quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum are be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to to executive session to consider calendar number 633. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of state. keith m. harper of maryland for the rambg rank of ambassador during his tenure of service to the u.n. human rights council. mr. reid: madam president, there is a cloture at the desk on this matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of keith m. harper of maryland for the rank of ambassador during his tenure of service as united states representative to the u.n. human council signed intie 17 stories as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 755. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: commodity futures trading commission, sharon y. bowen of new york to be a commissioner. mr. reid: i send a cloture to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of sharon y. bowen of new york to

be a commissioner of the commodity futures trading commission signed intie 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 691. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary. mark g. mastroianni of massachusetts to be united states district judge.

mr. reid: i send a cloture to the desk. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloachg cloture. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of mark g. mastroianni of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now ask, madam president, that we move to executive session to consider

calendar number 692. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: bruce howe hendricks of south carolina to be united states district judge. mr. reid: there is a cloture petition on file with the clerk, be ordered to report it, please. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture. cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of bruce howe hendricks of south carolina to be united states district judge for the district of south carolina signed other by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the

mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbered 733. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: tonya s. chutkan of the district of columbia to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent -- madam president, i failed to recognize that there is a cloture petition that has been filed, and ski that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of tanya s. chutkan of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 798. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of health and human services, sylvia mat mathews burwell of west virginia

to be under secretary. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion on file. i ask that it be reported. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of sylvia matthews burwell to be secretary of health and human services, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, snored be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider nominations to calendar number 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808,

809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk for the air force, army, marine corps, navy, the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order to any of the nominations and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 342. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 342, h.r. 724, an act to amend the clean air act, and so forth.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that h.r. 724 be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendars number 360, h.r. 862, and calendar number 123, h.r. 316. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment to h.r. 316 be agreed to, that the bills as amended where amended be read a third time, passed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered -- and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4032 and the senate proceed to its consideration, the consideration of calendar number 344, s. 2198

en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure en bloc. mr. reid: madam president, it's my understanding that my request was to this point granted, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that feinstein-murkowski substitute amendment to s. 2198, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bills as amended where applicable be read a third time, passed en bloc, that the feinstein-murkowski amendment, the title of s. 2198 be agreed

to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 1726. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1726, an act to award a congressional gold medal to the 65th infantry regiment. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 4488. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4488, an act to make technical corrections to

two bills enabling the presentation of congressional gold medals, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the following bills en bloc -- pardon me, madam president. they are not bills. they are resolutions. s. res. 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 and 461. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will receive -- will proceed on the measures en bloc. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles where applicable be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. con. res. 36. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent

resolution 36, permitting the use of the rotunda of the capitol for a ceremony to award the congressional gold medal to the next of kin or personal representative of raul wallenberg. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment or recess of the senate from friday, may 23-tuesday, june 3, senators rockefeller and reed of rhode island be allowed to sign bills and resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment or recess of the senate, the president pro tempore and minority and majority leaders be permitted to make appointments to boards and conferences authorized by law by concurrent action of the two houses, by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only and no

business conducted on the following dates and times, that the following -- and following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session -- friday, may 25 at 10:00 a.m. tuesday, may 27 at noon. friday, may 30 at 2:00 p.m. and the senate adjourn on friday, may 30 until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 2, 2014. that following the prayer and pledge, morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the date, that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 5:30, the senate proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 633. there be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to the cloture vote on the hearp nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, madam president, the next roll call vote will be at 5:30 on monday, june 2. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until the house-passed bill giving the veterans affairs secretary more power to fire senior staff.

that request was objected to by senate veterans affairs committee chair bernie sanders. next, the floor remarks from senators rubio and sanders. it's a half hour. >> president, i am here on the floor today to talk about an issue that has received a tremendous amount of attention and rightfully so over the last few weeks, the outrage of what is happening at the veterans administration. certainly people need to be held accountable. this should not be and really is not a partisan issue. i think that we all have a deep commitment to helping our veterans, the men and women who spend time away from their families and put their lives on a line to defend this country, to whom we make proper -- promises that when they come home they will be taking care of, especially those harmed in the service of our country, and so i think we are all both are broken and outraged that, in fact, the agency that is supposed to take care of them is not doing so. in that think what is even more

troubling is this appears to be a systemic problem. not simply an isolated instance and phoenix or some other institution but is now rearing its ugly head in every part of the country will look into it. you can imagine not just as an american am i concerned about this, but as a floridian. florida is a state with an enormous amount of veterans, including my brother as an example. men and women who have served our country with great dignity and now have medical and health care needs that require immediate and urgent attention. just a moment ago on a television interview aired was brought to my attention, the story of a young man, a gulf war veteran who has a brain says to has been waiting for weeks to even be able to see anyone, in fact months with no end in sight as to when that will end. this needs to be addressed. yesterday we all watched with great attention as the president addressed this issue and expressed outrage, rightfully so, at what is occurring. what the president said is at -- next week there will be an

