Phil Roe

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, too often, as Americans, we tend to take our freedom for granted. We should never forget we owe the freedom to our Nation's veterans. That is why it is so egregious that many veterans come home to find that they have to do battle with the VA--the very agency that is supposed to help and support them--to protect their own constitutional rights. The problem occurs when VA, for whatever reason, determines that a veteran needs assistance managing his or her VA financial benefits and decides to appoint a fiduciary. Now, there may be many reasons that a veteran might need a fiduciary, such as a veteran who has TBI may have trouble with math and struggles to balance his or her checkbook. But it is important to remember that the decision to appoint a fiduciary is made by a VA bureaucrat, not a judge or a magistrate after ensuring that veteran's due process rights are protected. Unfortunately, there are serious, unintended consequences when VA appoints a fiduciary. This is because, once VA decides that the beneficiary needs help with finances, even though there may be no evidence that the individual may be a danger to himself or others, the Department sends his or her name to the FBI to be added to the NICS list. As you know, anyone whose name is on the NICS list is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. This means that the veteran can no longer participate in sports like hunting or target shooting. The veteran is also legally obligated to relinquish any firearms he or she owns, including collector's pieces and family heirlooms. I am opposed to the VA's existing policy not only because it deprives veterans of their constitutional rights without due process of law, I am also concerned that these veterans are not able to participate in recreational therapy programs like VA's program at the VA Grand Junction medical center in Colorado that enables veterans with physical and mental disabilities to go hunting or shooting. I know from personal experience that these therapy programs are very effective in helping these heroes recover from injuries that they have received while serving our country. It is unfortunate that some of the opponents of this bill are perpetrating the outdated stereotypes that people who are mentally ill may be violent and should be feared. I am concerned that these false characterizations may actually deter people from seeking the health services they need. It is hard enough for some people to admit they need help, Mr. Speaker, but image how much more difficult it is when they fear that they would be stigmatized and isolated. It is also possible that some veterans decide to avoid using VA healthcare services all together out of fear that a VA bureaucrat may decide that they are incompetent and take away their constitutional rights. Let's take a look at the people who actually are added to the NICS list as a result of the Veterans Administration's appointing a fiduciary. There are currently more than 1,000 children under the age of 20 here on the NICS list, likely because VA appointed a fiduciary because they are too young to handle their own money. VA has also added the names of 107,000 people over 80 years old to the NICS list. These individuals probably just need help with their finances due to their advanced age. But should VA really take away the Second Amendment rights from our Nation's seniors, particularly those who fought for the country? It is outrageous that the only group of people that can have their constitutional rights taken away without a hearing before a judge or magistrate are the very people who fought for those rights and their dependents. Even criminals must be convicted in a court of law before their names are added to that list, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1181 would simply prohibit VA from sending veterans' names to the NICS list unless there is an order from a judge or a magistrate that says the person may harm themselves or others. This proposal has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In 2011, the House passed H.R. 2349, which included similar provisions, by voice vote. And just last month, both the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 40, which prevented the Social Security Administration from implementing a similar policy to report the names of some people who have received disability insurance benefits to NICS. H.R. 1181 also has wide support among the veterans community, including the American Legion, the VFW, and AMVETS. H.R. 1181 is also supported by the National Disability Rights Network and the National Rifle Association. Additionally, H.R. 1181 has a positive statement of the administration's support. Mr. Speaker, veterans who fought to defend the Constitution should also be allowed the rights it protects. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1181. It is the right thing to do, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1181.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is currently on the NICS list. It simply prohibits the VA Secretary from continuing to send the names of beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary to the NICS list. And there is nothing in the bill that would require the VA Secretary to take any action with respect to those already on the list. Just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, to show you how the VA's policy is not consistent: just as an example, a veteran who is rated at 100 percent disabled for PTSD is not automatically given a fiduciary, even though the symptoms required for that rating may include suicidal or homicidal ideation. So they are very inconsistent about how they do this. And of the 915,744 veterans who have a service-connected PTSD condition, only 1.7 percent of them have a fiduciary. Remember, they lose their constitutionally guaranteed right. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a hardworking member of this conference.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this room are, I am personally devastated that our Nation loses 20 of our finest citizens to suicide every day. Ending this tragedy is one of the top priorities we have on the Veteran Affairs' Committee and as a nation. We have and will continue to work with the VA to develop programs that will effectively help identify and treat veterans who may be considering ending their own lives. But denying veterans who have fiduciaries their constitutional rights will not end veteran suicide. It is unfair to paint all veterans who may need a fiduciary with the same broad stroke and to assume that just because someone needs assistance with their financial affairs, that they may also be violent and a danger or they are contemplating suicide. That is just plain wrong. It is unfortunate that the arguments advanced by some of the opponents of this bill reinforce the false impression that people who suffer from mental health challenges--and veterans, in particular--are dangerous. There is no evidence that people who suffer from mental illness are more likely to be more violent than people in the general population--just none. I am convinced that perpetuating this outdated and incorrect stereotype makes the situation worse, deterring people from seeking the very health services that they need. It is difficult for some folks to admit they need help. I saw patients like that for years who finally broke down in my office and explained that they were depressed or whatever the situation may be. Imagine how much harder it is when people feel that they will be stigmatized or isolated because other people may fear them? By passing this bill, Congress will send a strong message that people who suffer from mental illness are owed the same respect and have the same constitutional rights as every other American citizen. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to support H.R. 1181, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017. Mr. Chair, you and many other Members of this body are well aware that providing true accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs has been a goal of mine and many of my colleagues for years. The House has remained committed to this goal and has already passed several iterations of the legislation before us today, yet the challenges remain, which is why we are here once again trying in this Congress to effect real change and reform. To bring real reform, we need to provide Secretary Shulkin with the tools he needs to swiftly and effectively discipline employees who don't meet the standards our veterans deserve or who fail in their sacred mission to provide world-class health care and benefits to the men and women who have served. My bill would provide a singular expedited procedure for all VA employees to respond and appeal to proposed removals, demotions, and suspensions for performance or misconduct or, in the case of title 38 employees, who are healthcare providers, for a question involving direct patient care or clinical competence. The prenotification and response process would be required to be completed within 15 business days, and the employee would be entitled to an expedited appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, where the first step at the administrative judge would be limited to 45 days. Additionally, either party would be able to appeal the administrative judge's decision to the full MSPB and would be provided the opportunity for limited judicial review. H.R. 1259 would also ensure that the disciplinary procedures and avenues to appeal set up by this bill are the only avenues in place for title 5 and hybrid title 38 employees to dispute proposed removals, demotions, and suspensions for longer than 14 days. Pure title 38 employees, mainly VA's physicians and registered nurses, would retain their current internal process, but the timelines for disciplinary action and the appeals process would also be aligned to the timelines for all other VA employees as set up by this bill. This bill would also provide improved protections for whistleblowers; would allow the Secretary to reduce an employee's Federal pension if they are convicted of a felony that influenced their job at VA; would provide the Secretary with the authority to recoup a bonus provided to an employee who engaged in misconduct or poor performance prior to receiving the bonus; and would allow the Secretary to recoup any relocation expenses that were authorized for a VA employee only through the employee's ill-gotten means, such as waste, fraud, and malfeasance. Lastly, it would also provide the Secretary with the direct hiring authority that he desperately needs and has been asking for so that we can hire medical center directors and VISN directors in a more expedited manner and fill leadership vacancies across VA. Mr. Chair, as I have said, I agree with all of my colleagues that the vast majority of VA employees are hardworking public servants who are dedicated to providing quality health care and benefits for veterans. But it is beyond comprehension that, with as much outright malfeasance that Congress, the American public, the media, and our courageous whistleblowers have uncovered at the VA, which has led to the increased scrutiny of the Department over the past few years, that we still see far too many instances of VA employees not living up to the standards America expects and not living up to the standards that our men and women who have served this country deserve. Knowing many of the instances that have happened at the VA are a slap in the face to our veterans, it is unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose the bill before us here today. The committee has discovered an instance of an employee showing up drunk to work to scrub in for a surgery on a veteran; a VA employee taking a recovering addict to a crack house and buying him drugs and a prostitute; a VA employee participating in an armed robbery; and senior managers retaliating against whistleblowers, at which point VA then has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the whistleblower in restitution. Not only are all of these acts egregious and not only are all of these instances factual, they are just the tip of the iceberg; but what causes me to stand before you today is that, in none of these instances, did the VA hold these employees accountable in any reasonable timeframe, if at all. I blame many factors for this, but mainly I blame an antiquated civil service system and a grievance process set up by the union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements that have left VA unwilling to jump through the many hoops to do what is right. Mr. Chair, it is well past time that we not allow the current system to continue, and it is certainly our duty to finally take action and enact meaningful changes at VA that put veterans and their families first and foremost. Everything else should come second. That includes the power of the public sector unions. Everyone in government knows that the civil service laws that were once meant to promote the efficiency of government are now obsolete and make it almost impossible to remove a poor-performing employee. Last year, VA's then-Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson, under President Obama, sat before the Veterans Affairs' Committee and admitted it was too difficult to fire a substandard VA employee. The Government Accountability Office studies the government's ability to hold low-performing employees accountable and found that it took 6 months to a year, on average, and sometimes significantly longer, to fire poor-performing government employees. I have heard the concerns that this bill will hurt the Department's ability to recruit and retain good employees. I don't buy this argument, as every VA employee I speak to tells me exactly the opposite. Good employees want to work in an environment where they know everyone can be held accountable for their actions. I believe the current status quo of allowing bad employees to continue at their jobs while receiving a paycheck actually hurts the moral of other employees who are doing the right thing 24 hours a day. This is the same for employees of the Department who are veterans. I know that some have said that this would hurt veterans who are employed at a VA, since they make up a large percentage of VA employees, as it should be. As a veteran myself, and as my fellow veterans here today would agree--we don't sign up to serve, whether in uniform or civilian clothes, because we put our individual employee protections ahead of the mission--the mission always comes first, Mr. Chair; and at the VA, the mission is our veterans. Veterans want to work alongside colleagues they know are working hard for their fellow men and women they served alongside. I also want to note that, from day one, I have worked with Secretary Shulkin and his team in the drafting of this bill that is before us today. He has endorsed this legislation not because he wants to punish employees or make it harder to recruit quality employees, but because he sees this type of change as desperately needed if he is going to truly reform the Department, as both sides of the aisle want. Secretary Shulkin is someone who garnered the trust and respect of two Presidents of two different parties to serve our veterans, and he was confirmed by a vote in the Senate of 100-0. Mr. Chair, I hope that my colleagues would understand that his support and assistance in crafting this bill before us today is because real accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs is a veteran issue, not a political issue. It is time that we align ourselves with our Nation's veterans and the organizations that represent them. Fifteen veterans service organizations support the bill before us today: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Concerned Veterans for America, Student Veterans for America, Reserve Officers Association, Fleet Reserve Association, Association of the United States Navy, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, VetsFirst, AMVETS, the Military Officers Association of America, and the United States Army Warrant Officers Association. These are 15 groups that represent millions of veterans and their families. While I am in no way trying to make this a political argument or say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not care about veterans--they do--but when it comes to this particular issue, accountability at the VA, I do not believe we can avoid the facts: The facts are, when we talk about accountability at VA during our VSO hearings with the Senate, Members get an ovation. The facts are that veterans, not just from the headquarters in D.C., but across this country, come up and thank Members for putting veterans' rights before all else. The facts are the only groups that have staunchly come out and opposed the reform we are trying to make in this bill are the public sector unions. As I said, this should not be a political discussion and this should not be one side of the aisle trying to out-veteran the other side of the aisle. We don't want to do that. But when you look at the facts, it is clear what our veterans and what the American public want us to do here in this Congress. We have a package that makes meaningful changes to VA's civil service system while maintaining due process rights, as we should. Today we have the opportunity to make real and lasting changes to a broken system. Today we can decide to stand with our veterans or we can stand with the status quo and the unions that perpetuate the status quo, which I believe has failed them and the American public for far too long. I hope you all will join me and the 15 veteran organizations that support this legislation and do what is right for veterans and pass H.R. 1259. Let's put accountability first so that transformative reforms can succeed. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, March 10, 2017. Hon. David P. Roe, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 1259, ``VA Accountability First Act of 2017.'' As you know, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs received an original referral and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary referral when the bill was introduced on February 28, 2017. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will forego action on the bill. The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1259 at this time we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I request your support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or related legislation. Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding. Sincerely, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Taylor for his service to our country and to our Nation. I am appreciative of him and his staff for working with us on the amendment. The amendment has, as chair, my full support.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), but I must oppose it at this time. The amendment would dramatically weaken the current accountability language for non-SES employees to the point that it would not be a meaningful improvement to or departure from current law. Just as a point of clarification, the Senate never did move the Veterans First Act. The amendment includes many of the archaic and unnecessary civil service rules that currently hamper true reform and accountability at the Department. And unlike H.R. 1259, which would require the entire internal and first level of external appeals process to be completed within 67 days, the Walz amendment would allow for the process to take at least 120 days, and this period could expand indefinitely. Additionally, the standard used in this agreement for removing or demoting employees for performance is not a meaningful departure from current law, and I fear it won't make any true changes that are desperately needed at VA. On the collective bargaining piece, I understand the ranking member's concern, but the last thing I want to do is create a giant loophole that makes it harder to discipline bad employees. Just looking at one of VA's master contracts with employee unions, AFGE, which is the largest union at VA, one can see that the grievance procedures that he wishes to keep in place to dispute discipline can extend to almost 350 days, and this timeline can be easily extended. With the Walz amendment, we would be creating a giant loophole where the Secretary would have one expedited process in place, while the long and administratively burdensome grievance process remains in place for nearly 285,000 employees at the Department, or 76 percent of the VA's workforce. Clearly, covering only 24 percent of the VA workforce under an expedited authority is not what I want to do, nor do I expect veterans and taxpayers or the Secretary want to do. Additionally, when the committee first began working on accountability issues at VA, they were told by the largest Federal Government union, AFGE general counsel, that the union would never support any legislation that changes the status quo. Based on AFGE's strong support for language identical to the Walz amendment last Congress, I think the message is clear. If Congress adopts this language, we would not be protecting taxpayers or veterans, and we would be supporting the corrupt status quo that fails VA employees and veterans daily. In the end, the question is very clear: Do we want to stand with veterans and taxpayers to provide the Secretary with the appropriate tools he has asked for to hold these employees accountable? Or do we want to give in to special interests groups to support the status quo? Once again, I urge all Members to oppose the Walz amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate Mr. Takano's--who is a very hardworking member of the committee--attempt to insert what he thinks is an appropriate balance of due process and accountability, but the substitute language misses the bar of what we are trying to accomplish. It would strike the entire bill and insert new language only allowing the Secretary to remove someone if they present a threat to health or safety. This is a nearly unobtainable, if not an immeasurable, bar to reach. This undefined standard makes it almost impossible for the Secretary to remove any employee. It would create a confusing process that only allows someone to be removed after they are suspended first and the Secretary conducts an investigation into the individual. 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 veterans and the employee or good-performing employees and taxpayers. The employee deserves a quick opportunity to present their case, and, if exonerated, get back to doing their job. Unlike my bill, this would only provide backpay to someone if their removal is overturned on appeal if they are a whistleblower. My bill would require any individual whose disciplinary action is overturned on appeal to receive any backpay for that period. This amendment does nothing to provide the Secretary with the authority to recoup bonuses or relocation expenses from individuals who receive taxpayer-funded money through ill-gotten means such as fraud, waste, or abuse, nor does it allow the Secretary to recoup a portion of a Federal pension of someone convicted of a felony that influenced their VA job. It would ensure that the current ineffective civil service rules would continue to hamper any change to the corrosive and unaccountable culture at the VA, and would also, more than likely, not apply to some of the employees associated with the VA's egregious scandals, including the bloated Denver, Colorado, construction project; data management at the Philadelphia regional office; FY 2015 $2.5 billion shortfall cost overruns at the Orlando VA Medical Center; allegations of inappropriate use of government purchase cards to the tune of $6 billion; and many others. These are the types of employees that our constituents and veterans expect to be held accountable, but this amendment would not cover. In the end, the facts are clear: our veterans and the American taxpayer support the reform in H.R. 1259, and not the status quo, which is supported by public sector unions. I encourage all Members to oppose the Takano amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this would require the Secretary to report to Congress each year any performance awards or bonuses provided to Senior Executive Service employees at the VA. This is an excellent amendment from the gentlewoman from New York and will provide additional needed transparency at the Department where taxpayer money is being spent, especially when being spent on bonuses for the most senior individuals at VA. This amendment has my full support.

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

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Kuster's amendment would require VA supervisors to develop performance plans for employees which would, as a part of the plan, measure steps taken to address poor performance but also improve training for VA supervisors--an excellent suggestion. I agree that all VA employees, especially our managers, should be held to high standards and should have as much training provided them as is available. Ms. Kuster's amendment has my full support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Basically, the accountability provisions are the same. I, once again, urge all Members to oppose the Walz amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment, and I urge support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would allow a whistleblower who is alleging prohibited personnel practices, as defined in title 38, from being disciplined under the bill until the whistleblower complaint is resolved. The committee has always favored strengthening protections for whistleblowers. My bill already protects whistleblowers, but I am not opposed to Ms. Kuster's amendment and suggested changes, and I appreciate her offering it. The bill has my full support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I am just looking at the AFGE website, and it does have support for the Veterans First Act here on the website; so that is true.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment would provide technical changes to the bill, while not changing the overall substance of the bill. The amendment is noncontroversial and no cost. It does not change any underlying policy in the bill. I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.