack against working families. Nowhere has the President's 
broken promises to working families been more evident than in his 
recent budget proposal.
  President Trump spent his campaign promising workers he would stand 
with them, promising seniors he would protect their care, promising the 
middle class he would make the economy work for them. Then he came to 
Washington, DC, and crafted a budget that is a perfect summary of all 
the way those promises are broken.
  In fact, the President's budget director came up to Capitol Hill just 
2 weeks ago to try to defend the budget, to try to explain how it 
didn't break promises, but he couldn't do it because it can't be done.
  From his promises not to cut Medicaid or Social Security to his 
promise to provide ``insurance for everybody'' that was better and at 
lower cost, promise after promise was not just broken but shattered.
  So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to reject 
President Trump's anti-worker, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-senior 
agenda. Thankfully, we are seeing signs that is happening. Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents have been criticizing this budget here in 
DC and across the country. One senior Republican Senator called it 
``dead on arrival,'' and he is exactly right.
  The families we represent want us to work together, to invest in our 
workers and in our middle-class families, to protect patients, to stand 
with women, to grow our economy from the middle out, and not simply 
give more tax cuts to the wealthy or well connected. We were able to do 
this before. Recently, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass 
a spending bill that rejected President Trump's extreme agenda and 
worked for families and the middle class. We were able to come together 
on bipartisan budget deals that increased investments. So I am hopeful 
that Republicans will stand with us on the side of the people they 
represent, push aside this awful budget from the President, and work 
with us to do this again. I stand ready to do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the VA 
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act--bipartisan legislation 
that will help ensure that our veterans receive the care they deserve.
  We owe our veterans more than we can ever repay for their dedicated 
service. Part of this debt is providing our veterans with timely, high-
quality healthcare.
  In my home State of North Dakota, our VA medical center is located in 
Fargo. It not only serves the veterans in North Dakota, but it also 
serves the western half of Minnesota as well. If there is one thing 
that our veterans have made very clear about the health center in 
Fargo--from both North Dakota and Minnesota--our veterans have made 
clear that it is an outstanding healthcare center that provides high-
quality service. Our veterans love the Fargo VA. They do a great job.
  It is important to note that the vast majority of VA employees are 
dedicated to serving our veterans and are working diligently to provide 
services to veterans in their communities. However, as recent events 
have shown, there are a number of instances where poor performance or 
misconduct by a VA employee has had tragic consequences.
  In cases like these, the VA needs to have the ability to address 
these situations and to do it in a fair but expeditious manner. This 
bipartisan legislation will provide the VA Secretary with the necessary 
tools to do just that and ensure that VA employees are putting our 
veterans first. Specifically, this legislation establishes in law the 
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection within the VA, a 
post which was created earlier this year through Executive order. It 
authorizes the Secretary of VA to reprimand, suspend, demote, or remove 
VA employees at any level and hasten the appeal and review process. 
Additionally, it establishes protections for whistleblowers.
  These reforms are important for our veterans. That is why the 
legislation has garnered the support of many veterans organizations. It 
has garnered the support of our North Dakota VA Commissioner, as well 
as the veterans service organizations, including the American Legion, 
AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America, the Military Officers Association of America, and others. It 
has also garnered the support of cosponsors on both sides of the aisle 
in this Chamber.
  Seventy-three years ago, over 160,000 brave Allied troops landed on 
the beaches of Normandy. I can think of no more an appropriate day to 
pass legislation that honors our commitment to our veterans and helps 
ensure they receive the care they have earned.
  I thank the committee chair, Senator Isakson of Georgia, and also 
Senator Tester of Montana for their outstanding bipartisan leadership 
on this important legislation.
  I particularly also want to thank Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who 
is the primary sponsor of this legislation and has been a champion for 
veterans issues. I know this accountability issue is one he has spoken 
about consistently, often, and passionately on behalf of our veterans. 
I thank him for his leadership on this very important legislation.
  At this time, I yield to the prime sponsor of this bill, Senator 
Marco Rubio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for his kind 
comments. This issue is one that I think matters to all 100 Members of 
this Chamber and every American.
  I, too, find it timely that here we are, 73 years to the day of the 
incredible sacrifices that were made on that beach in Normandy and that 
we have the opportunity to honor the men and women who have served for 
us, then and since then, particularly those who are now in need of 
services, with the passage of what is truly landmark legislation, and I 
will talk about that in a moment. It is the hope of all of us who are 
supporting this that it will help bring accountability for generations 
of those who have served and will serve to protect our great Nation.