initial report and ultimately won at the end of the month about what needs to be done to improve the system and who needs to be held accountable. i think that is critical here because one of the things that we are learning is not simply that there is a systemic problem in the veterans administration but there has been a deliberate effort by some within the administration to cover it up or make things look better than they actually are. and that is troubling. the immediate reaction when an agency is confronted with the problem should be, we need to fix this. instead, the reaction by some seems to be, we need to cover this, make this look better than it really is, diminish this. that is completely unacceptable. and people need to be held accountable to this. if in the united states senate, among the men and women that served and worked here for us, someone was derelict in their duty, they would lose their job. if in the private sector someone did not do their job, they would lose that job. in the military chain of

command, if a commanding officer of a unit did not do his or her job there would lose their job, and they're superiors would have the ability to immediately discipline them. and so, i think, many americans would be shocked to learn that even if the secretary wanted today to fire executive managers within the agency he cannot. instead, he has to institute a long and drawn-out process leading to the absurd conclusion that you are more likely to receive a bonus or promotion than you are to have been fired because of mismanagement and dereliction of duty. that is completely unacceptable. there is one thing we have to remember, the enormous invest majority of the va more than 300,000 employees and executives are dedicated and hard-working people. their department well-documented reluctance to ensure leaders are being held accountable for mistakes is not only tarnishing

its reputation, it unfortunately is impacting many of these hard-working young men and women who are doing their jobs within the agency. and so what i did a few weeks ago in conjunction with my colleague from florida, jeff miller, is file a bill. and it is a very simple and straightforward bill. here is what the bill says. the va management accountability act of 2014 would simply give the va secretary the power to fire or demote senior executive service employees based upon their performance. it is a power similar to the power the secretary of defense already has, for example, to remove military general officers from command. of course, the power that any one of our hundred centers has to remove a member of the staff. this bill passed yesterday and house of representatives, and it is sitting here on the desk in the senate. passed yesterday with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of members of both parties who are outraged by what is

occurring and want to bring accountability. .. yesterday, the white house indicated that they are very open to this concept and that in fact they were interacting with leaders on it. we called the white house and asked them about it. they also indicated an openness to it, though they did share they have some keynes. they didn't make -- they did have some concerns. they didn't make any edits to the bill but said they were supportive of this concept. earlier today in an appropriations committee, senator moran offered this very bill as an amendment, and it was adopted by voice vote without a single objection. and so here's where we stand: and so here's where we stand: without a single objection. zahir is where we stand. i have come to this floor here today to get my colleagues the opportunity to send this to the president before we leave for the memorial day recess. we have an opportunity right now to take up to build a house just passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority enacted into law by unanimous consent and send it to the president said he can sign it so that a week from

now and a month from now when the results of that investigation come to his desk and that of the secretary they can discipline and/or fire the people who have not done their jobs and to put our veterans in harm's way with to the services the va is supposed to be offering. that is all this bill does read nothing more and nothing less. we are giving a secretary appointed by this president confirmed by the senate the opportunity to be able to fire employees of this agency that are not doing their jobs. that is all we are asking for. it's not more competitive than that. and i do not understand why anyone would not support the concept. it's right here for us. for everyone around here talking about how we need to quickly act on this here is your chance in a very straightforward bill. my hope is that it will pass unanimously to so we can send a bipartisan message. we are not telling them who they need to fire. we are simply giving the

secretary the power to hold accountable the people that work underneath him and future secretaries as well. that's all this bill does. and i hope we will be able to do that here today. i think if it were put to a roll call vote on the floor it would pass by an overwhelming majority as well and so that's what madam president i ask for unanimous consent of the senate proceed the senate proceed to the media consideration of house resolution 4031 which was received by the house, received from the house and i further ask consent the bill be read a third time and passed. the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate. >> is there objection? >> reserving the right to object. madam president i think senator video for his remarks and i think many of us share the exact same concerns that he has raised. when men and women put their

lives on the line to defend our country they are entitled to the best quality health care that we can provide to them. in my view, and i think in his a few of urgently -- virtually every veterans organization the va does provide good quality health care to those people who access the va system but there are very serious problems in terms of access. there are serious problems regarding reading lists. there are serious problems regarding the possibility of hospitals keeping two sets of books and we are going to get to the root of those issues. but one thing we do want to do madam president is politicize the well-being of america's -- and let me "back to you if i might from an editorial in the "washington post" today. this is what the editorial says.

the men and women who have served their country in uniform deserve that are then denial of the medicare they need. so it is crucial to get to the bottom of our nation's misconduct at the nation's veterans hospitals. america's veterans also deserve not to be treated as so many ponds in election-year gamesmanship. with that said it is proving to be the case in congress is increasingly hyperbolic response and then it goes on. to quote the extent of wrongdoing is unclear doesn't seem to matter much to those more interested in scoring political points. how else to explain the knee-jerk rules may be mainly by republicans in the house and senate for the veterans secretary shinseki or aimed at va workers end of quote. let me just make this point. i happen to think that the bill

that was passed in the house yesterday has many important provisions which i happen to agree with. but as the senator from florida knows we have not held a hearing on this legislation. it is some of us are old-fashioned enough to know that maybe votes in the senate might want to know what is in the bill before we vote on it. the senator from florida is right. it passed the house and in my view a similar bill containing some of the salient provisions in the house will pass the senate. but it is important that will be discussed. and i will tell you madam president that one of the concerns that i have is i do not want to see the va politicized. it is one thing to say which i agree with that if a hospital

