quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah lee mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, whenever government acts, it does so inevitably, unavoidably, necessarily at the expense of individual freedom, at the expense of individual liberty and autonomy. this doesn't mean that every act by government is bad. quite to the contrary. we need government. we need it to protect us from those who would undermine our liberty, those who would interfere with it, those who would harm us personally, whether physically or in some other way. but just as it doesn't mean that every act by government is bad, we should also not be too quick

to leap to any conclusion, that any and every act of government is good. we have to balance liberty, privacy, autonomy with our corresponding needs for security and physical protection. these things need not be deemed irreconcilable with one another. they can exist in the same universe. in fact, when they're properly balanced, mr. president, our privacy and our liberty become far from incompatible with our physical security, far from at odds with our need for protection. they can become part of the same whole. in other words, in this respect our privacy is not at odds with

our security. our privacy is in fact part of our security. to be truly secure means that there are limits as to what the government can do to you. it means that there are limits as to what information the government can obtain. there are limits as to how the government may go about getting information about you. there are limits as to what the government can do to you in depriving you of any of your fundamental rights. we are here this week as we have been last week in the wake of a tragedy, a horrible tragedy in orlando, one in which 49 people were killed. 49 people lost their lives at the hands of omar mateen, an individual who had pledged allegiance to isis. this is the worst terrorist

attack that we've seen on u.s. soil since that tragic day on september 11, 201. i do want -- september 11, 2001. i do want -- to say this was simply gun violence would be willful denial and political theater. ignoring it all together is also not something we should do but it's important to make clear even when -- and i would argue especially when a tragedy like this prompts congress or any legislative body to act, it is especially in those moments that we have to be very careful of how we act. we have to remember that there's this tension. we have to remember, especially in those moments when we're feeling the anxiety of an attack, feeling the anxiety of some tragedy, we've got to be very careful to make sure that the rights of our fellow americans are not undermined as

we try in our zeal, perhaps with the best intentions to make sure that we do what we can to protect ourselves. we have been addressing a couple of provisions this week, one that we voted on earlier today is a proposal brought forward by the senior senator from arizona, an individual for whom i have great respect. his proposal is one that troubles me, nonetheless. his proposal is one that would have given law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies the power to access americans' internet browsing history and e-mail metadata. these are things that can be analyzed to reveal the most intimate details of a person's life, the most intimate details of how a person thinks, a person's thought processes, and to do so moreover without a

warrant and without probable cause, without any kind of judicial review by a federal court or any other court for that matter. this is a problem. this interferes with some of our most fundamental rights and it's incompatible, i believe, at least with the spirit if not also the letter of the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution which provides that in order for the government to gain access to your papers, your person, your residence, it has to do so in a particular way. if it wants to get a warrant to search through your papers, for example, it has to go to court and it has to establish what's called probable cause, it has to show evidence demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed and a reason to look at a particular thing in a particular place. it can't simply just say trust us, we have a good reason.

a government agency or a group of government agent, can't simply say trust us, we're doing the right thing here. we have your security interests at heart. no, they have to go to a judge, somebody who's in a different branch of government. they have to show evidence that they need it, that they need it based on evidence demonstrating probable cause of a crime, showing some kind of a connection between what they want to search and the crime. now, this was understood by the founding generation. the founding generation may not have been familiar, mr. president, with the internet. in fact, they weren't. it didn't exist, wouldn't be invented for a couple centuries after that. but they were very familiar with these same concepts. they were very familiar with the need for privacy. they were very familiar with the need to restrain government. the need to make sure that people can't live in constant

fear that the government is going to start rifling through their personal effects without some reason, without problem cause. nor were they, mr. president, unaware of the fact that tragedies would happen. the founding fathers understood fully that tragedies arise. they understood that violence erupts from time to time. people engage in lawless behavior from time to time, lawless behavior that threatens not only the lives of individual citizens but also threatens to undermine the very foundations of our society. and yet notwithstanding this well-developed grasp they had of the existence of tragedy, the risk that people could do harm, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves had been revolutionaries just a few years

earlier, notwithstanding that many of these people who had a hand in the drafting of our constitution and in the drafting and ratification of the bill of rights had themselves been revolutionaries and had themselves witnessed and in some cases even been a part of the violence that propelled the american revolution, they nonetheless understood that it was imperative that we constrain the power of government relative to the liberty interests protected within the bill of rights, relative for our purposes here to the zone of interest of the fourth amendment. they understood that. they understood it well. they also understood that if someone had papers in their home, that those papers would be protected by the fourth amendment regardless of whether the papers had been written by

the person residing in that home. they, likewise, understood the possibility that in some instances, the papers might not even be kept at home. they might be kept somewhere else. but they understood that there are zones in which people have a legitimate expectation of privacy. it is in those areas where things need to be protected, regardless of who wrote the papers in question, regardless of where they might be located. if they are in an area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government has to follow certain procedures. so here's why i worry about the measure introduced by the senator from arizona. it's because this would get at the very privacy interests that are supposed to be protected by the fourth amendment. if passed, this would give law enforcement agencies the authority to access your internet browsing history and your e-mail met data, meaning data about who you e-mailed and

who e-mailed you, when the transmissions occurred, without probable cause, without a warrant, without any review by a federal court, without any review by any court. this is a problem, and it is a problem because, as i think most americans can appreciate -- certainly most americans outside washington, d.c., can appreciate -- the papers of today, the papers referenced in the fourth amendment, would absolutely have to include electronic papers, records regarding your browsing history, your browsing history, just like papers you might collect in your home for your own reading, wharls of whether you would -- regardless of whether you would offer the papers, wouldn't lose their protection. the fact that you have them in your home, the fact that you have been reviewing them by virtue of the location of your

home, says a lot perhaps of what your interests are. we understand that your interests are not necessarily the government's business simply because someone in the government arbitrarily decides that's going to be the case there's another measure that will -- that we'll be reviewing, that we're expected to be voting on later this week, and it is an amendment that's been proposed by another one of my esteemed colleagues, the senior senator from maine. now, this one would prevent anyone appearing on a particular list -- the no-fly list or the selectee list, these lists being maintained for the purpose of trying to track those who should perhaps not be allowed to board an airplane, or in the case of a selectee list, individuals who have been determined candidates

