the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the house will come to order.

the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker i seek unanimous consent to speak out of order for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm gathered here today with some of my colleagues because we participated in the washington castle's charity classic. i just wanted to mention this. founded in 2008, the washington

casltels, that's the tennis team. mr. dent: the charity classic is an extension of those efforts and 100% of the ticket proceeds benefiting tragedy assistance programs for survivors or taps, the d.c. public education fund and food and friends. they can choose what organization they support. we had a tennis match stars versus stripes. the stars defeated the stripes. having been on the stripes for the last three years they finally won one. it's nice to be talking about something other than golf on the house floor. i also wanted to acknowledge one person with us today, martina hingeas, who's in the audience. -- martina hingas, who's in the audience. she just won women's and men's mixed doubles. both the women's doubles title

and yoder, bustos and beatty and where is jared huffman with the big serve? we had a wonderful time. senators flake and merkley and the rest who couldn't be here today that are traveling but we just want to thank them all for this wonderful effort. we need more tennis. thank you. at this time we'd like to present this trophy, this cup from the stripes to the stars. congratulations. thank you mr. speaker. and we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is -- mr. polis: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new york, mr. king to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1300, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1300, a bill to direct the secretary of homeland security to make anthrax vaccines and anti-microbials available to emergency response providers,

and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 424. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any

extraneous material in the record on h.r. 1994, as amended and i ask unanimous consent that an exchange of letters between myself and chairman chaffetz regarding jurisdiction waivers on this bill be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 388 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house resolution 1994. the chair appoints the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1994, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 38 united states code to provide for the removal or gee dee motion of employees of the department of veterans affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from florida mr. miller and the gentleman from california, mr. takano, will each control po -- 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. miller. mr. miller: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order.

the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. chairman, my bill would provide the secretary of the department of veterans affairs with yet another tool to instill accountability, much needed accountability at the department of veterans affairs by allowing him or her to remove or demote any employee for poor performance or misconduct. the bill also contains language to protect, let me say that again to the members here on the floor, to protect whistle blowers by stipulating that an employee may not be removed under this new authority if they have an open claim at the office of special council until that claim is closed. to add even more protections for those who blow the whistle at v.a., my bill would also set up a new process to be used in

addition to any other process that is currently allowed by law. which would protect whistle blowers from retaliation by removal while they bring issues to light up through their chain of command. my bill also makes changes to the senior executive service performance evaluation system. it also allows the secretary to recoup a portion of an s.e.s. employee's retirement benefits if they are convicted of a felony related to their work performance and limits paid to administrative leave to 14 days within a one-year time frame for any v.a. employee. h.r. 1994 would also extend to 18 months the probationary period for all new v.a. employees to ensure a complete evaluation before offering permanent status. finally, mr. chairman, my bill requires that g.a.o. do a study on time and space that is spent

on union activities. i agree with all of my colleagues that a great majority of v.a.'s employees are hardworking public servants who are dedicated to providing quality health care and benefits that our veterans are earned. and i'm sure that the majority of these employees who are dedicated to the mission of the department are just as frustrated as most of us are that problem employees continue to be moved to new positions or placed in a corner as opposed to removing them from the payroll. we have seen how the presence of poor performers and misconduct range interesting unethical practices to outright criminal behavior can spread like a cancer throughout the work force. and when the secretary comes across this presence of poor performance or misconduct as we

have seen time and time again across our contry, such as phoenix, denver, central alabama, philadelphia, los angeles, and in my home state of florida, and in many other places across our nation, it is nearly impossible to remove that cancer in a reasonable amount of time due to current civil service rules. this is not just my view. a recent g.a.o. study found it can take six months to a year or sometimes significantly longer, mr. chairman, to fire poor performance government employees. more telling, last month v.a.'s deputy secretary gibson sat before our v.a. committee and admitted that it was too difficult to fire a substandard employee. we should all agree that it defies common sense for it to take many months or even years to fire a poor performing employee at v.a. we as members of congress and the american citizens appreciation the sacrifices that our veterans have made. and always argue that they deserve nothing but the highest quality care and treatment, but

in my view bad employees mean bad customer service, and an impediment to the quality services our veterans have earned. if we truly want for our veterans to have the very best than the status -- then status quo simply is no longer accept and. i know there are concerns this bill will hurt the department's ability to recruit and retain good employees and hurt employee morale, but i think this could be nothing -- nothing could be further from the truth. the best way to improve morale is to get rid of the causes of the dysfunction that we currently see at the v.a. nobody enjoys working for an organization that fails to hold poor performance accountable and the employees at v.a. should only want to recruit are those who want to work in an environment where they know everyone is respected and can be