administrator is incompetent, the secretary should be able to get rid of that administrator without a whole lot of paperwork i agree with that. it is another thing to say that if the new administradministr ation comes in whether his democratic or republican that somebody sitting in the secretary's office wants to get rid of 20 or 30 or 50 hospital administered is because we have other people that we want in there and we can just get rid of them. they don't have a right to defend themselves. i worry about that. so clearly we have to discuss the issue which suggests the senator from florida understands it's probably a good idea to discuss an issue before we vote on it. so bottom line for me on this, yes. it every top administrator at the va has got to be held accountable. i do not want to see an enormous amount of paperwork and obstruction go forward before we

can get rid of incompetent people. but before we vote on legislation might be a good idea to understand the full implications of the legislation and there are some aspects of it that i think some of us have concerns with. and let me just make a few more points on that issue. i would hope that the senator from florida would agree with me that we want to make certain that va is able to recruit and retain high-quality leaders and managers especially when the va is in competition with other federal agencies for those leaders. to that end it is vital to ensure that we enforce environment at va where individuals feel as if they are protected from the political plans and that's the point i made earlier. there are other areas that concern me in terms of setting precedence that may not be a good idea but the bottom line is there are provisions in the bill that passed the house and

senator rubio's going to work with them and the administration wants to work with them. but let me just make another point if i might. and that is i am really very happy to see as much concern being paid to veterans needs in the last few weeks. i'm very happy to see this chairman of the committee and i would say to senator rubio and others that he is well aware that the veterans community faces many of many serious problems above and beyond what we are hearing in the last few weeks with regards to the va. we have 200,000 men and women who have come back from iraq and afghanistan either with ptsd or tbi and i assume my friend from florida agrees with me that they need to get the quality care that they deserve.

i just had the privilege senator rubio of being an honored an hour or so ago by the goldstar wives. those are the widows of men who died in action. we have been legislation and i brought to the floor which received 56 votes in one senator was absent. there were 57 votes but only two republicans supported that bill and that he'll would make it possible for goldstar wives, wives who have watched their husbands be able to get a college education to the post-9/11 g.i. bill. i suspect that senator rubio and many other support that. had passed that's the bill that i brought to the floor. we have right now as i'm sure senator rubio knows because the problem exists in vermont and i'm sure in florida we have 70-year-old women in most cases who are taking care of disabled vets. they don't get the support they need. they are on duty 24/7.

they save the government monday because those wounded veterans are staying at home. they need some help and i want to see them get help and i hope senator rubio would work with me to made sure they get bad health. senator rubio as aware as you are madam president that there's great concern not only in the military and dod but in the civilian sector about too much use of opiates to treat problems. we have a real serious problem with that. we have language in our overall vision that extends health to the va to move forward to give our veterans alternative treatments other than opiates. and we think that's a very important use of legislation. we have legislation that has passed which provides five years of free health care in the va for those who served in iraq and afghanistan. we think it's important to extend that to 10 years. many veterans out there do not

have access to quality dental care. it's a problem in vermont and i suspect it's a problem in florida. we want those veterans to get that as well. there's bipartisan support madam president for defense appropriations for va. we have that in our legislation. while the va is making good progress in cutting back the backlog in moving from paper to a digital system i want to see them do better. we have language in there that would push them to do better. just this morning senator rubio senator burr and i were at the hearing which dealt with the educational problems facing veterans who come back from the battlefield and go to college and have problems there. what most of us think is that veteran should be able to take advantage of in-state tuition in this state in which they are

living. sexual assault has been a very serious problem in the military. we want the va to do better than that. etc. etc. so madam president i am very glad that my republican friends virtually all of them and i want to thank senator heller and senator moran for voting for this bill along with every democrat but i'm very glad that my republican colleagues are now beginning to focus on veterans issues. and we need to step up to the plate and help not only our veterans but their families. that's the legislation that i have moving forward so what i say to senator rubio your legislation has many important provisions which i happen to agree with. there are some that i think need work on and we are going to hold a hearing on that legislation and other legislation in early june. so i respectfully object to that legislation right now but i would ask unanimous consent that

the senate proceed to calendar number 297 s. 1950 with the sanders amendment which is at the desk and s. 1982 the comprehensive veterans health and benefits and military time in pay restoration act. that's the comprehensive legislation supported by virtually every veterans organization in the country millions of veterans and the american people that says thank you to the veterans who put their lives on the line to defend this country. we are going to be there for you so i would ask that this legislation be passed and i would ask unanimous consent that happened. >> madam president? >> objection is heard to the request from the senator from florida. is there objection? >> madam president? >> the senator from florida. >> reserving the right to object to want to just a couple of points. the first is on the point of politicizing and i agree. that's why for example i have come forward to have the

secretary resign. at times there are people that are clearly not doing their job and it is our job as overseers of the executive branch and government to step forward and say that. i've actually said let's give the secretary of chance and see what happens. i may end up asking for is recognized -- resignation as more information comes up at a minimum i think he deserves the opportunity and his successors deserve the opportunity to hold the people underneath them is honorable. they don't have the power to do that now. also notice how i came to the floor today and said absolutely nothing any partisan nature. i'm not claiming this is a crisis created by democrats or for another party. on the contrary is that this is an issue that has had strong bipartisan support in the house ends drawn bipartisan support of the committee today. this issue may become politicized in the sense that this seems all of the reluctance to move forward on it is coming from one side of the equation