for additional screening at airports before boarding a plane. it would prevent such persons from purchasing firearms, denying americans their second amendment rights based on a mere suspicion that the f.b.i. might have that the person in question is engaged in terrorist activity. there are a couple things that worry me about this. notwithstanding the good intentions underlying it, this one implicates not only the second amendment, which protects americans and the right to bear arms, but it also implicates the fifth amendment, which guarantees that we won't be deprived of life, liberty, our property without due process of law. if this provision, as it's now written, as i've read it in its current formation, were to

become law, it would, as i understand it, allow the government to take away that right, to take away your second amendment rights, anyone's second amendment rights based on a mere suspicion. not based on probable cause, although i don't believe that in and of itself would be enough either. it would allow that right to be taken away, and it would do so without any opportunity for the citizen affected by this action to challenge this decision prior to the deprivation. now, it would, to be sure, set up a procedure whereby someone could go into the court, go into court and challenge the action taken by the government, but the government would end up winning, as i read the proposal -- it would end up are inning based on -- it would end up winning based on the same reasonable suspicion standard. let me explain what that means.

"reasonable suspicion" refers to the relatively low level, the relatively low threshold of legal justification required before a police officer may initiate a stop, what we call a noncustodial stop, what lawyers sometimes refer to as a carry stop, a stop for a police officer to engage in a conversation with a citizen. before a police officer pulls you oarvetion for example, if -- over, for example, if you're driving in your characters the police officer -- in your car, the police officer has to have a suspicion that a law has been broken. that can't be based on an unparticularrized suspicion or hunch but must be based on some type of observation, indicative of a possible violation of the law. but it is a relatively low threshold, and for that reason, when reasonable suspicion exists and, therefore, justifies a

brief, noncustodial stop, that stop may continue only for so long as it takes, only as long as it takes for the officer to either confirm or refute the initial basis for the suspicion, and usually that means not very long, unless, of course, during the stop they learn more information which may lead to probable cause. that leads us to probable cause. what does that do? well, probable cause is there -- probable cause is the standard used -- it is a higher standard, it requires more evidence, more of a showing, morer a likelihood -- more of a likelihood that some kind of a violation of the law has occurred. i mentioned probable cause a moment ago as being the standard used to determine whether or not the government can get a warrant. it's also a standard used in deciding whether or not the police have authority to undertake an arrest. but it's not a permanent thing. in order for someone to remain

in custody, in order for them to be convicted of something, they have the right to a trial. and at the end of that trial, they have the right to have a jury make a determination about guilt, and the jury is supposed to make that determination on the basis of a standard that says, based on the evidence, they can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. so it seems odd that we would allow a court to take away a fundamental constitutional right without any review prior to that constitutional deprivation and thereafter purport to allow a challenge to that action by the government but say that the government will prevail, if the government can show reasonable suspicion on the part of the person whose due process rights have been deprived.

so, again, we have to get back to the fact that we've got very good intentions that are animating the legislative proposals that we've been reviewing. we've got an understandable reaction to these tragic deaths that have occurred in orlando, florida. and yet even in those circumstances -- and i would arksd especially in those circumstance -- and i would add, especially this knows circumstances -- we have to be especially vigilant and not less vinal ant about protecting the rights of each individual american citizen. those rights are fundamental. they are not to be tinkered w the dignity of the human soul is at the core of our national republic. it is the very reason why it is so important that we have to balance government action and the interests that we pursue in the name of security, with liberty, with privacy. the two don't have to be at odds

with each other. they can be in conflict, and in the end i believe that our security is not at od odds withr privacy. our privacy is part of our security. we cannot be truly secure unless we are secure from unlawful, unwawrntsed -- unwarranted, unjustice actions by the government. this is why we can't be too quick to jump. this is why we can't be too eager to expand government authority without analyzing the basic constitutional and fundamental liberties that are at stake. i've been inspired by the example of an englishman named john wilkes, who was a member of parliament. john wilkes found himself living through a very real deprivation of liberty and a very real intrusion into his privacy. he found himself at the

receiving end of a general warrant issued by the administration of king george iii. his offense was criticizing the administration of king george iii in a publication called "the north britain." "north britain 45" criticizinged the king and the king's ministers. for that, john wilkes had hayes house searched aggressively. it was ransacked, effectively, by officers who were searching for something. the and they were doing so -- and they were doing so pursuant to a general warrant, a warrant that basically said those involved in the publication of "north britain number 45" have engaged in an illegal activity. search all places and things that might contain relative information regarding this offense. no particular area required under that. well, this was incompatible with the rights of englishmen at the time, so john wilkes fought the king's officials in court. he eventually won not only his

freedom but he secured also a civil judgment against the king, who was awarded substantial money damages. as a result of this fight, john wilkes became a hero throughout england and in america at the time. the "number 45" associated with the offending publication became synonymous with the name of "john wilke wilkes" on both sidf the atlantic. because of the fact that truth resonates with people, truth resonates particularly with those people who believe in freedom, people on both sides of the atlantic understood that john wilkes' cause was a just cause and that he should be congratulated for this. it was the example of john wilkes that was still well-known at the time of the american revolution. it was still fresh in the minds

of the american people at the time the constitution was drafted in 1787. in fact, by the time that it was ratified and took effect a couple of years later and by the time that the fourth amendment was drafted and then ratified a couple of years after that. they americans and these patriots on the other side of the atlantic understood this very same principle that our liberty and our privacy, on the one hand, are not inevitably incompatible, irreconcileably at odds with our security and our protection. the two can be balanced. but that balance has been struck. that balance was struck more than two centuries ago. it was struck and put in place in our constitution, and our constitution does contain these protections, at least three of which are relevant to ourb

discussion here including the second amendment, the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment. we cannot sidestep them just because something bad has happened. in fact, it is especially when something bad has happened when we realize we are not the first generation of americans to experience bad things, to experience violence. we are not the first generation of americans who have understood that when we give government too much power in those circumstances, other bad things will happen. we can protect ourselves and at the same time protect our liberty. we can do both. the constitution requires both. mr. president, i say to those who believe this is a fool's errand, we can in fact do these things. we can, we must, and together i hope and i pray that we will. thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i'm pleased to be joining as chairman of the -- i'm pleased to be joined on the floor today by senator tillis, senator rounds, senator cassidy, senator blumenthal who will follow later to take about 45 minutes to discuss with the citizens of our country and members of the united states senate and most importantly those people who have served our military around the world for years and years to talk about the veterans first bill, accountability in the veterans administration to ensure the proper services to our veterans who served our country so well. and i want to say first as chairman of the committee how indebted i am to senator blumenthal of connecticut, my ranking member who has done outstanding work in development of this legislation. senator tillis, senator rounds, senator cassidy have done great work. we are proud to be a part of a great piece of legislation that will address questions raised about the treatment of veterans over the years. there is a chart here, mr. president.