held accountable for their actions. some have also said that this bill is not needed because v.a. fires employees all the time. but the raw numbers, mr. chairman, just don't tell that story. following a year in which we witnessed the biggest scandal in v.a. history, only three, let me repeat, three employees of the work force of over 340,000 people have been successfully fired for wait time manipulation. these numbers or lack thereof make it clear that more work needs to be done to turn the tide at v.a. and change the culture within the department. that's why this legislation is not punitive, but is necessary if we truly want the secretary to make the changes that this congress, that the american people, and most importantly our veterans expect to see made. i know that the unions oppose this and continue to compare my bill to current law in an attempt to illustrate what they

think my bill is lacking in their opinion. but comparing my bill to current law ignores the far too often egregious effects of civil -- current laws which have contributed to the scandals at the v.a. yes, the bill before us today is different from current law because current law needs to be changed. . despite our attempts to reach common ground with the unions, they made it clear from the beginning that pretty much everything but the status quo will not garner their support. well we have proven that the status quo is not working. it's failing the mission at the department of veterans affairs and it's failing the veterans that the v.a. is supposed to serve. mr. chairman, it's time for a change. the secretary needs the ability

to make real reforms and he needs to be able to do it quicker than the current average time line of six to 12 months to remove a single employee. it's also come to my attention that the administration has recently come out saying that they strongly oppose the bill and would potentially veto it if it arrives at the president's desk. this removal authority for all v.a. employees is modeled after the same authority provided in the choice act that was passed by the house and the senate and signed by the president last summer. the same authority that at the bill's signing almost exactly the last time last year the president said, and i quote, if you engage in unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired. it shouldn't be that difficult end quote. mr. chair, i am not sure why

the president has changed his position almost exactly a year later. the voice of the unions should not be heard over the voice of our veterans. we need to continue to push for the same change we pushed for last year. now is not the time to change our belief in the need for greater accountability within the v.a. our veterans still expect us to continue to advocate for them as more and more of v.a.'s missteps are brought to light every single day. whether they are on the front page of the paper or not. we cannot continue to put the needs of employees whose performance or misconduct would not be tolerated in the private sector ahead of our nation's veterans because we are scared of change or because we don't want to upset the unions. ladies and gentlemen if we do not at least try to give the secretary the tools that he or she needs to hold v.a. accountable, then we as you a

congress are just as culpable for any future v.a. failures as the antiquated civil service laws that foster those failures now. there is not a doubt in my mind that all of my colleagues here today care for our nation's veterans, but today we can decide to stand with our veterans or we can decide to stand with the status quo, which i believe has failed them and the american public for much too long. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1994. mr. takano: we are all frustrated that the v.a. is not moving fast enough to remove bad employees. i do not believe that h.r. 1994 will lead to long-term accountability at the fact. in fact, i believe it will have

the opposite effect by possibly shielding poor performance -- performing v.a. employees from ever being removed. this bill violates long-standing supreme court precedent regarding our constitution's promise of due process rights. our constitution guarantees that we cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. our veterans were willing to lay down their lives to defend this basic promise. the supreme court of the united states has determined that our constitution gives federal employees the right to due process, meaning fair notice and a chance to respond before losing their jobs. now, as lawmakers we do not have the power to revoke this constitutional principle of fairness and due process for a select group of people, no matter how outraged we may feel.

and i believe it is wrong to assume that v.a. employees are guilty until proven innocent. if h.r. 1994 were enacted, i believe courts could vary well overturn any dismissals as a violation of those employee's due process rights. -- employees' due process rights. they could reinstate and give back pay to those who were removed. bad employees would become permanent fixtures at the v.a. we all agree that v.a. needs to use the current tools it has more vigorously to remove poor-performing employees, but we should not throw out important constitutional protections from arbitrary actions simply because some claim it is too difficult to follow the law or be faithful to our basic principles of fairness. h.r. 1994 would provide a new tool to v.a. managers, but

perhaps not the tool imagined by its supporters. bad managers and political appointees would have the ability to thriten the livelihoods -- threaten the livelihoods of honest v.a. employees trying to follow regulations and policies, thus reinforcing the culture of fear and reluctance to speak out against poor management or malfeasance at the v.a. and if these employees were fired, they would very little opportunity to tell their side of the story. h.r. 1994 would make v.a. the only at-will workplace within the federal government. veterans desperately need our nation's top doctors, nurses and counselors to choose to work at the v.a., and it is already hard enough to recruit them away from the private sector. an article last week in "usa today" found that v.a. has 41,500 unfilled medical jobs

quote, forcing vets into costly private care end quote. removing basic civil service protections and basic fairness would make v.a. an even less desirable place to work and add these -- and add to these recruiting woes. now, keep in mind that over 30% of v.a. employees are veterans themselves. they deserve better than to find themselves in a workplace that strips them of basic constitutional protections. again, protections that they fought to defend. this bill is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the civil service using the v.a. as a test case. it would empower the very individuals who have often perpetuated the worst v.a. scandals. v.a. managers to threaten the livelihood of hardworking frontline v.a. employees and to silence the voices of the

whistleblowers we rely on to tell us when something is wrong. for all of our frustration with the v.a., the continued existence of a nonpartisan civil service is vital if we are to fix the mess at the v.a. and provide our veterans with the benefits and services that we have promised them and that they have earned. now, as the merit systems protection board has stated in a report from may, and i quote due process is available for the whistleblower, the employee who belongs to the wrong political party, the reservist whose periods of military service are inconvenient to the boss, the scapegoat and the person who has been misjudged based on faulty information. due process is a constitutional requirement and a small price to pay to ensure the american

people receive a merit-based civil service rather than a corrupt spoiled system, end quote. we should not, under the guise of unaccountability, destroy one of the best tools we have to provide the benefits and services we have promised our veterans and that tool is a nonpartisan and nonpolitical v.a. work force. we need to take steps to protect the vast majority of high-performing v.a. -- high-performing v.a. work force from being fired at the whim of capricious or retaliatory managers or political appointees, not to make it even easier. now i believe that h.r. 1994 violates our constitution. the administration has issued a veto threat, and if enacted, h.r. 1994 would not stand up in a court of law. ultimately, veterans would be harmed when most -- they would be harmed the most when courts

overturn this policy, and then reinstate bad employees at v.a. instead of scapegoating the vast majority of hardworking v.a. employees congress should look for real opportunities to reform our civil service in a manner that is constitutional while providing adequate resources and better policies to improve outcomes for veterans at the v.a. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: mr. chairman, it's amazing that every single democrat in the congress last year voted in favor of the very same rules and regulations. with that i would give mr. lamborn a minute and 30 seconds, he's from the fifth district of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 1994 and i thank chairman miller for bringing this critical matter to light. i am on the side of veterans

and we in this nation have the sacred trust of defending the men and women who have defended our freedom. without accountability in the v.a. we cannot properly care for our veterans. while i believe the great majority of v.a. employees are dedicated and hardworking americans doing the right things for our veterans, there are those in the v.a. who have not acted in the best interest of our veterans and these individuals must be terminated. the fact that only three employees were successfully fired due to wait time manipulations is a disgrace. the current system is broken. poor and mediocre performance that endangers our veterans should not be tolerated. h.r. 1994 will help remove bad actors more easily from the v.a. system, enabling the remaining dedicated v.a. employees to better serve our veterans. the bill will protect whistleblowers. accountability in the v.a. needs to happen now, and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1994. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 23 minutes. mr. takano: just in quick sbons to my good friend, -- response to my good friend chairman miller, of bringing up the provision. yes, most of us did vote for the choice act, the provision that dealt with the s.c.s. reform to make it easier to fire those employees. that number of employees is a very small number, about 400. we're talking about addressing the entire 300000 strong employees. mr. miller: if the gentleman will yield? mr. takai: i'll yield. when i'm -- mr. takano: i'll yield when i'm finished. at the time i wish we spent more time looking at the constitutionality. i believe that is in question.

mr. miller: i believe that the constitution of the united states protects even a single individual. so to say that it's only a small group should not be anything in this discussion, and i would assure you that the president of the united states would have had ample time to go and review it before he signed it into law. mr. takano: reclaiming my time. let me just say that i believe the constitution applies to the senior executive service as well as the 300,000 employees of the veterans administration. i would now like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from nevada. the chair: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. ms. tithe u.s.: as a -- ms. titus: as a member of the house veterans' committee, i rise in opposition of h.r. 1994. this is the wrong way to go

about care for our nation's heroes. we're indeed throwing out the baby with the bath. my colleagues have outlined a number of reasons to oppose this legislation, including questionable constitutionality, the elimination of long-standing and important due process procedures for employees and the damage it would do to whistleblower protections. but i'd like to focus on the big picture, on the impact this will have on v.a. employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, and on our efforts to recruit the best employees possible to serve our veterans. this legislation takes v.a. employees from ontores who clean the facilities -- janitors who clean the facilities and guards who protect the hospitals, to our nurses who care for our nation's heroes and the doctors providing critical care for our veterans and moves them into second-class status. if h.r. 1994 passes we'll create a two-tiered federal system with v.a. employees less respected, less rewarded and

less protected than others. the v.a. already struggles to attract the best and brightest to serve our nation's heroes. if this legislation passes, we'll make it even harder to recruit and retain the most qualified and best trained work force at the v.a. i know this because in las vegas, we face challenges to fully staff our brand new state-of-the-art hospital, and if the bill passes, we'll lose an important recruitment tool and our veterans will be the ones who will hurt. so let's not fool ourselves here. this is just another piece of the republican agenda to demonize public employees and privatize government services. today it's the v.a., tomorrow it will be another agency that they don't like. who knows, the e.p.a., the t.s.a. the f.a.a. the usda. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. don't walkerize the