but that does not necessarily have to be. i would tell you right now but i believe this came for both the overwhelming majority of the numbers of the majority would support this legislation that i put forward today. two other points that were raised. there have been no hearings on this. i would respectfully disagree. there was a hearing on it today. this specific language was offered in committee and with little debate and no dissent the past by voice vote. for those watching at home here's what a voice vote means. they don't even call the roll. they basically tell members is anyone against us? no one said they were. this language was adopted today in committee. here's my second problem. i'm glad to hear it there will be -- with regard to this issue. i'm not claiming the bill time asking us to take up today and pass would solve all of the problems. there are still serious systemic problems within the agency and the hearing needs to address that and find responsible solutions to those problems.

so a hearing is called for. what i'm asking for is a very simple thing. give the secretary appointed by president of the party different than my own give the secretary the power to fire employees underneath him that are not doing their jobs so that they know they're being held accountable. that's all i'm asking here. that's all this bill does. it's that straightforward and i don't think any of us want to go home for the memorial day recess when asked what are you doing on this issue our answer is well in about 15 days we are going to have a hearing on this crisis. meanwhile, meanwhile the list goes on a nonof the outrage is coming out of this agency. every single day more cases are coming out of veterans that are not being treated fairly and properly and in some cases in my opinion criminally by this incompetence we see in some out of the veterans of administration. this is a matter of urgency because while we are gone on recess for president next week

is going to get a report a preliminary report on what's going on. it may very well be that he wants to see some people fired and it may well be the secretary will want to fire some people in senior executive physicians and they will not be able to do that. all i'm asking is not to give us the power to fire them but to give the administration the power to fire them and hold them accountable. as far as the bill that the chairman has offered here this bill has argued and debated in their problems with this bill. it has many good elements in it and it also has initiated a time winner nation owes close to $18 trillion that was the reason why so many on my side of the islet just did to it and that's why i would object to the motion made here today by the senator from vermont. >> objection is heard. >> madam president? >> the senator from vermont. >> let me reiterate. when i quoted the "washington post" and i talked about

politicalization i wasn't suggesting that the senator from florida was being political in the floor today. what i was suggesting about politicizing the va is if you have a situation for example for a new secretary comes in for a new administration comes in and can fire wholesale hospital administrators that i think without their ability to defend themselves i think that is not the kind of system that the senator from florida would want and certainly i would want. so how do we address this issue is important. i would suspect that while this issue may have been taken up in committee today i doubt very much that there were any witnesses who testified about this bill. second of all i found it interesting the senator from

florida said in these right at the republicans have raised this point. the legislation that i introduced which again has the support of the american legion dav vietnam vets veterans of foreign wars iraq and afghanistan veterans of america paralyzed veterans of america. he is right it costs money. he is writes this country has a deficit. he would be right if he said that those -- going to war in iraq and afghanistan has cost us trillions of dollars which is one of the reasons we have a deficit we have today. but i believe from the bottom of my heart madam president that if we go to war if we spend trillions of dollars on that war that when our men and women come home from war some wounded in body and someone did in spirit i don't want people telling me it's too expensive to take those

wounded veterans. i don't accept that. if you think it's too expensive to take care of veterans don't send them to war. so madam president let me reiterate my view as the senator from florida has raised an important issue. we want to address it as quickly as we can and we are going to address other issues facing our veterans who on this memorial day need to know that we are there for them and their families. >> madam president how much time remains? >> under the previous order the time from -- until 1:40 is reserved for the senator from kentucky. >> i'm not seeing the senator from kentucky. i would ask for a minute of the time to make a following point. >> who has the time?

>> the time is under the control of the senator from kentucky or his designee. >> let me suggest to the senator from florida. you want to take a minute or two and i'll take a minute or two? >> that is fine with me. i just want to close with this point. >> the senator from florida. >> thank you madam president. a bunch of other issues were raised about the cost of the war in iraq and how could we aren't spending the money for the veterans. i think that's a debate that should be adding continued to be had in this country and who there are plenty of other places in the budget to find it. we should work to find that money to make sure the cost is not an issue but right now the central debate here on the issue of what's happening at the va

has not centered around the fact that the koskinen away. the central debate in the president the other day in his press conference that he held the central focus is on the management of the operations of this agency and critical to the effectiveness of any agency the ability to hold people accountable including by taking away their jobs. think about this for a moment. the argument that a new director can come in and fire the people that work underneath him that could be made for virtually any organization on the planet. you can make that argument for staff in the senate that we want to protect himself a new senators elected from the state they can't hire their own staff. the point i'm trying to make here is this is very simple. there are a lot of other issues we can talk about. there's one issue i want us to focus on today and that is this. we have a chance today before we leave for the memorial day recess to pass a bill that gives the president the secretary president obama appointed the power to fire executives underneath him if they haven't