i want to read these headlines that every american has read over the last year and a half. v.a. abandons law aimed at firing employees. that was the june 17 issue of the stars and stripes where loretta lynch, the attorney general of the united states and secretary mcdonnell of the v.a. announced they were not going to enforce the veterans choice act and the laws that gave them authority to bring about accountability and discipline the v.a. why did that come about? i'll tell you why it came about. this headline from november 11, 2015, veterans affairs pays $142 million in bonuses amid scandal. that rocked the country and rocked our committee and rocked the united states senate. on june 3, 2016, half a million veterans still waiting a month or more for care. on february 1, 2016, judge overturns demotion of v.a. official accused in job scam. in the past two years, mr. president, we've had people fired by the v.a. in arizona and in pennsylvania who appeal their firing and were reestablished by the courts or the merit systems protection board at full pay

back in the jobs they had. there is no accountability. secretary mcdonnell, as good a job as he tries to, has no teeth behind whatever it is he says. members of the 314,000 employees that are part of the veterans health system have an ability if they're fired to appeal. that appeal can be drug out over periods of time as long as nine months and they can serve with pay until the appeal is heard. there is no swift judgment in the v.a. there is no accountability in the v.a. there is no culture of accountability in the v.a. i've been joined by the members of the committee and every member of the committee republican and democrat alike, three and a half weeks ago voted unanimously for the veterans first bill. not a single dissenting vote. why? because it hits the heart and strikes the point we know needs to be struck. that's number one. number two, it's bipartisan. it has as many republican proposals as it does democratic proposals, but most importantly it has american proposals. when you're on the battlefield, when you have that m-14 rifle, when you're charging the hill you're not a republican, you're not a democrat. you're an american.

our veterans served and fought for us, risked their lives for us and in some cases some died for us. they deserve the respect, the treatment and benefits they were promised when they signed up for duty. we introduced the veterans accountability bill called the veterans first bill. i want to talk briefly about why it brings accountability to the v.a. first of all, there are 434 senior managers in the veterans administration, executive leadership, the senior executive khraoerp, 434 of them. every one of those people can't be fired unless they go before the merit systems protection board. we take away the merit systems protection board protection for senior management, give secretary mcdonnell the power to hire them, the power to fire them and if they appeal their firing they appeal to secretary mcdonnell, not to some third party. the boss is finally the boss and on his shoulders comes the responsibility for performing at the v.a. in terms of the rank and file members, we say if you're fired you have a right to appeal.

if you're fired you get ten days to respond. when you make appeal you get 11 days for an answer. once you get that answer, if you appeal it you go home without pay until the appeal is over. justice is swift, accountability is swift and the employee responds according ily. secondly we all know whistle-blowers are an integral part of an accountability system. having the protection and the ability for an employee within an agency to say look i've seen something wrong in my agency. i want to tell you about it but i want the protection as a whistle-blower to be protected by the management. we put in an office of whistle-blower protection in the veterans administration so those employees will know we want to hear your criticism. we want to know when you see something going wrong and want to give you protection to do so. if you abuse it you'll be punished. but if you use it we'll have a better v.a. and a more responsible and more accountable v.a. talk about tk-blt, -- accountability, what was the least accountable thing, the overprescription of opioids, the

case in wisconsin. this bill does with reforming opioid treatment in the veterans administration, moves away from handing out opioids like candy and addresses the real problems. we go through those issues that perturbs our veterans and do everything we can to improve it but first we have accountability. the v.a. doesn't lack for money. they averaged 9.2% more money every year in appropriations the last four years. that's bigger than any agency of government. they are not short employees. it's the second largest agency in the federal government with 314,000 employees. they have a singular mission and that is to take care of the veterans who have taken care of us. we need to see to it they do it and if they don't they're held accountable. the v.a. is full of employees who do a great job. i would tell you from having run a company myself it is always the 99% of your people who do the good job. it is the 1% who do a bad job who give them a bad name. if you have a system when they fall and don't do well, you have a system that works together,

you create team work. we're about creating a change in the culture of the veterans administration. so we improve the veterans administration for its service to our veterans. the veterans first act which is now pending and will soon come to the floor hopefully under a u.c. is an act that does exactly that. when you go home to your constituents who say what is it about kporb tent bonuses who go to people who aren't doing their job? what is it about a veteran who had a job scam get overturned by a judge to get their job back? what is it about an agency that can't have accountability in the agency? you tell them that is no more because this senate, this congress, this country is going to see to it our veterans get the service they deserve and our veterans administration has the accountability it needs and must have. with that said i'd like to take a second, if i can, and yield to the senator from from the dakotas, senator rounds. mr. rounds: mr. president, it is an honor to work with the

senator from georgia as the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. on behalf of of the 72,000 veterans from south dakota, it is work that needs to be done, and we appreciate your service and the ranking member's service in making this a bipartisan effort. unfortunately many of our nation's heroes aren't receiving the quality of health care that they have been promised due to decades of mismanagement and ongoing problems with the v.a. and it's not acceptable as the chairman pointed out. in fact, of all the calls we receive in my state asking for help with federal agencies, over half of all those calls are coming from veterans seeking help with v.a. issues. these veterans in south dakota and across the entire country continue to experience problems with health care delivery at the v.a., including backlogs, long wait times and frequent billing errors. as we seek to address these issues within the entire v.a. system, accountability is as important as it has ever been.