  We live in a time of an outrage culture, where in order to make the 
news every evening, you have to be involved in some controversy or say 
something over the top. That is just the way things are these days. So 
when something positive happens, it doesn't get a lot of coverage. It 
is my sense that while we are not doing this for purposes of getting 
coverage, many Americans tonight, as they watch the news or go on the 
internet, will have no idea that the Senate took this up. I think that 
is unfortunate because in addition to the importance of this piece of 
legislation, it is a testament that despite all of the important 
issues, noise, and arguments we hear every day on television, that our 
Republic still works and that men and women of good faith can come 
together across political ideology and partisan lines on an issue that 
wasn't easy to work with for a couple of years.
  I hope there is an opportunity to point to this and say that on 
something that was important--this is not a symbolic resolution; this 
is a change in the laws of our country that will bring accountability 
to one of the most important functions that our government provides to 
the men and women who serve in uniform, and that is the Veterans' 
Administration. That is why I preference my comments on all this and 
the fact that this is not getting a lot of attention because this is 
not controversial. If there were a big fight on the floor about this 
and people were bickering or arguing, it would get more coverage, but 
the fact that we were able to come together across party

[[Page 8682]]

lines on this issue and get it done should not be a reason not to 
recognize its importance. That is not why we are doing it. We are doing 
it to make a change.
  I think it is important to preface my remarks by saying that it has 
been an honor and a pleasure to work with Chairman Isakson and with the 
ranking member, Senator Tester, and all the members of the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee on what is now truly bipartisan legislation 
that is before the Senate. I remain grateful to the committee for their 
efforts to help bring needed accountability reforms to the Department. 
This is an issue, as I said, that we have been working on for several 
years, and I am pleased that we are now on a path to enact real change.
  This spring marks 3 years since light was shed on the veterans who 
died while they were stuck on secret waiting lists at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. After it was revealed that the Phoenix, AZ, VA 
facility had widespread mismanagement and misconduct by employees, 
Congress came together and acted promptly. In the wake of that 
deplorable situation, this Chamber responded in a bipartisan way by 
passing the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.
  While many of those reforms have begun to make a difference, we knew 
even then that it would not be enough. As reflected in the legislation 
that is now before us, in this law we are seeking to address those 
shortcomings and doing so in deference to what the courts have decided 
is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
  As virtually every Member of this Chamber--if not everyone--has done, 
over the years I have met with veterans throughout my home State of 
Florida, and I have found that many share a common frustration and 
disappointment and often express resignation that meaningful 
accountability has yet to come or occur at the VA. It is my hope that 
will begin to change with this vote today. These men and women, our 
veterans, have sacrificed much for our country, and it is our duty to 
take care of them when they come home after taking care of us. Sadly, 
for many, this solemn obligation and promise has not been kept.
  Plain and simple, ineffective governance is unfair to our veterans 
and to the American taxpayer. The VA must be properly managed so that 
it can provide timely, quality care to veterans and be held accountable 
to all Americans.
  Let me follow up what I just said by making it abundantly clear that 
the overwhelming majority of the people who work at the VA are good, 
hard-working employees who serve our veterans well. Many of them are 
veterans themselves. This is not a punitive measure, nor is it meant to 
degrade the work they are doing under very difficult circumstances. But 
it has become clear that under the current law, the VA often is 
unwilling or unable to hold individuals appropriately accountable for 
their actions and/or misdeeds--usually not because they don't want to 
but because under the law they just can't. Even in instances in which 
disciplinary action against an employee was attempted, the complexity 
and the lengthiness of the process prevented meaningful consequences.
  The unfortunate reality is that those few but significant number of 
negligent employees often went unpunished. To shield such employees 
from the consequences brings down the entire Department, demoralizes 
the workforce, and undermines the core mission of the VA. That comes 
not from political talking points but from many of the men and women 
who themselves work at the VA.
  We cannot and must not allow bureaucratic redtape to get in the way. 
Our VA is staffed by those who belong there and are willing to perform 
the important tasks of serving our heroes.
  It is our hope and my belief that this law will change the VA, and it 
will change it for the better. Simply put, the law gives the VA 
Secretary the authority to reprimand, to suspend, to demote, or to 
remove any employee if their behavior or their performance warrants 
such an action.
  Importantly, these reforms establish a period of adequate notice, 
response, and final decision on a disciplinary action initiated by the 
Secretary and is under an enforceable and capped timeframe. So while 
the employee is getting due notice and the opportunity to defend 
themselves, it doesn't drag on forever.
  It also provides a new avenue for whistleblowers so they can come 
forward without fear of retaliation through the establishment of an 
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection. This is critical 
because, as we have seen, in order to uncover many of these abuses at 
the Department, we oftentimes need to rely on information directly from 
those who have seen it happen and are involved.
  In summary, this bill will protect our veterans while also serving as 
a means to protect the countless well-performing, dedicated VA 
employees and whistleblowers in the Department who are frustrated that 
just a handful of bad apples are standing in the way of providing the 
service they signed up to provide. This bill will also ensure that VA 
employees' due process rights are respected and not infringed upon. 