done their job. we have the chance to pass it as a house bill. all we have to do is agree to it and goes to the president to sign. we can go home and say we have institute accountability on this important issue. we are walking away from that opportunity. >> we are not walking away from anything. we are not going to walk away from anything but we are going to do it right and again the argument that when you want a health care health care system which has 151 medical centers and some 900 community-based outreach clinics has reentered thousand employees that a new president can wipe out without necessarily giving people the right to defend themselves does not make any sense to me. so we are going to look at the positive provisions in senator rubio's bill and i think there

are. senator rubio do you know what? i think we will reach an agreement and i think we will be happy. it's going to be good bill. maybe we can reach consensus. on the other hand i do want to reiterate the point i made about money. as senator rubio was right that one of the reasons that we only had two republican votes for a comprehensive piece of legislation that dresses the issues that the veterans community brought to us is on the sanders bill. it's a bill that listen to the needs of veterans and said once again i would just say to the senator from florida i don't think he disagrees with me. i was literally an hour ago at a function of the goldstar wives organization. these are women who have lost their husbands in battle. i think under the post-9/11 g.i. bill that good and important piece of legislation wives should have the right to use that legislation to go to

college and get an education so they can get better jobs. senator rubio if i brought that bill to the bill today i would suspect that have unanimous support but i think the bill that i brought forth many provisions have unanimous support in many provisions were republican provisions bipartisan provisions. so i'd say to my friend from florida thank you. your bill is an important bill and it's going to be dealt with and it will be dealt with in the very near future. >> delays and backlogs cases at va medical centers was also also topic on the other side of the capital today. house speaker john boehner was asked about it at his weekly legislative reefing. >> i did not call for general shinseki to resign although i'm getting a little closer. another point. this is about one person. this is in about the secretary. it's about the entire system

underneath him. the general can leave and we can wait around for months for the nomination process and we get a new person at the disaster continues. so i don't want people to get confused about what the shining ball is here. the shiny ball is a systemic failure of this agency. >> why are you getting closer? >> the reports that continue to come are appalling. these are men and women who served our country and we can't just let them down. we have let them die. this is awful stuff and someone ought to be held accountable for it.

>> host: joining us representative oversight and investigations subcommittee. welcome sir read. >> guest: glad to be here. >> host: what did you think about the president's actions concerning the va? >> guest: obviously there to be taken and we have a situation where we are treating 8 million veterans in this country and 22 million of us.

i'm a veteran and certainly the va system a lot of veterans depend on that for the health care and a lot of veterans that their only access to health care. the president took i thought he was a little delayed in doing it. we have been pushing another committee these for months and finally came when the news broke that it he came to a head. >> host: you are pushing answers for months. explain that. >> guest: we have been investigating. we have a small committee and our subcommittee oversight and investigative subcommittee is small and the staff is small so we have limited resources but there are things for them since i've been in the congress for five and half years and we have investigated problems with colonoscopies and areas things during the time that did make the national news very much. this one did he cause it involves the possibility of loss of life. certainly we will find out that the president did what he had to do. >> host: did you get direct answers and did you ask

secretary shinseki about these things? >> guest: it's difficult to get answers from the va and it's a large bureaucratic system. let me lay out how big the system is. 152 medical centers across the country 800 outpatient centers and observe the veterans very well and numerous others. that's just the health care side and then you have the marriage benefit site so it's a massive organization. .. committee, do you have the resources to carry out your mission? his answer has always been, yes i do. he has been very generous -- congress has been very generous. i know there is an independent line. the one committee i said on is totally nonpartisan. it is about taking care of

veterans. host: there is a chart in investors business daily. the number of veterans under the care of the ba dropping since 2000. capitals spending increases. is this a volume problem? guest: that is veterans now alive. we are spending more money on each veteran than we did 10 years ago by a lot. about thed you think volume increase from iraq and afghanistan? west: 77% of the veterans -- that iscare of not it. host: should the secretary have been fired? guest: i like him. i have tremendous respect. if you earned four stars in the met army -- the people i

have highly praised the men. having said that, this is happening under his watch. should goink we out and say, you need to be fired now. we need to get fo the facts. the inspector general will do a willjob and our committee parallel that investigation. i can assure you, it won't be a single lens. host: you expect hearings and looking into it yourself? guest: no doubt about it. host: what do you think about the move? guest: i don't have any problem with the administration having some eyes and ears. if i were the president, i would want somebody there. he has a person, a secretary that should be able to report directly to him.

at the secretary has not done his job, he should go. if that has happened. we don't know that it has or has not. i'm glad we have investigated because at 26 centers out there, may not know exactly what has happened. this is what is alleged to have happened. a veteran would come in and ask for an appointment and they would take you and enter your information into a computer. instead of hitting the enter button, they would see you in another area and entered into another system that was not logged in the general system. .ow you have two veterans one that has a long list of people and one list that gets you in within two weeks. your name is moved over to this list. if that happened, heads should roll. are rewardede based on meeting the metrics that the v.a. sets up.

if they get a bonus and the person out there gets a $9,000 bonus. die and somebody got a bonus -- host: the house asking a bill that would give the secretary more flexible the on who to fire. the supported -- do you support it? guest: absolutely. almost everybody supported it. if you were the ceo, if you have somebody in there, you need to have the power to get rid of those people if they are not doing their job. that is what you do in the private sector. you go ahead and remove that person and put somebody in who can do the job. we give the secretary some extra power. host: some people concerned about the bill itself. guest: i don't know what they are concerned -- i have no concern. i want him to be able to do his job and not hide behind a bureaucracy. the v.a. is a huge system.