the veterans first act takes meaningful steps to hold the v.a. accountable and in turn improve care for our veterans, which is the most important priority of all. this legislation, the veterans first act, puts the needs of our veterans first by addressing the lack of accountability at the v.a. unfortunately, the administration last week announced that it would not defend a provision of the veterans choice act, which was passed with strong majorities in both chambers of congress in 2014 and was signed by the president. in response, the v.a. announced last week it would no longer use its expedited removal authority to hold v.a. senior executives accountable. given this justice department decision. regardless of the legal arguments surrounding this issue, the fact is that as a result of the v.a.'s decision, we are now back to a pre-phoenix scandal accountability at the v.a. we owe it to our veterans to

make certain they receive the best care possible and not have the agency responsible for that care refuse to remove nonperforming or even criminally acting officials from important positions as congress granted the v.a. the right to do in the veterans choice act two years ago. this is also important given that until recently the v.a. didn't have a permanent inspector general or i.g. in the last two years. inspectors general are impartial and independent units within most federal agencies whose duty is to provide this accountability and oversight to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the government. during that same time frame, the v.a. has been plagued with some of the worst skapblgs -- scandals and mismanagement in the agency's history and our veterans have paid the price. some have even died. while i'm glad that the inspector general missile is now in office and can begin to

address some of the allegations it is still too little too late. that is why the bipartisan veterans first act is so important. our bill will take strong, definitive, immediate steps to hold v.a. employees accountable for their actions. let me give you some examples of what this bill includes. it will shorten the grievance process, making it easier to dismiss v.a. officials that breach the trust of the veterans that they are supposed to serve. it willove rem the merit systems protection board from the appeal process for senior executives. and it expedites when necessary the removal of any employees at the v.a. executives and rank and file employees alike. you don't have to take my word for it. you don't have to take the word of any senator in this body's word for it. you can simply listen to the words of secretary mcdonnell himself. on monday he stated -- and this is a quote from the secretary of the v.a. -- "the answer to the whole thing in my opinion is the

veterans first act. the provisions that senator isakson and senator blumenthal have put in the veterans first act, we all support. v.a. supports them. the republican party in the senate supports them. the democratic party in the senate supports them. we really think that this is the ultimate answer. i'm hoping the veterans first act will get passed soon." end of quote. mr. president, this bill also includes a number of provisions that i have authored to include accountability and care at the v.a. such as the veterans choice equal cost for care act which amends the choice act by eliminating the secondary payer clause to make certain veterans make -- make certain that veterans do not pay more for private care into the choice act than they would have if they were seen at the u.s. department of veterans affairs facility. the key to that is right now we've got veterans going in, getting care at a private facility, assuming that the v.a. is going to pick up the cost for

them, and then they find out that under the current plan where the v.a. is a second payer only that they've got to pick up their own deductibles of which they are not being reimbursed for because the v.a. is saebgdary, not -- secondary, not primary. that was not the intent of the choice act in the first place. the veterans first act takes care of that issue and will take care of a huge amount of the challenges that we have right now with the choice act. also the veterans health administration is spending a transparency oversight act. this legislation requires the veterans health administration or v.h.a. to produce an annual report to congress detailing the cost of the health care that it provides to our veterans. having accurate cost accounting by the v.h.a. will help congress identify legislation options and get better health care for our nation's veterans. i'm proud to be an original sponsor of the veterans first act, and i thank the members of the veterans' affairs committee,

especially chairman isakson and ranking member blumenthal and all of the other members here today for working together to produce meaningful bipartisan reforms at the v.a. our nation's veterans who are now and have selflessly defended and protected our freedoms deserve that same commitment from the country they so proudly fought and defended. with that, mr. president, i would like to yield back to the chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i appreciate his commitment to the committee and the men and women from the armed services and the dakotas. i'm pleased to recognize senator tillis from north carolina, the home of camp le jeune, a great member of our committee, and i'm proud to have him as one of the cosponsors of the veterans first bill. mr. tillis. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am proud to represent north carolina. north carolina has nearly a million veterans in the state. when you add to that the members of the armed services in active

or reserve or national guard, we're well over 1.2 million people. they, too, will become veterans someday. we need to fix this so that the problems our veterans are experiencing today are not experienced by these brave men and women who are fighting for our freedom wherever we ask them to go. mr. president, i know you know a lot about v.a. accountability or lack of accountability with a failed hospital project in your great state of colorado. we have problems. we have to increase the accountability in the v.a. in 2014, in the wake of the phoenix wait list scandal, congress came together and demanded accountability. that's why they passed the veterans choice act. when the president signed the bill into law, he stated, and i quote, if you engage in unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired, period. it shouldn't be that difficult. now we're hearing just -- just recently that apparently in consultation with the president, attorney general lynch and the

justice department have decided not to defend the veterans choice act against the constitutional challenge from sharon helmand, the former director of the phoenix v.a., who said on top of the scandal, and she was fired for a role denying veterans access. this same disgraced v.a. executive also pled guilty to hiding more than $50,000 in gifts from lobbyists. she embodies the very worst of the worst of the small percentage of people in the v.a. who need to be held to a high standard of accountability. we add insult to injury, the v.a. has decided it would no longer use its expedited removal authority to hold v.a. senior executives accountable. because of these actions, we're now back to square one. it's as if the president did not even sign that bill. now, i should have started at the beginning, though, and thank senator isakson for his yeoman's work in support of veterans.

he is a fantastic chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. he brings people together. that's why the veterans first act was unanimously supported in the committee. bipartisan on steroids. everybody thinks that this bill needs to go into law and that the v.a. needs to be held accountable. we need to pass the veterans first act. there is a number of things in this act that even go beyond accountability, and i note with the colloquy that other elements of this act will be brought up, but let me bring a few. one of them has to do with opioid safety act. what we're trying to do is improving the safety and supervision and treatment plan for veterans who legitimately need some sort of pain medication, possibly an opioid prescription regimen. the whistle-blower protection act. we need more people, eyes and ears in the v.a. who are comfortable with saying something isn't right here, and i need to be able to report up and know that my job is not at risk because i'm doing the right

thing. that's in the veterans first act. the other thing we need to do is get back to what we try to accomplish in the 2014 bill. fire people who are not doing their job. fire people who are being unethical. fire people who are not putting the veterans at the very top of the list. that's why the v.a. exists. the v.a. doesn't exist for their own sake. the v.a. exists for providing the care that the veterans deserve, and they should get it on a timely basis and when there are no reasonable excuses for some of these wait times, and we find that it's the people that are causing the problem, and those people should be held accountable, the senior members should be held accountable. they should be able to be terminated without any sort of review subject to the discretion of the secretary of the v.a. so, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to act on the veterans first act. it's time for us to get back to fulfilling a promise that this president made just a couple of years ago. it's time to put veterans first,

and i want to thank all of my colleagues here. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who i know share this view. we need to get this bill out of the senate, to the house and to the president's desk with the promise this time that the president will stand with us and with the veterans to do what we need to do, and that's put veterans first. and i urge all of the members' support, and i appreciate again senator isakson's work to get it to this point, but now we need to get it done. thank you, senator isakson. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i thank senator tillis for his dedicated work and great representation of the people of north carolina and the veterans of america. i'm pleased now to yield to the senator from alaska, senator sullivan. ms. mikulski: would the gentleman withhold just for one minute? for a question to the chair of the committee? i won't -- this is not to hold you up.

