Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I don't think any of us in any of the 50 States have not had calls from our constituents about the Veterans' Administration. I know that certainly in Florida, I have. We are blessed to have so many people who are either in uniform or have served in uniform.

We make two fundamental promises to the men and women who serve our country. The first is that if we ever put them into hostility, they will be better equipped, better trained, and have more information than their adversaries. I, of course, fear that all three of those promises have eroded.

Here is the second promise we make to them: After they take care of us and they come home, we will take care of them. That is a promise that, sadly, is also not being kept.

There are a lot of different issues we can get into when it comes to veterans and what they are facing in this country, but one that has received a lot of attention is the Veterans' Administration and in particular the role it plays in providing health care for those returning or those who have served our country and have been facing challenges ever since. We have all had the phone calls to our office, and we have seen the media reports about it.

I am proud that last year we were able to pass legislation that gave the Secretary of the VA the ability to fire senior executives who weren't doing their jobs. This is the point--and this is where I always stop and remind everyone there are really good people working in the VA. In fact, the enormous majority of people at the VA are good people who care passionately about our veterans. There are some phenomenal VA facilities in this country, and then there are some facilities that aren't working. There are some individuals within that agency who, quite frankly, are not doing their jobs well. The problem is that they can't be held accountable because they are protected by law, and as a result they can't be removed.

We expanded that law a year ago to include the ability to fire senior executives who weren't doing their jobs, but to date that has not been used to much effect. So earlier this year we introduced followup legislation, and the followup legislation gives the Secretary of the Department the authority to remove any employee of Veterans Affairs based on performance--or lack thereof--or misconduct. It gives them the authority to remove such individuals from the civil service or demote the individual through a reduction in grade or annual pay rate.

I am proud that this bill has gone through the process here in the Senate. It has passed out of committee and is now ready for action. I hope we will take action on this. There is a different version in the House. It has also gone through their committees, and they are waiting for their process to move it through. There are some differences between the two, which, of course, would be worked out in conference.

I think the prudent thing to do at this point, given the fact that the Senate bill has worked its way through the process and is now ready for action, is to take action. This is about creating accountability. By the way, this is about taking care of our veterans, but it is also about taking care of the people at the VA who are doing their jobs. This is also about them. It isn't fair to them that people who aren't doing their jobs continue in their positions and in many instances are increasing the workload on others because they are not performing or carrying their weight.

That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 272, S. 1082; further, that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I respect deeply and in fact support the arguments made by my colleague from Florida. There are goals here to be served, and I strongly support them as well. Accountability has been lacking for too long in the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is a simple fact on which we can all agree. In fact, we took a major step in the right direction with the passage of the access and accountability act during the last session with bipartisan support.

I would support this measure if a number of simple changes were made to it to comply with the Constitution. This measure lacks some of the basic constitutional guarantees that again and again the Supreme Court of the United States has said are absolutely mandatory. This bill, unfortunately, fails to provide sufficient notice in advance of any firing or disciplinary action, a statement of cause, a right to be heard, and an opportunity for basic administrative constitutional guarantees.

I commit to work with my colleague from Florida on seeking to improve this bill. In fact, I have proposed a measure that is now pending in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, S. 1856, which will improve the management of the VA in many of the same ways, but it avoids these constitutional pitfalls.

As a former attorney general, I care deeply about enforcement, which is to say effective enforcement. A disciplinary action now under appeal in the Federal circuit will decide the constitutionality of exactly these procedures. In the meantime, we ought to avoid creating unnecessary litigation and challenge to a law that should be enforced effectively. This one, unfortunately, cannot be. I believe strongly there are measures and ways to achieve greater accountability. It isn't a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity that the VA is held accountable. The more effective way to hold the VA accountable is to pass a measure that is fully constitutional and, in addition, provides more effective protection for whistleblowers. They are the ones who come forward speaking truth to power. They are the ones with critical facts necessary for accountability. This measure, unfortunately, fails to afford sufficient protection for those whistleblowers. Therefore, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The Senator from Florida.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, the difference between this bill and the one in the House is the Whistleblower Protection Act. So if that is the issue the Senator is concerned with, I would ask if the Senator from Connecticut would then be willing not to object, to lift the objection, if we could move forward on the House bill that is now here and ready for us to take up as well because it does contain the whistleblower protection language.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would be more than willing--indeed, happy--to work with my colleague from Florida on specific language that improves the whistleblower protection language. I think his bill takes a step in the right direction by providing that the Office of Special Counsel provide approval for any disciplinary action. That is a good step, but I believe it could be made more effective. I think the opportunity to be heard with notice for cause or discipline or firing is essential to effective enforcement. I share the goal--strongly share it--of making sure that accountability is enforced.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Mr. RUBIO. Again, the House version of this bill, which is ready for us to take up today, has stronger accountability language which we do not oppose. It simply was not included for purposes of time at the committee level. But we are prepared to move now, if we could, because the House version is here and ready for action on our part, and it has the stronger accountability language. It sounds as though, no matter what, we are probably going to have a delay here on acting on this matter.

I would say this for people watching here in the Gallery or at home or anywhere they might see it later--I just want everybody to understand what we are saying here. All we are saying in this bill is that if you work for the VA and you aren't doing your job, they get to fire you. I think people are shocked that doesn't actually exist in the entire government since there is no other job in the country where, if you don't do your job, you don't get fired. But in this instance, we are just limiting it to one agency. This should actually be the rule in the entire government. If you are not doing your job, you should get fired. But this is just limiting it to the VA because we have a crisis there with the lack of accountability.

I would hope we can move forward on this, and I am prepared to listen to anyone who wants to improve this. We went through the normal course and process in the Senate. We went through the committee. It had hearings. Opportunities for amendments were offered at the time. So if there is a good-faith effort--and I believe that there is--then let's improve this and take action on it. We need to have a VA that is more interested in the welfare and security of our veterans than the job security of Federal employees.

I said at the outset that there are really good people at the VA. The vast majority of employees at the VA are doing their jobs and doing them well. They care about these veterans. It isn't fair to them that there are people on the payroll taking up seats, taking up slots, taking up money, and taking up time who aren't doing their jobs, and they literally cannot be fired. They literally cannot be removed. It is a near impossibility. The process is so expensive, so long, so troublesome, so complicated that in essence they cannot be removed.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to move forward on this today, it appears, but I hope that in quick succession we will be able to come together and get this done to provide a higher level of accountability that is so necessary in every agency of government but none more so than Veterans Affairs.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, one last word. I want to simply concur in the very powerful and eloquent statements made by my colleague from Florida. I think we all share those sentiments in this body that--and I am quoting now from legislation: Any employee who engages in malfeasance, overprescription of medication, insubordination, violation of any duty of care should be disciplined and very possibly fired.
We are talking about the process to achieve that end. I can commit that I will work with my colleague from Florida to make sure this body approves a measure that is effective as a deterrent to those kinds of violations of basic duty. To be effective as a deterrent, it has to be enforceable, and that is our common goal here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source