over 320,000 police. host: what do you think about the voting in the senate? guest: they should pass in the senate. why wouldn't you want to give him the power? if you want to ask questions about the v.a., (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3882 for independents. (202) 585-3883 for veterans. caller: i appreciate why the gentleman is saying -- even -- my i am a democrat husband is a veteran from the vietnam era.

when you schedule your andintments, you get -- this has been going on for some time. it most doctors would not see him within a month's time. he would get glasses and it would be eight months before he would get hise eye exam and it would be eight months before he would get his glasses. they outsourced it. still -- he still cannot see out of these classes. to wait two months before they will set up an eye exam for him. then it's almost a year before he ever gets glasses. something has to be done. myfar as medical records,

husband can't get them. first of all, thank your husband for his service. i served in 1973 and 74. yourtainly appreciate service. i share your frustration. the ba has the ability to outsource that into the private community. -- the v.a. has the ability to outsource that intohe pri i agree with you completely, and the reason i agree with you is, i have had some qaeda problems myself. and you are absolutely correct. you have to get it in a timely fashion. one of the things at the va that we're going to push them to do is to allow veterans, like your husband -- if you can't provide glasses within eight months, some amount to a private practitioner and let them get the glass is within about a week >> host: next on the republican line.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. my husband is a vietnam veteran with the disability. and we are also retired from the federal government. unfortunately, what many people do not understand is, the people who work for the va just like any other agency in the government, it does not matter who is the president, it does not matter who is the head of the agency. it is the people who are underneath. they are the ones that are the problem. i remember people saying, we are getting a new head of the agency. maybe things will change. things never change. those people do whatever they want because they know nothing is going to happen to them. but my husband, like i said, is a vietnam veteran. right now they have found he has a heart condition. and even though he was -- it was found out at the v.a., we

already made arrangements for him to see a cardiologists outside of the v.a. why? because we are able to have issuance through the federal government plus medicare. >> host: thank you, caller. >> guest: i hear exactly what you're saying to my first. second, i think your husband for his service in the vietnam. a little over a week from now will be going to vietnam back again for a visit. i am looking forward to that. many of the vietnam era veterans have demons we need to flush. i agree with you. look, we should be about serving veterans. i practice medicine with 31 years in tennessee. we have a wonderful v.a. medical center not 1 mile from our front door. i know those people. when i came to washington one of the passions i had was to work with and serve veterans because i know how neglected our veterans or after the vietnam war, and we should never, ever do that again to our veterans, ever to our veterans. and i don't care on our

committee whether you or democrat, republican, independent, never voted in your life, you serve this country honorably as a military veteran, and this country owes you some benefits back. and my job appears to see that we get the resources for veterans to be able to have what they need. now, me, personally, i am a category eight. what that means is, i earn too much money to go to the v.a. i am more than willing -- i talked to folks all the time who are in a situation where they are very blessed by this country. i have good private health care, like you do, and i can go somewhere else for my care. many veterans cannot do that, and i want to make sure deserving veterans can get to the front of the line. >> host: do you hear complaints from that a veteran center in johnson, tennessee for care? >> guest: rarely. it is amazing. people have talked about how good the care is. obviously i know many of the veterans there because their neighbors of mind. and i think one of the problems that we will see in the v.a. is

systemic in the country in health care. it became harder and harder for me to find -- i am an ob/gyn doctor, but it became harder and harder for me to find a primary-care doctor for my patients, and to restore family practitioner, and i think the v.a. is probably having a problem binding primary care physicians, just as we are in the civilian world. >> host: of your act -- asked about the role of private contractors direct managerial control. will you go after them? is that a concern? >> guest: if they're is a problem, sure. if they're is a private physician that, like me, for instance, i will see patients from the v.a. they would send them to me to see. maybe they did not have in ob/gyn doctor. i will see those patients. sure, if you have someone who is misbehaving, miscoding, doing whatever, absolutely. >> host: there is v.a. over said? >> guest: absolutely. >> host: next up is austin, texas.

that is the wrong line. independent line. hello. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call this morning. thank you, representative, for your time. you already answered my first question regarding where you see if your health care. i work in the tech industry and we use the term about eating our own dog food, and that usually makes our product a little bit better. i wonder if you would support legislation that would require our elected representatives to receive their health care through the v.a. system and possibly to that effort improve the v.a. system? >> guest: i appreciate your call. i would go to the v.a. hospital in johnson city, tennessee in a heartbeat, and i don't think anyone would be able to look at it more carefully. i spent 31 years in tennessee teaching at the medical school and also seeing private patients absolutely i would.