i do have a question for the chair. mr. isakson: i will yield. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. chairman, of the veterans committee, is it the desire of the other party to be doing like a colloquy, an extensive colloquy on the veterans first act? i'm trying to get the lay of the land here on the floor because the commerce-justice act -- this is really a parliamentary question to you. the pending business is the commerce-justice appropriations. we're now debating the veterans first act. i'm not objecting to that, but could you tell me what the lay of the land is here? mr. isakson: happily. the lay of the land is we asked for 45 minutes for a colloquy to discuss the veterans first bill, which we're not process of doing now. senator blumenthal, the ranking member, will join us in a minute. we should be completed about 5:15, and that was the time we asked for. ms. mikulski: first of all. thank you, senator. i in no way want to impede this

conversation. i didn't realize that you had asked for 45 minutes. i really found these comments by the supporters of the bill really quite instructive, and i appreciate the discussion and the debate. why don't you proceed. i just would like to bring to the distinguished chairman's attention, though, we're trying to get the v.a. milcon conference done, real money in the real checkbook to support the great work this authorizing committee is doing. i don't know if you know that the house is proposing a $500 million cut below the senate level. so you and i should talk about that. i thank the gentleman from alaska. please proceed with your scwi. mr. isakson: i thank the distinguished senator from maryland. i'm always interested in discussing the best interests of veterans in maryland and georgia, any time you like. senator sullivan. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to rise to also support my

colleagues on the veterans' affairs committee. it's an honor, it's an honor to serve with the chairman of that committee, the distinguished senator, senior senator from georgia, the ranking member from connecticut, senator blumenthal, and one of the great honors about being on that committee is not just serving our veterans, but it's a committee that gets a lot of work done. it's a very bipartisan committee, and that's why so many of us are coming to the senate floor to talk about this important issue. accountability for the v.a. now, mr. president, i was home in alaska this past weekend, and as i often do, i run into veterans. you know, every state in the union likes to talk about their veterans, brag a little bit. well, my state, we have more veterans per capita of any state in the union. we're very proud of that.

and i was talking to a vietnam veteran on saturday. actually, on friday in anchorage. and combat veteran corman saved a lot of marines during his tim, saved a lot of marines during his time. he had deep frustration about this accountability with the v.a. as a matter of fact, he used to work at the v.a., and it was the one issue he raised with me. how can we do more with regard to accountability? he reads about it in the paper. and the key here, mr. president, is that in that conversation and so many conversations i had with veterans back home, is that we must restore the bond of trust between the v.a. and the veterans that the v.a. serves, because we all know that bond of trust is eroded. and trust is eroded when no one

is accountable. trust is eroded when no one is accountable. and my colleagues have already talked about it, but once again, it's very disappointing to see the v.a. walking away from accountability as opposed to embracing it. so senator tillis did a great job of describing the bill that was signed by the president in 2014, the choice act, which had some strong accountability measures, and yet, just recently, the attorney general of the united states sided with the argument of a former phoenix v.a. director who was at the helm when as many as 40 veterans died waiting for health care. the attorney general of the united states sided with her argument, and it's not even testing the accountability provisions in this new law. it was passed by this body and signed by the president.

she just quit, didn't even let the courts declare that this law is unconstitutional. she just quit and sided with that argument. i think that's an outrage. what it does is it undermines this issue of trust. it's also a dangerous precedent by allowing the head of the v.a. and the attorney general of the united states to substitute the judgment of the congress of the united states in a law in saying we're not even going to defend this issue anymore. it's a precedent that i don't think anyone in this body would agree with. essentially gutting the accountability provisions in a recently enacted law signed by president obama, and they are not even trying to defend those. this is exactly the kind of action that further erodes the trust between the v.a. and our veterans. so yesterday in a hearing chaired by the senior senator

from georgia, we demanded bipartisan approach, that the attorney general or her representative get before the v.a. committee very soon and explain what she is up to, because i don't think anyone in this body is agreeing with the actions that they are taking. and while we're waiting for answers from the attorney general, we are not going to give up on the critically important issue of v.a. accountability, which is why moving forward on the veterans first act, which does focus on accountability, is so important, and why we're on the floor making the case for this. this bill which i'm a cosponsor of currently has 44 cosponsors and support from multiple veterans service organizations. you have heard about some of the important accountability measures that are in this bill. again, i want to thank the great leadership of chairman isakson

and ranking member blumenthal on this, but what we need to do is move forward on this bill and restore this issue of trust, and the best way, the best way we can restore the issue of trust is our veterans knowing that the leadership of the v.a. is accountable. remember, the leadership of the v.a. works for our veterans, and when they see people getting away with malfeasance and incorrect behavior, that trust is further eroded. i yield the floor back to chairman isakson. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i see the senior ranking member, senator blumenthal, has joined us on the floor. i might with your permission pose a question. if the senator would not mind, senator boozman making his remarks and then senator blumenthal and i will close the debate today. would that be okay? mr. blumenthal: that would be fine, mr. president. mr. isakson: i would yield to the senator from arkansas,

senator boozman. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. and again, i'll be brief, but i just wanted to come down to the floor, right now we're in the midst of discussing a very important bill, the commerce-justice bill. it funds law enforcement. we all know we're in troubled times and trying to get things sorted out in that regard, so why take 45 minutes to come down and speak on the senate floor about such an important subject as what's going on in the v.a.? last week the secretary of the v.a. decided that he would no longer support the expedited removal authority that we allowed him when we passed the choice act. the attorney general -- there was a case the attorney general decided she felt like it might be unconstitutional so the secretary of the v.a. took it upon himself to no longer use that authority.

