Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I don't know what the letter is you are holding in your hand. I have one dated September 13.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. That is correct.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Takano that it is the courts of the United States of America that would rule something unconstitutional and not the Attorney General of this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the Third District of Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record the letters from five veterans service organizations in support of this legislation, H.R. 5620. The American Legion, July 12, 2016. Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Chairman Miller: On behalf of the more than 2 million members of The American Legion, I express qualified support for H.R. 5620, the VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act of 2016. The bill would bring additional accountability measures to the Department of Veterans Affairs while strengthening protections for whistleblowers. Additionally, the bill would reform the department's disability benefits appeals process--a top priority for VA leaders and many veterans service organizations. Veterans deserve a first rate agency to provide for their needs, and the VA is an excellent agency that is unfortunately marred from time to time by bad actors that the complicated system of discipline makes difficult to remove. Legislation to improve that process and make it easier to deal with these few, problem employees would help restore trust in what is otherwise an excellent system. However, we cannot support the prohibition on VA senior executives from receiving awards or bonuses over the next five years. This overly punitive form of collective punishment is unfair and counterproductive to efforts to rebuild a leadership cadre after the extensive turnover experienced since the 2014 wait time scandal. We wholeheartedly support the appeals modernization provisions in this legislation. They represent a combined team effort between VA, Congress, and the Veteran Service Organizations to produce highly needed reforms to the complex disability claims appeals system and The American Legion is proud of the work accomplished here. The American Legion thanks you for the leadership you have shown to bring improvement and more accountability to VA. We are committed to working with you and your House and Senate colleagues to shepherd a veterans benefits legislative package before this session ends that we can all be proud of. Sincerely, Dale Barnett, National Commander.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, specifically, this would provide technical, conforming, and clarifying language changes to the bill while not changing the substance of the bill. It would also align the pre-notice and due process language on three of the sections relating to bonus, pension, and relocation expenses. And it would also align the pre-notice requirements for whistleblower retaliators who are receiving an adverse action to the same amount of time as other disciplinary actions in the bill. This amendment is noncontroversial, it doesn't cost a penny, and it doesn't change any of the underlying policy. I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that my good friend would oppose something as simple as a technical and conforming amendment, but I accept this opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I begin, let me say I believe that there is only one piece of legislation that has been filed at this point in the Senate that deals with--I know there are folks that have been talking about it--appeals reform, and that is Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio has the companion to this piece of legislation that has been filed in the Senate. As has already been stated, this removes every section from the underlying bill, except for the appeals modernization. It would strike out all the accountability provisions, many of which have already passed this House of Representatives. The underlying bill already includes revised accountability language that would make significant concessions towards the minority's position as it relates to due process. And I don't believe anybody on the minority side can say that this doesn't. I believe that any reform that passes this Congress is doomed to fail if we don't provide the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs with the authority he needs to swiftly and fairly discipline employees. If this amendment passes, the same antiquated and broken civil service system will remain in place. As I have already said, 18 VSOs believe the accountability provisions are critical to the success of reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs. From the VFW: For far too long, underperforming employees have been allowed to continue working at VA simply because the processes for removal are so protracted. The VFW believes that employees should have some layer of protection, but that true accountability must be enforced for those who willfully fail to meet the standard. This is critical to ensuring that VA consistently provides the highest quality services, as continuing to restore veterans' faith in the Department. From the American Legion: Veterans deserve a first-rate agency to provide for their needs, and the VA is an excellent agency that is, unfortunately, marred from time to time by bad actors that the complicated system of discipline makes it difficult to remove. Legislation to improve that process and make it easier to deal with these few problem employees would help restore trust. In short, our VSOs understand how critical both of the appeals and accountability provisions are, and we should listen to them. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the ranking member's attempt to insert what he thinks is the appropriate balance of due process and accountability, but this confusing language fails to achieve a balance. What it actually does is it strikes the entire accountability section and inserts an entirely new process for the discipline of non-SES employees. It would be convoluted, at best, and seemingly stricter than current law, but the most troubling change that this amendment would make would be to change the standard to discipline VA employees from performance or misconduct. The amendment would change it to a direct threat to public health or safety, which it would be nearly unobtainable, if not an immeasurable bar to reach. It would also, more than likely, not apply to some of the employees who have been associated with VA's most egregious scandals recently. It would not do anything for those who were involved in the bloated Denver, Colorado, hospital construction project which was over $1 billion over budget, or the data manipulation at the Philadelphia regional office, or the $2.5 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2015, or the cost overruns of the Orlando VA Medical Center, or the allegations of inappropriate use of government purchase cards to the tune of $6 billion, and many, many others. These are the types of employees that our constituents and our veterans expect to be held accountable, but this amendment would not cover disciplinary action against them. It would allow for employees to be on indefinite suspension for months, if not years, awaiting the Secretary's final decision, which is not fair to the veterans, the employee, the good-performing employees, or our taxpayers. VA is unable to backfill while the disciplinary actions are on appeal. In the end, the question is clear: Do we want to stand with the veterans and the taxpayers and provide the VA the appropriate tools to hold employees accountable, or do we want to give in to special interest groups and unions that support only the status quo? I would hope that for all Members, that is an easy question to answer. I urge all Members to oppose the Takano amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, again, as has already been stated by the author of the amendment, this would require VA to notify the appropriate Member of Congress when the new accountability process is used or to remove or demote an employee who works for the VA at a facility in that Member's district. I think this is an excellent suggestion that would improve transparency, something that is most needed at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It has my full support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, first of all, I have to rise in opposition because it doesn't provide the appropriate level of accountability for SES employees. It largely mimics the same SES accountability language that is already in the bill, with just a few exceptions. The open-ended timeline defies the intent to quickly adjudicate these cases within a clear and concrete timeline to benefit both the VA and the employee, and that is what we are trying to get at. The pre-decision due process that would be required would actually exceed the current practice of 5 days that the VA enacted after passage of the Choice Act. And I remind my good friend that the Choice Act passed both Chambers with a huge bipartisan majority. When the President signed the bill, he said: ``Now, finally, we're giving the VA Secretary more authority to hold people accountable. We've got to give Bob the authority so that he can move quickly to remove senior executives who fail to meet the standards of conduct and competence that the American people demand. If you engage in an unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired. Period. It shouldn't be that difficult.'' We should be trying to improve the culture at VA by increasing accountability, not by weakening it. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) working with us to add the Office of Whistleblower Protection. It also does create an assistant secretary that would oversee this brand-new office. I appreciate Mrs. Kirkpatrick working with us on this amendment to better align it with the protections that are already in the bill. A portion of this amendment to create the new office already passed the House in H.R. 1994. This amendment now has my full support. I urge my colleagues to agree and support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor has already said, it clarifies and strengthens VA's responsibility with regard to emergency care. It has been drafted very well in response to a recent, very tragic incident where a veteran died in a VA parking lot in very close proximity to a VA emergency room. It is supported by numerous veterans service organizations. I am grateful to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the Chair state the amendment number. I think you said amendment No. 10. Should it be No. 9?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I apologize, I was not informed. Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Takano