Providing for Consideration of H.R. Va Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 859
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5620) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward, on behalf of the Rules Committee today, this rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5620, the VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act of 2016.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and also provides a motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule makes in order several amendments, representing ideas from both sides of the aisle. Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and heard from numerous Members on behalf of amendments offered.
H.R. 5620 includes provisions of the House-passed versions of H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act; H.R. 280, the legislation related to bonuses paid to VA employees; language from H.R. 5083, the VA Appeals Modernization Act; and H.R. 4138, legislation related to relocation payments for VA employees.
The VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act continues efforts by this Congress to reform the VA and address the bureaucratic mess that has plagued its operations for far too long.
The bill builds on meaningful steps to restore accountability to the Department of Veterans Affairs and ensure it is appropriately providing veterans with the resources and care they deserve.
We have heard time and time again that the Department of Veterans Affairs has failed to hold individuals accountable for their actions. In the circumstances when the VA has tried to take appropriate disciplinary action against an employee, the process is rarely efficient or meaningful. That is just simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, a recent study done by the GAO found that on average it takes 6 months to a year--or even longer--to remove a permanent civil servant in the Federal Government. This is ridiculous on its own. Imagine a private business having underperforming employees but not being able to remove them from their positions and, in some circumstances, even being forced to give them raises or bonuses.
Examples range from the typical poor-performing employee to the absurd. Projects continue to be mismanaged and cost overruns abound. Then there are the cases bordering on the absurd.
In one case, the VA helped a veteran, who was an inpatient of the substance abuse clinic, purchase illegal drugs. This employee continued to work at the VA for over a year before removal proceedings even started. Mr. Speaker, did you catch that? It was a year before the proceedings even started. This is amazing.
Another VA employee, a nurse in this case, showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the influence. Yet another VA employee participated in an armed robbery.
This behavior would not slide in the private sector, and we certainly shouldn't stand for it when it comes to our Nation's heroes who have put their lives on the line to serve our country.
VA officials have even stated in testimony that the process for removing employees is too difficult and lengthy. This means that problem employees continue to work for the VA and interact with veterans. These employees aren't providing services to the agency, and they aren't providing services to our Nation's veterans.
Employees like this need to be removed in a timely way. At the very least, employees need to receive discipline appropriate to the misconduct in a way that discourages poor performance or behavior in the future, but that is just not happening right now.
Let me be clear--and I want to again emphasize because it may even come up here in just a moment--this is not a broadside attack on all VA employees. This is not something that says that all VA employees are bad. In fact, it is far from it.
My office, Mr. Speaker--yours as well, and many others--deal with the VA in a very constructive way, helping many of our veterans get what they need. There are hardworking and wonderful individuals at the VA who are doing all they can to help our Nation's veterans. In northeast Georgia, my office has a good working relationship with our local VA and especially in Augusta and Atlanta in the places we need.
This is not an issue of all of the employees. In fact, we have actually heard from employees of the VA. They say we need these changes because they are tired of being dragged down by the anchors of the bad employees.
Those employees who are doing work well, they are just hindered by this bureaucracy--and it has got to stop--by a system that fails to remove or discipline those poorly performing counterparts. That is not fair to these hardworking individuals who are, in fact, doing their jobs. Most importantly, it is not fair to the veterans. But I am going to take it a step further as well--it is not fair to the taxpayers.
That is why this bill, the VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act, will take steps to address this problem. The bill will provide improved protections for whistleblowers. It will restrict bonuses for supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers and strengthen accountability of VA senior executive service employees.
It would expand senior executive service removal authority and create an expedited removal system that would include an appeals process. It would also eliminate bonuses for VA senior executive service employees for 5 years and streamline authority for the Secretary of the VA to rescind employee bonuses. I wish these steps weren't necessary, but the ongoing problems plaguing the VA demand strong action.
Our veterans deserve better, and we have to take steps to be served by this agency that is supposed to be providing them assistance.
In addition to the problems with the VA employee misconduct, the VA's current appeals process is unquestionably broken. As of June 1, 2016, there were almost 457,000 appeals pending in the VA, an increase of over 80,000 pending appeals from the preceding year. In fact, in the Atlanta regional office, there are about 16,500 appeals pending with an approximate 3-year wait time; and the backlog is growing. Caseworkers in my Gainesville office have been told that cases from 2013 are, in some cases, just getting on the desk of VA employees.
Appeals issues are the most common types of cases that my district office sees. We have some great caseworkers in my Georgia office, but they are not able to speed up the process. They only help navigate the red tape and bureaucracy.