the way that i found out and i think the way that the rest of the members of the committee found out was to read this in the press. the secretary didn't have the courtesy to cofn tact us -- to contact us and tell us what was going o. he arbitrarily decided it was unconstitutional. i voted for it. most of the members in this body voted for it. most of the members in the house of representatives voted for it. if i thought that it was unconstitutional, i certainly wouldn't have voted for it again acknowledging the duties of being a united states senator. so we passed it overwhelmingly and as my colleague from alaska has commented, the dangerous precedent that the secretary has set by simply ignoring it. he went on to say on monday that the accountability procedures we've had in place are working fine. if that's true, then why is the v.a. chronically had an issue with lackluster negligent

employees? he was very supportive of this authority until this case has come up. so in light of the v.a.'s decision last week, it's even more imperative that this body move to pass the veterans first act which will significantly improve accountability at the v.a. this is a bipartisan comprehensive initiative. this legislation will shorten the grievance process, make it easier to dismiss v.a. officials that breach the trust of the veterans that they are supposed to serve. this is a quote from the american legion. my only concern for those of us that are on the committee is that the secretary at some point will decide that this is unconstitutional and do his own thing. so again this is such an important issue, it's something that the committee is working hard on, but it is wrong. we have a situation now where we have employees that we know have

abused their power. on the other hand, the vast majority of the people in the v.a., the vast, vast majority are hard-working and do a tremendous job. i'm so proud of the v.a.'s that i have in arkansas, our facility in little rock, our facility in fayettville. there's not finer hospitals in the country. on the other hand, when people act up when they don't do what they're supposed to, we need to hold them accountable, and we certainly need a secretary of the v.a. that's more concerned about veterans than labor issues. with that i yield back. mr. isakson: i thank the senator from arkansas from yielding. i would like to yield to the distinguished senator from connecticut, the ranking member of the veterans committee and one would has been a valuable partner with me in the development of this legislation and the management of the committee. he deserves tremendous credit, senator blumenthal. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to thanks, first of all,

the chairman of the veterans affairs committee, senator isakson of georgia to say that he has been a leader, is certainly an understatement. he has devoted countless hours to forging a coalition in the best tradition of the united states senate, a bipartisan coalition that enabled us to bring together republicans and democrats unanimously on the veterans affairs committee and approving the veterans first bill for consideration by this body. my reason for being here today is to say to our colleagues we must move forward. we must seize this opportunity no matter which side of the aisle we may sit on to move this bill forward and keep faith with our veterans and leave no veteran behind and make sure that we honor their service by

fulfilling our obligation to do our job. our job now is to make sure that we pass the veterans first bill. i have listened with interest to some of my colleagues' comment on a decision by the attorney general of the united states, and then the secretary of the veterans administration to decline to defend a part of the choice statute and quite frankly i share their questions and a number of their concerns. i want to know from the attorney general of the united states why the decision was made to decline enforcement of this statute on constitutional grounds saying that it violated the appointments clause of the

constitution. i can say after 40 years of practicing law i have done very little litigation involving the appointments clause of the united states constitution. it is seemingly an arcane and b truce section -- ob truce section of law and i say that with great humility in light of the presiding officer's experience and he and i may have a discussion away from the floor about the merits of this decision but the point is that we must look forward. we need to demand those answers and i expect the attorney general of the united states will be forthcoming but let's look forward to the central task right now and avoid being distracted by what happened in the past, move forward on the veterans first bill. this measure imposes

accountability, lacking for too long. we saw it dramatically and tragically in phoenix and many other areas around the country where still there has been inadequate or completely absent discipline and accountability imposed. this measure makes it easier for the v.a. to both hire and remove senior executives giving the secretary much needed flexibility in hiring and firing, improving the training of managers, and implementing an outside review. yesterday we heard from an outstanding nominee, a veteran of years of leadership in the marine corps and that kind of quality person ought to be in

the v.a. more commonly. this legislation also protects whistle-blowers. that is critically important in my view. they are the brave employees who see something wrong and say something at risk to themselves and that risk should be eliminated. we create this new proposal, the veterans first act, and office of accountability and whistle-blower protection and require that the v.a. take the necessity of listening and protecting whistle-blowers into account in its training and evaluation of supervisors. this measure goes well beyond accountability, although accountability is central to this bill. it also helps veterans of ail areas who may have been exposed to toxic substances during their service. there are so many unknowns on the battlefield now that can do harm to our soldier, chemicals,

radiation, other toxic substances. so we can better understand and address the long-term effects of that toxic exposure. and that's why the vietnam veterans of america fully supports this measure. thanks to the work of senator baldwin, the veterans first act also addresses the opioid overprescription crisis among veterans. all too often and for far too long, the v.a. doctors have relied on powerful opioid painkillers when other kinds of medical care are more appropriate. this legislation will reduce the overuse and thereby the addiction of our veterans to these powerful painkillers. as i know from having spoken to sarah green, a constituent of mine who lives in branford, connecticut, whose husband

perished in the post-9/11 wars while in combat and her representative lonnie reed, this bill expands the g.i. benefits to surviving spouses and their dependents that lost a service member after 9/11. it also reinstates those benefits to veterans who attended a school that permanently closed, like corinthian colleges. these predatory schools should not be permitted to deprive our veterans of those benefits that they need and deserve. this measure also provides for support for caregivers. the moms and dads, brothers and sisters, children who give of themselves and give up livelihoods and careers to care for their veteran family members, they should receive the kind of support they need and

deserve. their service is no less worthy and worthwhile than their family veteran members. and the measure also includes important provisions to address the scourge of homelessness among veterans. i was pleased to work with the connecticut coalition to end homelessness and margaret middleton, leader of the veterans programs in connecticut, principally the connecticut veterans legal center to create more permanent housing opportunities and provide legal services to homeless veterans. and finally, the most important, this bill enhances programs to prepare veterans for careers through licensure and certification programs and other programs to make sure veterans have jobs. they need and deserve jobs.