This is not an anti-VA employee law; it is designed to reward those who 
work hard and perform and to identify and remove those who do not.
  I am proud to say this bill would not have been possible without the 
support of our current VA Secretary. We worked closely with him and his 
office to ensure that the provisions would provide the tools they need 
now and for future Secretaries so they can carry out their important 
mission.
  In addition to the Secretary, the bill has been endorsed by the 
Office of Special Counsel, Project On Government Oversight, and several 
veteran service organizations, including the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Concerned 
Veterans for America, the Reserve Officers Association, the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, American Veterans, and the Military 
Officers Association of America. These organizations serve our veterans 
admirably, have valuable knowledge of veterans' needs, and they agree 
that this legislation provides overdue reforms to the VA's current 
broken civil service system. We are all grateful for their help, for 
their support, and for helping and informing us in tweaking this law so 
that it actually solves problems.
  There are two more points that I want to make.
  I am proud that we were able to come together as a unified body--
Republicans and Democrats--to show the Nation that the Republic can 
still work and that we can work together to solve problems. Hopefully, 
that spirit will carry over into other issues that confront our Nation.
  With today's vote, I think we move one step closer to achieving the 
worthy goal of bringing accountability and, as a result, an improvement 
in the VA. I thank my colleagues for joining this fight to better serve 
our Nation's veterans.
  I close by thanking the people who worked day in and day out on this, 
including the staffs for Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Tester. 
Adam Reece and Jorge Rueda worked tirelessly on the bill. I thank Hazen 
Marshall and Tom Hawkins with Senator McConnell's office. I thank our 
cloakroom staff--Laura Dove, Chris Tuck, and Tony Hanagan--for their 
work in getting this bill here today.
  On my own personal staff, I thank J.R. Sanchez, who has worked on 
this personally for 2\1/2\ to 3 years. I don't know what he is going to 
do with his time now because he has spent so much time and passion on 
this, and he knows many of these veterans personally.
  This is a good day, and I look forward to eventually getting this 
bill over to the President's office so that accountability and 
improvement in performance can finally come to the VA and so that the 
men and women who have taken care of us will finally be taken care of 
the way they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rubio, who has been a 
steadfast leader on this issue for years.
  People have heard the term ``years'' mentioned. It is plural. We have

[[Page 8683]]

worked on this thing for a long time. It started coming together last 
year, but it fell apart at the last minute. Thanks to the Senator's 
work and the work of the committee and the staffs on both committees 
and the leadership on the Democratic side--Mr. Tester's and mine--we 
found a way to do what, as I said in my opening remarks earlier--3 
hours ago--is an act of Divine Providence. None of us really ever 
planned that this bill would come to the floor on the 73rd anniversary 
of the invasion of Normandy.
  It was a great day in American history and world history when the 
evil German empire--Adolf Hitler--was destroyed by the Allied Forces 
and the United States of America. It is only appropriate that on the 
anniversary of that date 73 years later, we say to those who have worn 
the uniform and who wear the uniform, who represent us every day and 
fight for us and ask nothing in return: We will see to it that you get 
what you were promised in terms of healthcare and benefits, and we will 
be sure you have a mechanism to hold it accountable in order to give 
you the type of service as a veteran that you gave to us when you 
fought for our country.
  I will repeat what has been said by the others in thanking the staff 
members who have worked so hard. This has not been an easy battle. It 
has appeared easy because nobody has been down here, arguing. All of 
the arguments are over. The veterans won. Doing the right thing won. It 
all would not have happened had it not been for a lot of hard-working 
staff.
  I thank Jon Tester and his staff, on the Democratic side, for all of 
their work on this. I want to particularly thank the Republican 
staffers who worked countless, tireless hours in order to make this 
take place: Staff Director Tom Bowman, Amanda Meredith, Adam Reece, 
Gretchan Blum, Kristen Hines, Maureen O'Neill, Leslie Campbell, David 
Shearman, Jillian Workman, Thomas Coleman, John Ashley, Mitchell 
Sylvest, and Heather Vachon.
  We could not have done what we did nor would we have been here today 
without their help. Yet, as has always been true, we would not as a 
country have been here today nor would we have ever existed had it not 
been for the brave men and women who bore the battle--who fought the 
battle--who defended our country and made sure we had the opportunity 
to become what is now acknowledged around the world--the greatest 
government on the face of this Earth.
  On this day, the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy on D-day, we 
are guaranteeing our veterans the type of service that they fought for 
and deserve. God bless America, and God bless the veterans who proudly 
serve America day in and day out in every uniform around the world.
  In the absence of another speaker, I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The bill (S. 1094), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________