Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of former Congressman Don Edwards, a man this body remembers as a champion for civil rights and American workers, and I remember as a kind and compassionate mentor. With civility and dignity, Congressman Edwards fought the most important civil rights battles of our generation. He challenged discrimination against African-Americans, women, people with disabilities, and others seeking equal protection under the law. He was also a strong defender of free speech and a fierce advocate for the environment, well before protecting the environment was a common or popular cause. Congressman Edwards fought for the little guy and everyone knew it. In fact, when Congress would routinely fire all the food service workers on Capitol Hill as a quick fix to budget issues, the workers would appeal to the Congressman from California to stand up for them--even though he wasn't on the committee that made the decision. He truly was the conscience of the Congress. My most vivid memory of Congressman Edwards was in 1992, when I narrowly lost my first race for the House. He was the dean of the California delegation at the time, and I was attending the orientation for new Members of Congress, not knowing whether I would ultimately be elected. In those moments of great anxiety, he showed me great kindness. He walked with me, distracted me from the election news and demonstrated the class and sincerity that he was known for. Congressman Edwards had a tremendous impact on me and many other people across the country. His legacy is a reminder of Congress' capacity to do great things.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Many do not offer the necessary services for students with disabilities. It is a mistake to continue funding a program that fails to serve all students, damages the public school system, and disregards the District's right to choose its own education policy. I thank the gentlewoman from D.C. for yielding me the time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, for 50 years the National Collegiate Honors Council has been enriching the lives and education of honors program students around the country. I rise today to congratulate them on this historic accomplishment. Serving over 325,000 honors students at 800 colleges and universities, the NCHC is dedicated to excellence in education in diverse subject and curriculum areas. I would like to further honor the University of California, Riverside, in my home district. Since 1988 the University of California, Riverside has provided a world-class honors education to its students. Founded on the principle of strengthening the involvement of faculty in undergraduate teaching and, through doing so, improve the quality of undergraduate education, the University of California, Riverside's honors program has produced significant results. With their four-year honors program, the University has a program that provides intellectual growth, personal development, and social responsibility, at its core. The four-year honors program provides guidance and preparation to students, and allows entry portals to select students who demonstrated academic excellence, interest in research, or creative activities, that led to a senior thesis project. The robust honors program at The University of California, Riverside has proven to be at the pinnacle of education creating the global citizens of today and tomorrow.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out we keep getting back to this point about everybody voted for the SES provision that is only now being extended to all employees now, but I want to remind my colleagues that that provision was part of a large, large conference report that included the $10 billion to address the problems we had in Phoenix. There were 1,500 graduate medical education slots. It was a huge, huge, huge bill. There were a number of people who did have concerns about the provision that affected the SES employees, but given the enormity of the situation we were trying to address, I believe that many folks just believe that it was the best thing to do to come together on a bipartisan basis and pass a bill that addressed the situation in Phoenix. I also want to address another issue. H.R. 1994 does not protect whistleblowers to the extent that whistleblowers are protected now under the current regime. In fact, it creates extra hurdles for whistleblowers, and I bring this point up because we would not know about the terrible egregious situation in Phoenix without whistleblowers coming forward. What do I mean by that? This bill does nothing to protect the firing of a whistleblower who has not yet filed an official complaint before they even have the opportunity to report danger to patient safety, wrongdoing, malfeasance, or discrimination. This bill will encourage bad employees to file for whistleblower status to prevent themselves from being fired, and these bad employees will overburden the office of special counsel with frivolous complaints. Now, if you are an at-will employee and you are under threat of immediate dismissal, an immediate threat to your livelihood, that is even more of an intimidating situation for that employee not to want to come forward as a whistleblower. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill actually worsens the situation for whistleblowers and does not protect them more; it protects them less. It gives them extra burdens. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record that, as of last year, under the current due process regime in effect at the VA, 872 permanent employees were removed, 487 more resigned in lieu of being fired, and 958 probationary employees were terminated. So it is indeed very possible under the current due process regime for employees to be disciplined and dismissed. We need to work more closely with the VA to make sure that we empower managers to utilize the current processes in place. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to address again the fact that most of us did, in fact, vote for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act SES provision. I want to reiterate that the courts--not Congress, not the President--determine whether a law we pass comports with the Constitution. In hindsight, we should have given that SES provision closer scrutiny. We might have reacted a bit too hastily to the Phoenix scandal. We were all, I think, unified in our outrage. However, that SES provision is now working its way through the court system and is very well possibly going to be overturned. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my colleagues on the other side believe that we need to protect whistleblowers. It is precisely the at-will nature, making all of the 200,000 employees of the VA at- will employees, which makes them more vulnerable to the caprices of managers and makes them less likely to want to come forward as whistleblowers. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague, Chairman Miller of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has implied that my clear and present danger standard in the substitute that I have offered is too narrow and does not give the Secretary enough tools to dismiss bad employees. I respectfully disagree. Particularly in the case of the Phoenix VA, the hospital's director, Sharon Helman, clearly posed a threat to the health and safety of veterans. Under my substitute, she would have been immediately removed. Similarly, many of the speakers on the other side of the aisle cited a crackhouse case where a VA employee took a veteran to a crackhouse. Now, my substitute and the clear and present standard, the health and safety standard that we have put forward, would clearly have addressed that employee and would have made that employee immediately dismissible. Let me remind you again that VA does have current title 5 procedures that they have been using to remove poor-performing employees. We should encourage the VA to use them better, to use the tools that they have. I remind my colleagues that last year 872 permanent employees were removed, 487 more resigned in lieu of being fired, and 958 probationary employees were terminated. Now, the fact that the VA wait list scandal emerged out of Phoenix was because we do have protections for whistleblowers. They could be strengthened. Nevertheless, the current civil service protections, the due process protections, afforded those employees the security to move forward and to come forward as whistleblowers. Again, my amendment in the form of a substitute fixes the deficiencies of my good friend Chairman Miller's bill. I have said before that I believe his bill puts extra barriers in front of whistleblowers in coming forward. It complicates and makes more cumbersome their ability to come forward. If you are an employee who is under threat of dismissal and immediately losing your livelihood, that is a huge, huge barrier to your coming forward as a whistleblower. That is exactly what his bill would do. It would make everyone in the VA an at-will employee. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, for offering his amendment. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman and Representative Sinema. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the IG to identify problem employees at the VA, and it would prohibit the VA from giving performance pay to these identified employees. I believe this amendment could compromise the integrity of the VA inspector general and the ability of the VA IG to investigate whistleblower complaints and bring to light problems at the VA. The amendment would force the IG to concentrate its efforts on identifying bad managers by name rather than focusing on recommending solutions to problems and conducting thorough and complete investigations. Requiring the IG to forward anything submitted to the VA would interject Congress into the very manner in which the IG drafts and finalizes reports. This change would call into question the integrity of the investigations that Congress relies on to shape policy and to find solutions. Finally, I believe that this amendment is vaguely drafted and that it raises more questions than it seeks to answer. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. TAKANO. Reclaiming my time, let me just say that I believe the Constitution applies to the Senior Executive Service as well as all of the 300,000 employees of the Veterans Administration. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. TAKANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in quick response to my good friend, Chairman Miller, bringing up the issue of the SES provision, yes, most of us did vote for the Choice Act, the provision that dealt with the SES reform to make it easier to fire those employees. That number of employees is a very small number. It is about 400. We are talking about addressing the entire 300,000-strong employees. Let me just say that at the time I wish we had spent more time reviewing the constitutionality. I do believe the constitutionality of that action is also in question.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1994. We are all frustrated that the VA is not moving fast enough to hold bad employees accountable, but I do not believe H.R. 1994 would lead to real, long-term accountability at the VA. In fact, I believe it would have the opposite effect by possibly shielding poor-performing VA employees from ever being removed. This bill violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent regarding our Constitution's promise of due process rights. Our Constitution guarantees that we cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Our veterans were willing to lay down their lives to defend this basic promise. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that our Constitution gives Federal employees the right to due process, meaning fair notice and a chance to respond, before losing their jobs. As lawmakers, we do not have the power to revoke this constitutional principle of fairness and due process for a select group of people, no matter how outraged we may feel. I believe it is wrong to assume that VA employees are guilty until proven innocent. If H.R. 1994 were enacted, I believe courts could very well overturn any removals as a violation of those employees' due process rights. They could then reinstate and give backpay to those who were removed. Bad employees would become permanent fixtures at the VA. We all agree that VA needs to use the current tools it has more vigorously to remove poor-performing employees, but we should not throw out important constitutional protections to arbitrary actions simply because some claim it is too difficult to follow the law or be faithful to our basic principles of fairness. H.R. 1994 would provide a new tool to VA managers, but perhaps not the tool imagined by its supporters. Bad managers and political appointees would have the ability to threaten the livelihoods of honest VA workers trying to follow VA regulations and policy, thus reinforcing the culture of fear and reluctance to speak out against poor management or malfeasance at the VA. If these employees were fired, they would have very little opportunity to tell their side of the story. H.R. 1994 would make VA the only at-will workplace within the Federal Government. Veterans desperately need our Nation's top doctors, nurses, and counselors to choose to work at the VA, and it is already hard enough to recruit them away from the private sector. An article last week in USA Today found that VA has 41,500 unfilled medical jobs, ``forcing vets into costly private care.'' Removing basic civil service protections--and basic fairness--would make VA an even less desirable place to work and add to these recruiting woes. Keep in mind that over 30 percent of VA employees are veterans themselves. They deserve better than to find themselves in a workplace that strips them of basic constitutional protections--again, protections that they fought to defend. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the civil service using the VA as a test case. It would empower the very individuals who have often perpetuated the worst VA scandals--VA managers--to threaten the livelihood of hard-working, frontline VA employees and silence the voices of the whistleblowers we rely on to tell us when something is wrong. For all of our frustration with the VA, the continued existence of a nonpartisan civil service is vital if we are to fix the mess at the VA and provide our veterans with the benefits and services that we have promised them and that they have earned. As the Merit Systems Protection Board has stated in a report from May: ``Due process is available for the whistleblower, the employee who belongs to the `wrong' political party, the reservist whose periods of military service are inconvenient to the boss, the scapegoat, and the person who has been misjudged based on faulty information. Due process is a constitutional requirement and a small price to pay to ensure the American people receive a merit-based civil service rather than a corrupt spoils system.'' We should not, under the guise of ``accountability,'' destroy one of the best tools we have to provide the benefits and services we have promised our veterans. That tool is a nonpartisan and nonpolitical VA workforce. We need to take steps to protect the vast majority of the high- performing VA workforce from being fired at the whim of capricious or retaliatory managers or political appointees, not to make it even easier. I believe H.R. 1994 violates our Constitution. The administration has issued a veto threat, and if enacted, H.R. 1994 would not stand up in a court of law. Ultimately, veterans would be harmed the most when courts overturn this policy and then reinstate bad employees at the VA. Instead of scapegoating the vast majority of hard-working VA employees, Congress should look for real opportunities to reform our civil service in a manner that is constitutional, while providing adequate resources and better policies to provide outcomes at the VA. I reserve the balance of my time.