my priority as a member of the united states senate has been jobs and economic progress for our veterans, for all the people of connecticut, and that is why i am pleased that this measure will help veterans find employment as they transition home with employers like frontier communication, very proudly doing business in connecticut that is looking to make veterans 15% of its new hires. this measure includes many other provisions that are worthy of passage, and the point is that we must pass it. i challenge my colleagues to do this bill before july 4, to move forward before we recess for the

summer, to address the challenge of providing veterans what they have earned. we're not talking here about handouts. we're talking about something veterans have earned, that we keep faith with them. this measure is bipartisan. nothing stands in its way. no reason that merits its being stopped or blocked. and so i challenge my colleagues to move forward with this measure, and i want to thank again my colleague from georgia who is not only a fellow member of the veterans affairs committee, but also a friend of mine and truly a friend of all veterans, the senior senator from georgia, johnny isakson. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor back to senator isakson. mr. isakson: i want to thank senator blumenthal for his kind remarks. i want to thank all members of the committee, everyone who is a cosponsor of the bill. i want to thank the 44 members of the senate who already cosponsored and ask the remaining 56 to be a part of it. we owe our veterans no less than the absolute commitment that matches the commitment they made to us. it is time they had the accountability for the benefits they've earned, the health care they deserve and the v.a. that means what it says when it says it will take care of the veterans ever the united states. i thank the chair for giving us the time to bring out these issues today. i urge all my members to contact either senator blumenthal or myself or the committee staff if you have any question as we move forward before july 1 to make the veterans first act a reality and once and for all put our veterans first as always they should be, as always they will be. with that said, i yield back and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask the call of the quorum be discriminated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we just heard a very instructive discussion on legislation proposed by the veterans' authorizing committee, and i would like to compliment both the chair and the ranking member on the debate. it was content-rich, it was civil, and there were moments where we learned things that were going on at the v.a. that were new to many of us. and what was so impressive was the fact that they worked together on a bipartisan basis,

and they saw that their first duty was a patriotic duty, which was to serve veterans. you just heard the distinguished chair and the ranking member speak to that. i thought it was terrific. they've -- they took about 45 minutes because the bill pending is the commerce, justice, science bill, because i know compromises are being worked on. this was time we were willing to share with them. so i want to compliment them. and that also happened in the appropriations committee. senator kirk chairs the appropriations subcommittee on v.a. milcon, the ranking member is senator jon tester. they worked hard, too. the and right now we are trying to get a conference report done so there's the financial resources to help implement the policy objectives you all so eloquently and instructively

presented to us just now. i would hope that we have a conference that is worthy of the authorization that is being presented, and i can assure you that, again be, in the spirit that you represented here, really, that our patriotic responsibility comes before personality or party, was the way to go. and that's what our team did in appropriations under the very able chairmanship of senator thad cochran and i hope the tone i've helped set as the vice chair. stay tuned when we bring this conference because we want to match the appropriations with the authorizing. but i think this is the way we ought to be operating here. our patriotic duty first over party, over personality, over ego or party logo, and i just really want to say that, as i set here hoping that compromises would be achieved on gun control

under the leadership of the distinguished lady from maine, that i think this is what the american people want: civility, intellectual rigger, commitment to responsibility, and fiscal responsibility. so i would like to salute you. it was an excellent gaivmen -- n excellent debate. i wish more of it could be like this. i thank you very much. mr. president, as we wait here on the commerce, justice, and science bill, this is what i hope is going on behind the scenes. i know we've had a spirited debate, at times quite terntion and at times even terse on the issue of gun control. but, you know, for you it's not about gun control. it's about violence control. it is not about gun control because then people want to immediately, you know, grab their gun and say, what are you trying to do to us? nobody is trying to do anything to any law-abiding citizen. but we are trying to control

violence. violence is a national epidemic. it's been a national epidemic for sometime. and there are many reasons for it. this is not the day to talk about root causes. but it is to talk about the mood and tone of the institution. right now the senate -- the house is engaged in a sit-in. can you believe that? a sit-in. why would the house be sitting in? well, it's not the house. i.t. the house d. it's the house democrats. why are they doing that? they're doing it simply because they cannot get a vote on the no fly, no buy. what does that mean? if you're on the no-fly list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. now, there are many different solutions to this problem. i'm the first to recognize that. in our own institution, we had an amendment offered by the distinguished lady from

california, senator feinstein, that was rejected. there was an amendment that was offered on the other side of the aisle. that was rejected. now the gentlelady of mement, with people from both sides of the aisle, are meeting to see if they can fashion a compromise. now, we believe that compromise is not a word to be dismissed or denigrated. compromise does not mean capitulation on principle. now, i can assure you from those of us who want to control violence, we in no way want to impinge upon second amendment rights. but we do want to do what we can to curb violence in our country. in the spirit offered by the gentlelady from maine, where she has done before, i hope that we can achieve this. i think we ought to give her a chance, and i think that is happening now. and i sure hope we give her idea

a vote. i'm not sure how i will vote on it until i know the substance, but i sure have an open mind on it, because what i'd like to do is in using the words of my colleague from maryland, congressman elijah cummings, and we've just lived through quite a turmoil in baltimore, we seek not only common ground, but we seek higher ground. how can we kind of get above the muck and mire of partisan politics or personality strutting or whatever and focus on the issue of the day? i know people on both sides of the aisle want to curb violence. we have a set of solutions. they were rejected. could we now, in the tone we just heard here, try to find this? but what i do hope is that we don't block attempts to find

solutions through parliamentary procedures. too many people think about the congress and the senate when all is said thank done, work gets done. they're frustrated about their future, their hope for their children. the safety and security of our country. this is really what senators should be thinking and talking about. and as we think and talk about it, though, we should do more thinking maybe and less talking. and in our thinking and doing less talking that we can find this common ground and higher ground. so, mr. president, i really look forward to continuing to move the commerce, justice, science bivment i so much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee, senator shelby, who we've put together a very good bipartisan bill. we would hope that, as we move

our bill forward, that really has done its best to fund the justice department, science and technology, to talk about jobs today and the kind of research that will give us the jobs for tomorrow, that we also now seriously take a deep breath and a deep dive in policy alternatives and come up with a compromise to curb violence in our country. i want to thank the gentlelady from maine once again p for taking that diplomatic role that she's undertaken. i wish her well. i support the colleagues involved in it, and they will find no obstructionism in barbara mikulski. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, first of all, i ask unanimous consent that james kelly, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges for the

remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. mr. president, i now ask to be recognized. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much again. a number of my colleagues, both republican and democrat from the senate veterans' affairs committee were on the floor just a few moments ago. and i'd like to join them in expressing genuine concern about continued developments at the department of veterans affairs. many of us remember the tremendous circumstances that our veterans found themselves in at hospitals across the country with long waiting lines, with lists that were inappropriate, didn't really exist in an effort to, i suppose, to camouflage the delay that a veteran was experiencing, the veterans were experiencing across the country, and yet at the same time demonstrate that veterans were being cared for, and the v.a.