does it mean there are not v.a. centers around the country that are not doing their job? there obviously are. and my position here on the oversight investigation subcommittee is to investigate those and find out. that is our job. the management job is the secretary's job. our job is to be sure we provide the funds they need, administration brings their budget down to less. by the way, one of the things we have done here, you guys do in taxes which i like a lot to you guys have a 2-year budget cycle down there. legislature comes in, pass the bills, and are done the following year. we are now doing that with advanced appropriations for v.a. we had to shut down last october , the v.a. never missed a late because they're appropriations were advanced. and we are already talking about 2016. let me give you an example why that is important. the fiscal year finishes october october 1 -- september 30th. if we had appropriated the money , if congress had done its job, the v.a. did not know

whether they could hire a nurse, doctor, technician, or anyone working there. now they do, know they have the money, can better staff, and it is a much better system with a 2-year budget. >> host: the washington times did a front-page story taking a look at wait times and delays according to the freedom of information act showing these problems extended back to the bush administration. the think this type of wrongdoing at v.a. hospitals is something new? >> guest: oh, no. as happened before. i don't know whether this particular thing, i don't know whether that has happened before, but delays has happened. it has been a chronic problem with the v.a. of getting in and was involved. the reason is, remember, there are 22 million veterans, but only about 8 million are served through the v.a. health system and disability, the veterans benefits side. only serves about one-third of all veterans'. >> host: as a medical person, is their way to streamline that? >> guest: i think there are. in the system, when you get a

top-down system, which the v.a. is, does not work as nimbly as my private office to it. i made the decisions. we can move very quickly. anytime you get into rules, regulations, books that they have to follow, it is really frustrating sometimes for me to see how slow it works and how hard changes to occur. that is one reason we passed the bill to give the secretary some tools to do that. >> host: does that mean less rules and regulations? >> guest: if i could be in charge, i would absolutely do that, to try to streamline things. and i think what i would do also is put good people in charge of the v.a. medical center and hold them accountable. that is what we do in our medical center at home. we hire a ceo. if he does not do the job we did another. >> host: on the republican line. tennessee. go ahead. >> caller: hello, mr. phil roe

thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to, i guess, make a couple of comments. you know, if this -- is something similar to this would have happened in the private sector, every one of you would have been requiring immediately that these people be fired, their pensions be taken away, a criminal action be taken against them. it just seems like in the government's that the majority of people -- and i'm not saying everybody -- but a large number of people have an attitude that they cannot do anything to me. i can do whatever i want, and especially during this administration it seems that it is so lax there is no oversight from anything. that actually feels to me that this president just does not want to engage with anyone unless it is hollywood. >> guest: well, i think there are different management side --

styles. let me just tell you what i would do. if i was secretary of the v.a. -- and i am a get out and meet people type of guy. i would just show up at a v.a. medical center a couple 34 times a month. i would to show up there unannounced. i would go through the medical center and talk to the patients. that is what i did as a physician practicing medicine. i knew who i worked for, which with the patients to read what you should be working -- to you should be working for are the veterans. that is what the veterans administration hospital is set up for. look, i think you have to be accountable. if the facts come out, people knew what was going on down the food chain, then people have to go. >> host: rep. roe, you were asked why it is hard to fire someone in government. let me change that. why is it fact -- hard to fire someone at the v.a.? >> guest: there are rules and regulations, union rules, civil service rules, all of these rules. and some of those are good

because you should not be able to just walk in and fire someone because i don't like you. there should because. as we have in the private sector, we have to have cause to fire somebody. but that is why, and there are layers of protection that have built up over decades. >> host: so the bill that passed in the house, how would that knocked down? >> guest: what it says is, in this certain circumstances -- and it was fairly limited to 450 or so of the top executives in the v.a. >> host: up next independent line. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i work for the v.a. for over 30 years at the hospital and national level. i look at this problem, and it is about speaking truth to power , you know, for people who are down the food chain and see these things going on. you want to do something about

it, but you tell your superior and they don't want to know because then they have to do something about it. and if you go to the ig, you know, after you have told your supervisor and the ig starts poking around in your area and they know it was you. so what happens is, the people who really care passionately about the mission of the agency in the up suffering retaliation from superiors for speaking up. and trillion note -- i know, you know, secretary shinseki spoke truth to power in congress before he was -- he was in the military, and he paid the price for that. he certainly is not someone who should be held accountable for this situation because he wants to know. what is striking to me -- once the hearing the other day -- is that under secretary for health, you know, he was not telling shinseki what

he knew. and that is why his resignation was expected the next day from secretary shinseki. >> host: thank you, caller. >> guest: first of all, thank you. i spend almost a year in virginia, last year in the military. i have fond memories of where you live, and thank you for your 30 years of service to our veterans in this country. and i think you are right. part of that is the culture you talked about. you would hope that you work in a system where your focus is to take care of veterans. that is your job, not to take care of your little spot and job, but the veterans are your mission. admission, that very vision should come from the top. and you should be encouraged. i will tell you, my hat is off to doctors would, i think, in arizona who was the whistle-blower. i am sure he has taken a lot of grief. >> host: some type of muscle

blower protection? >> guest: they do. she is correct. you still work in a shop, and people talked. >> host: quicker ville, california on our veterans line. this is william. thank you for joining us. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been in the v.a. system for 20 years. i have a couple of questions. first of all, why do we now have to pay a copay for our medication? second, your comment about it too weak. yes, you get your appointment within two weeks. however -- well, let me say you get it scheduled within two weeks. however, week before your appointment they call and reschedule you for another two weeks, and this has been going on and going on and going on. an example, i had to have a hip replacement. i started with that last year of june and did not get the operation until this year february. so what is going on with that? >> host: william -- >> guest: william, thank you

for your service. you must be a pretty early out there in california watching as. i think -- for instance, i will give you an example in my own local v.a. we don't have enough for the pd people. they probably don't have enough orthopedics surges in your area to do your -- once the doctor says, william, you need to have your hip replaced. and the copays, i don't know what your financial situation is i cannot answer that. certainly were veterans are able to pay a little more, i don't have a problem with that. look, i myself personally have been richly blessed. many veterans have been very successful in life. i think most of us, like myself, don't mind paying a little more than some other veteran who has not been as fortunate. >> host: mike in wisconsin on our independent line. >> caller: good morning.

back into the 70's when i got out of the service i applied for my gi bill, and, of course, you remember president reagan and his economic advisers, that g.i. bill was considered welfare and i could not get a pell grant. but i know as a senator or representative of state that you could step in and do something immediate, like bob dole did you is republican, and say that is not right. but he is a veteran. david stockman has been on c-span. the trickle-down theory is not working. my question to you is as a leader, why aren't you immediately calling for the veterans to go directly that need help now, go directly to a hospital now and get help? >> guest: well, mike, you had a lot of things. first of all, let me talk about the gi bill for a second. i used the g.i. bill and i get

out of the army in 1974. it was $300 a month and was incredibly hot -- helpful. it was not welfare. it was the government, our taxpayers investing in a veterans so that you can better your education and, boy, did the taxpayers come out well in my behalf. i pay that back many, many times over. the post 9/11 gi bill, what a phenomenal benefit that is for veterans. there are literally millions who have availed themselves of that. we will benefit. when you get a high-skilled veteran to go out and did a good job, take care of their family, it works. your idea and question about trickle, that is an entirely different issue. stockman, david stockman, cbo director under reagan, that is a different issue there. but, mike, the gi bill is one i fully support. as up to me. has helped millions of veterans

post world war ii and is a great program. >> host: could something be done to help veterans under the try care program? >> guest: it can. the idea is how do we pay for it not just the federal side, but the private side, too, and we are saying that about the affordable care act. much, much higher. my out-of-pocket and copay doubled with the initiation of the affordable care act, which is not just the v.a. >> host: this week the house considering the defense authorization bill, one of the elements would be concerning military pay and benefits, including health care. what do you think about the proposals coming out of the committee, especially rejecting what department of defense wants to see, cuts to those types of things? >> guest: one of the things that caused a great deal of controversy back in january was the freeze of 1% for veterans to retirees between their -- 40 when they got out to the actual retirement age of 62 when most

people can retire. let's say $6 billion. people realize that. paul ryan and patty murray did a great job with that. was a mistake, and i think we corrected it easily. the department of defense's like any other business. they have a budget, and they're spending a lot of money on benefits. the department of defense, try care and all of that comes out of their budget. they're looking at how to control cost, and that is what is happening. the congress can reject those ideas, which we did. by the way, that idea of the retiree freeze at 1 percent was a department of defense idea. >> host: and do you support that? >> guest: no, i didn't. a very much said that was wrong. >> host: what about the argument that these will cut modernization and readiness issues down the road? >> guest: if we have made a promise to our veterans, if you want to change the deal, fine. if a new route truth comes in and you have a defined contribution plan -- what we told these veterans, active-duty

military, if used and 20 years you get x and 20 years we should keep that. >> host: one more call from william and oklahoma. a veteran, william. go ahead. >> caller: thank-you, rep. roe you are a veteran and a physician and you mentioned earlier, asking -- as to k-9, there was a need for additional resources. the reply was no. okay. are you aware of the patient to doctor ratio in the v.a.? what is it? s b-2 it depends upon where you are and whether you are in outpatient settings, in patients having. it will be different in each medical center. >> caller: okay. i understand that. when i looked in oklahoma, it is pretty high. we have a lot of people who are good physicians who basically are dealing with a numerous amount of patients, and that is

my concern. when you ask him the question, have you also researched within your database and do you have a database of immediate needs of staffing personnel to the point where you can actually, if he said no to you, could come back with the date is stating that, yes, we do. and since you are a veteran, number one, and a physician, you are aware of the real-world scenarios. >> host: we will have to leave it there. we will let him answer. >> guest: the answer is, we rely on the secretary to bring forth his staffing needs test. it is on the other way around. the administrator, the secretary, has to determine based on demand, just like i did when i had my medical practice. if i had determined i had to have another doctor and my practice, we hire somebody else. if the secretary needs to hire more people, they need to put that in the budget and we will

certainly look at that. i can tell you, since i have been in congress, i believe the -- budget has gone from $100 billion a year -- this year's budget is $1,602,000,000,000. it is a huge increase. i don't think resources of the problem. i think management is to be what you said you would expect action out of your committee. what is the next step in your mind? >> guest: we have to wait to get some information. we cannot hold a committee hearing and not have a purpose for it. information. so we are probably looking at some time in the summer. i am hoping that this -- just this -- your coverage, the news coverage of this will improve some things. >> host: a member of the veterans affairs oversight and investigations subcommittee. thank you. >> guest: thanks very much. ..

>> to rein in spending from cuts to the retirement of the a-10 wart hog att