My office is always willing to help veterans in need, and we stand by ready to help when we can. But it shouldn't take a congressional office to get answers from the VA. The VA should be answering veterans in a timely manner. This process needs to be fixed. As a current, still active member of the United States Air Force Reserve, this is just not what we need.
Mr. Speaker, could you think about what we could do with our caseworkers if they were not bogged down in this kind of inefficiency dealing with the VA that we have addressed in this Congress on other occasions with funding and with other issues, and they are still dealing with this?
When a veteran appeals a claim, they shouldn't have to wait for years for an answer. But the current system has led to a backlog that leaves many veterans in limbo.
This bill takes steps in the right direction. H.R. 5630 would streamline the appeals process and help clear the massive backlog of appeals currently stuck and clogging the system.
Under the bill, veterans will be able to obtain faster decisions and will be able to retain the original effective date of their claims throughout the appeals process. It will protect veterans' due process rights while updating the antiquated appeals process for VA disability benefits.
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to address. We can make all the excuses in the world we want. We have funded this. As my Senator from Georgia has stated, who is the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, money is no longer the biggest issue. They have the resources, and they have the will of the Congress. The question is: Will we give them the tools and will the Secretary, more importantly, actually act upon those? That, I have questions about, but we are here today to pass this rule and to get this bill to help those who need help the most, and that is our veterans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this has to be the slowest magic trick I have ever seen in my life. This actually, as written, was introduced and also noticed for amendment 2 months ago--sort of a delay in timing. That is a pretty good magic trick. I guess in the last 2 months, you haven't had a chance to read it. Oh, well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
The vast bulk of this bill did. H.R. 1994 passed out of this House. Frankly, this is a good bill that needs to move forward, and it is a protection of bad workers at the expense of the veterans. If you want to vote against this then that is what you are saying. You are wanting to vote to protect bad workers instead of getting the VA where it needs to go.
Sixteen whistleblower groups have said this is the strongest whistleblower protection they have ever seen. So this idea that you are punishing whistleblowers is, again, just a myth.
I just have one thing, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Thirty days to respond to showing up drunk for surgery in one of the examples that I gave? You don't need 30 days to respond to that. You need to be fired immediately. So I am not sure what the argument is here.
I will agree with my friend from Colorado that we need to fix this. I think we may have different ways to go about it. But again, at the expense of the good workers at the VA, we need to address this.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my friend from Connecticut, and the issue was there were two Takano amendments. One is made in order that does a similar thing, but also to simply say that the Senate bill, which was reported out in May, has never been taken up in the Senate because they have had significant opposition to it. In fact, the only way they got it reported out was union groups and others, they had to make changes to it to get their agreement.
I think at this point we are putting veterans first, not these outside interest groups. I think we just need to understand that the Senate bill has not moved. The Senate bill, in fact, has not passed out of the Senate and shows no hope of passing out of the Senate at this point, and so why should we take that, frankly, product and come over here when we have a bill that can move.
We are offering as many of these amendments as possible. We are going to be voting on my friend from California's amendment as well today. These are the kinds of things where I think we just need to look at this bill for what it is. It is helping veterans. The bottom line is not just simply saying this is what we are doing. This is coming from VA employees, VA employees who are saying help us not be, you know, categorized with all the other things that are going on and with those that are actually bringing what we do down, and also trying to help the appeals process in this situation.
So I appreciate the words of the Members, Mr. Speaker, coming forward on this, but let's also be very honest with what is happening in both Chambers of the bicameral legislature. We have one bill over there that is not going anywhere that was reported out. We have an amendment that will be voted on today that reflects the gentleman from California's concern. We will see how that will be decided by this body. We are moving forward on a bill that will actually help, and we encourage everybody to be a part of that.
Mr. Speaker,
I feel for the passion of my friend from California, but let's also get back to some issues of fact here. His amendment that was not made in order would not have helped the ITT Tech students. In fact, the VA itself has already said it wouldn't. By the way, it also costs $50 million. It wouldn't help the very ones we are claiming it would help, but the VA says this, not us.
Again, are we wanting to help somebody or make, again, a political statement about a bill that you are trying to figure out a way to vote against?
Maybe that is what we are doing here.
Also, this issue of bipartisanship. Thirty pieces of legislation have been passed on VA, of which 29 have had Democrat or bipartisan provisions added in them in this Congress. By the way, the Senate has passed none of those. If you want to know who is actually working to fix the problems in the VA, it is the House.
To keep bringing up and having a baseline and say we need the baseline of a Senate bill that can't move, I mean, that is like saying that I still want to play football for the Atlanta Falcons. It is not happening. It is a great, I guess, aspirational goal, but they haven't called me lately.
So let's move something that actually works. This idea that it is going to be struck down in court, I am an attorney; it is conjecture. You don't have a ruling that says that. You can say it all you want. I can go to the good judge from Texas, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has made a ruling. So it is conjecture. It sounds good in an argument if you are trying to find a reason to vote against it.
This bill would harm veterans because veterans make up 35 percent of the VA's workforce. This one is the one that bothers me a little bit. As someone who still serves, when you go through training and you work--and many in this room have served--you are trained in the military to the highest expectations of your service every day. And if you are forced to work with people who do not live up to those expectations, then the immediate punishment in the military is real, severe, and actual. This is ridiculous. We are lowering the standard for appeal when you have done something.
There has been this argument that we are just picking on the low- level employees. No, it is not. It is for everyone all the way up the chain.
In my own home State, Mr. Speaker, we had a gentleman who was directly implicated in the scheduling issues in Augusta and asked for a transfer to Atlanta because he was not liking the working conditions in Augusta. He should have never got a transfer to Decatur. He should have been fired and prosecuted.
Now, if we want to keep coming up with reasons to vote against this bill, fine and dandy. Keep it up.
When we look at the honesty here of the questions and we look at how we are discussing this and some of the amendments that were made in order, let's go back to the amendments. Sixteen Democrat amendments made in order, five Republican, one bipartisan. Many of the applications had dual meaning. They were doing basically the same thing, so we made some in order. And then some of the amendments that were not made in order would not have done what they said they were going to do anyway.
So we are about a rule, about a bill. If you want to vote against it, if you would rather put the appeals process of bad employees ahead of VA actual services and veterans who need it, then vote against it. But you just framed it.
Go spin that one to your local veterans service organizations who support these kinds of measures. Go spin that one to them. It is not going to work. They are not buying it. I have been there for a while.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, I guess, as they always try to say, you start off with something positive. So I will start with positive.
I agree with the gentlewoman from New York: they need to get out of the building business. They have proved totally incompetent. I agree completely. But then let's get back to the bill. Let's get back to what we have talked about.
What is amazing to me in this whole rules debate, and I am sure will happen in the general debate on this bill, is there is going to be a lot of reasons given to vote ``no'' and to say this due process or this employee or that. But the bottom line is, when you look at the evidence, I understand we all have constituencies that have different opinions, but at the Veterans Administration there is only one constituency that matters, and that is the veteran who has served, who is to be served, and to have their dedication honored.
To actually come before this body and advocate for a bill that can't pass the Senate after it has been watered down, that can't move forward, to advocate to say that we are making every excuse in the world like, You are going to make them at-will employees at the VA--I heard this last night. No, you are not. There is still the same hiring programs. It is just that, if you do something wrong, there is going to be a process to actually remove you. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary at the VA can't do the things he should do, then maybe he should be removed.
At this point in time, this House and the Senate, this Congress, and even this administration, have acted. We have provided funds, we have provided resources, and we have provided direction. But you cannot continue to keep building on a faulty foundation. If you can't get rid of the bad actors in this, if you can't have an appeals process in which somebody can get an answer in a shorter time than 3 years, there is a problem.
Here is the framing of that, Mr. Speaker. If you believe that is okay, then vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the bill. If you think the Senate can pass something, wait for them. But as they say, for such a time as this, you have a moment. It is a moment of choosing. It is a time to decide: Are we going to continue to make excuses or are we going to put the veterans first--and those veterans who actually work within the VA system, who are tired of watching others abuse it?
To actually say, again, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to harm the veterans who work for the VA by disciplining bad employees is an affront to every veteran who works at the VA, every Active Duty servicemember, every reservist and guardsman who have lived to the highest standards of honor and integrity and doing their job.
There are bad actors everywhere, even in the military; and when found, they are handled efficiently and quickly. That exists everywhere else except here.
So if you want to continue the status quo, then make speeches. If you want to move something forward and work toward a solution, then you vote ``yes'' on the previous question, you vote ``yes'' on the rule, and you vote ``yes'' on the bill.
Then you can go home to your veterans service organizations and people trying to get help and say: I tried to move something. I am actually moving for you.
Or you can go back and say: You know, I am protecting the employees and the unions and the appeals process and due process while all at the point in time our veterans are dying because they can't get services.
Easy choice, Mr. Speaker. Easy choice.
With that, I challenge my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. We can disagree, but that disagreement should never stop us from helping the veterans who need help to lower their appeals time, to get the sufficient organization that they deserve and this country deserves. Not just our veterans, but our taxpayers, the citizens who look up to this Government, they deserve a functioning, operating system that meets the needs to the highest integrity that they have been given charge to.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 859 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 to respond to Zika virus. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5044. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source