wanted to show that things were fine and yet we saw that that was not the case. those headlines, unfortunately, continue about the department of veterans affairs. and for years we've heard reports, those reports of long wait lines, privacy issues, failure to remove employees whose actions endanger the health and safety of our veterans. and many of us have worked to try to give the department of veterans affairs its leadership greater authority to discipline, to discharge those wrongdoers who are at the department of veterans affairs. generally my focus has been on the upper echelon, the leadership of the department of veterans affairs, generally considered to be the top 400 executives at the v.a. i am always nervous about the issue of the employees who are actually providing the care, the staff that provide the care for our veterans in the hospital. i don't want them to be a scapegoat for problems at the

hospital when i think the most serious challenge the v.a. faces is its leadership. so those stories are continuing, and we keep waiting for accountability to occur. and it's been something that the current secretary of the department of veterans affairs says that he cares greatly about, but even when it comes to the circumstances we found particularly at the hospital, the v.a. hospital in phoenix, we still have yet to see disciplinary action take place, and now it's too long. it's two years. it seems to me that two years is too long in which we see any real concrete effort at discharging those in positions who wrongfully use that position and fail to provide the necessary care and treatment for veterans. the secretary of the department indicated in an interview back in november 2014, a "60 minute"

interview. i happened to watch it. the secretary referred to a report that was generated in 2014 that listed more than 1,000 v.a. employees who should be removed from the v.a. for violations. people who violated our values -- these are his words -- its integrity, value,ct, respe its excellence. he also described with other news outlets that he would be taking -- quote -- "aggressive, expeditious, disciplinary action to address the wrongdoers that violated v.a. values." it was made abundantly clear that congress needed to give him the necessary tools to discipline v.a. employees because he was -- quote -- "hamstrung by the current process with the merit system protection board and the appeals process." congress did that. and while we may not remember the provisions of the choice act because what it's known for is the efforts to provide veterans

across the country who live long distances from a v.a. facility or who can't get the services they need within 30 days from the v.a., gave them hometown local options. that's what the choice act is known for. but the choice act also included important accountability provisions. so the secretary has those provisions now with the passage of the choice act that occurred in august of 2014. those authorities are seemingly are the ones that the secretary has been reluctant to use. and so we've complained about the reluctance at the v.a. to use those authorities and to discipline members of the leadership, employees at the department of veterans affairs. but now we just learned, as my colleagues earlier indicated, that the leadership at the v.a. refuses to use the authorities at all. so it's not -- it's not just a

reduck tans, it's -- reluctance, it's now an admission that we're not going to use them. as disappointed as i am as a member of congress, as my colleagues are who spoke earlier, in this v.a. decision, our frustration has to be nothing, nothing compared to what our veterans, our nation's veterans experience in their dissatisfaction with the v.a. that declines to hold accountable those who work in leadership positions. we ought to be honoring their service. what department would you expect to care for, to treat, to love and show compassion for more than our department of veterans affairs? and who would we expect to receive that kind of noble treatment? it would be those who served us in our military. americans, both veterans and non-veterans, are waiting for the v.a. to step up and do what is right by removing those who have no place within the v.a. system.

i also would say as i talk to veteran -- department of veteran employees, those who actually work in the hospitals and provide the benefits, who man the computers, they're dissatisfied too. they want to see change at the v.a. so many, many employees are looking for leadership at the v.a. that holds accountable those in leadership who have failed to bring about the necessary change and to have that necessary change takes discipline of those who are wrongdoers. so i want to make certain that people understand this is not an attack on those who work at the v.a. they too want a v.a. system that they can be proud to work for. and i acknowledge and pay my respect and regard to the many, many, many employees of the department who work every day to make certain that good things happen and that care is provided for those who served our nation.

it's unfortunate, it seems to me, that the v.a., they blame everybody but themselves for the problems at the v.a., and in fact just earlier this year a couple months ago, april of 2016, the secretary indicated that the fault, the inability to fix these problems, the fault lied with congress for not giving the v.a. enough money. he said that budgetary failure led to the crisis. we've worked hard to make certain, and in fact i've indicated that if you can show a demonstrated need for more money at the department of veterans' affairs to take care of those who served our country, i'm one who will vote for that. no one asked those who served our country about what it was going to cost to go to war. we ought not be unwilling to pay the price for those who did go to war on our behalf.

but i would say the v.a.'s problems are not budgetary. president obama himself stated that the v.a. is the most funded agency across the federal government with an increase of more than 80% in resources since 2009. i remember reading this quote. the president said the most resourced agency in his administration, in his time in office, was the department of veterans' affairs. the blame for the v.a.'s inadequacies have nothing to do with the demand for insufficient funds, but the management and lack of leadership. in fact, according to the v.a.'s own data, veterans are waiting 50% longer to receive health care services than they were in 2014 when we realized the crisis existed. at the height of the crisis, it's now -- we had a waiting

list. that waiting list is now 50% longer than then. it has become clear that the v.a. seemingly is more concerned with protecting those who work there within their ranks and the leadership at protecting the veteran who has sacrificed so much for our nation. the v.a. was created to serve veterans, not to serve the v.a. today my colleagues from the veterans' affairs committee were here raising their desire to give the secretary even more authority and expressed their frustration, which i share with the lack of urgency to hold bad actors accountable, and in that process of the conversation that took place earlier, they were advocating for legislation that is pending before the senate called the veterans first act that was passed by our veterans' affairs committee weeks ago, and

they believe that that legislation will give the secretary even additional authorities, and that's true. senator blumenthal, the senator from connecticut, the ranking member of the committee and i worked to include in the veterans first act a number of accountability provisions and to try to fix the v.a. at the root of its problem, at the top. so while i agree with the desire to see the veterans first act passed into law and while i agree that it will give the secretary and others at the department of veterans' affairs more authority to hold accountable bad actors at the v.a., i think what we really need to make certain that happens is that the secretary and the leadership of the department of veterans' affairs uses the authority they already have provided them by congress in august of 2014 to hold people

accountable. if actions this week tell us anything, we must push the v.a. to use the authorities they already have, and we will have cause, reason to be skeptical that even giving them greater authorities would result in a better outcome. our nation's veterans deserve better, and they deserve a v.a. in which those who do wrong pay a consequence for that bad behavior. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum

quorum call: