dealing with nuclear materials, whether it is enrichment or looking at the characteristics of uranium in an explosive situation, for example, it would tend to leave lots of vary small particles difficult to clean up. but beyond that, we could talk in a classified environment. senator heinrich: thank you, mr. chairman. senator: is there a term called eestnet back provision in the agreement?: senator kerry: i don't think it's specifically -- senator lee: i think it would be

helpful if you did not use that term much because it is an illusion. i'll have my question. the snap back is more focused on the united states than it is iran. as you know, mr. secretary those of us who are involved in the bush administration, getting countries to economically isolate iran, we used a lot of leverage with countries saying you are either going to be in their market or hours. and that was effective. but he goes to this idea, if there is some kind of snap back, that was a slog. that wasn't a snap. it took used to get countries to divest out of the iranian economy. it will take years to do it again. but let me ask a hypothetical. it was a question in the closed hearing. a number of senators were not satisfied.

this focus is a little bit on what senator ayotte said. let's assume sanctions are lifted. we get the 60 billion -- the iranians are looking for 120 billion additional investments. no violations in the agreement. the economy is humming along. there is an act of terrorism. by the way the violations listed are annexed to -- this is a lot of american power, including the unilateral sanctions, including the financial system -- so on an act of terrorism happens, they blow up a consulate. i think it's likely that they are going to do that in the next 10 years. the congress is upset. the new president is upset. we impose sanctions. we reimpose annex 2 sanctions. this is our power. you talked about how this is power.

we do have a lot of unilateral power with regard to sanctions. then iran cites paragraph 26 of the agreement. and i'm going to read it. it says iran will treat such a reimposition of sanctions as grounds to cease performing its commitments. the deal is over. they are cranking. their economy is cranking. and they can walk. they can legally walk from this agreement. so let me ask you this. if we ever impose so-called snap back sanctions, isn't the deal over? where am i wrong on that question? senator kerry: senator, we would snap sanctions back once they violated the agreement.

secretary lew you asked two : questions. the first set of questions you asked was about the snapback. does it work? yes, it works. if they violate the agreement our the u.n. sanctions were structured so they could be put back in place. senator and they can walk. :secretary lew that's if they : violate the nuclear agreement. snare yo one is they violate the nuclear agreement. scenario two is they blow up some facility, take an act of terrorism, we have the right to put these kinds of measures in place. they are not nuclear sanctions at that point. they are terrorism sanctions at that point. senator iran has stated it will : treat such reimposition of the sanctions in annex two -- as grounds to cease forming those commitments. how am i not reading that correctly? secretary lew: annex two illustrates, lists the nuclear -- chairman the senator's time has

: expired. senator carter i'm happy to : pursue this in greater detail. we have not given away our ability to put these measures in s in place for nonnuclear purposes. senator i think the iranians : have a different view. senator lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i have a number of questions regarding the military applications. secretary kerry, why isn't this a treaty? and why is it not have advice and consent? senator kerry: there are many reasons why, not the least of which is we don't have diplomatic relations with iran. this is a situation with a multilateral agreement with many countries. you don't normally negotiate a treaty in that kind of context. so it is a political agreement. we believe the leverages and it

the snapback of sanctions, the oversight, it is vary our full for iran's compliance. senator lee i would note there's : nothing in article two section two that limits the definition of treaty. nothing in your definition of the term treaty. it defines treaty as a formal agreement between states. i don't think that is an adequate answer. that we will move on. general dempsey, presumably one of the weapons systems that iran is likely to acquire and that russia has implicated -- has indicated -- can you describe what impact it would have on u.s. military operations? general dempsey no question it : would make application of the military option to reduce their nuclear capability more difficult but not impossible

but more difficult. senator lee: thank you. wendy sherman, the chief negotiator for the united states during these talks stated in february of last year of 2014 to the senate foreign relations committee that iranian ballistic missiles or "indeed are going to be part of something that will have to be addressed as part of a copperheads of agreement." at the time was secretary sherman referring to lifting the u.n. embargo on ballistic technology when she made this statement to the foreign relations committee? or did the united states intend to include restrictions on ballistic missiles in this agreement? secretary kerry it does include : -- it's under chapter seven and enforceable under the united nations. article 41. and there are restrictions within this agreement

and i would also comment on the earlier question that the defensive weapons are not covered by the embargo. so the is 300, for example, from russia, is not covered anyway. senator lee: this is a roguish state. it has made not only threats but taken aggressive actions towards the united states, made threats to wipe israel off the map. there are real reasons why we don't want them to get nuclear arms. in light of the fact that that is the biggest concern, we are willing to enter negotiations to lift sanctions and give iran a big economic benefit, why on earth did we not insist as a condition to getting any deal at all that iran, for the love of

god, cease and desist from its terrorist ambition, cease and desist from making comments like it was to wipe israel off the map, cease and desist from undertaking and funding acts of terrorism against the united states and her allies? secretary kerry as was mentioned : earlier, it would be great and ideal if one could negotiate that. i'm not sure how long it would take. and given the imperatives we had with the iranian 19,000 centrifuges and fissile material it will to 10 to 12 bombs already, there asking of the fuel cycle and their near imminent finishing of the iraq reactor which would have produced weapons grade plutonium at the rate of two weapons a year, we felt we had this -- had to keep this targeted to the greatest threat of all, which is the potential of having a nuclear weapon. and if indeed they are meaning

to translate their slogans into policy then getting rid of the nuclear weapon is everybody's first imperative here. so that is what we focused on. we knew you could get tangled up -- our definition -- one man's freedom fire -- freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. you can be fighting forever on definitions of who is protecting home and you won't it anywhere. you literally will not get there. that is why we separated those activities. that does not reduce our commitment as we have defined again and again to push back on every one of those activities. but it's easier to push back against an that doesn't have a nuclear weapon than one that does.

>> i just have one, yes, one question. i've read and i just want to go over this and any reaction you may have, fareed zakari wrote, iran get their -- how is this in america's national interest or israel's are saudi arabia's or anybody's in that area? it is not a plausible scenario. in 2005, three european powers rejected the nuclear deal with iran with two years of negotiation. so i would ask, if this does collapse, does this put them on an accelerated -- weing shown already -- does this put them on an accelerated path? center -- secretary kerry: well we believe so. the president believes it, you are our intel believes it. our intel community has made it very clear to us that there's no return to negotiations with this ayatollah. and that they will then believe

we have given them the reason that they have to develop a nuclear weapon. senator manchin: secretary, between november 2012 and 2013 even when we had the noose around their neck, they still produced 6,000 more centrifuges. their determination is to do it no matter how much we have been strangled. secretary moniz that is quite : correct. absolutely. they declared they would go to hundreds of thousands of versus the current 20,000. senator manchin and you believe : in the heart of hearts and -- >> your one question has now expired. senator graham: general dempsey do you believe the iranians have been trying to build a bomb or a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes all these years? general density i believe they : have a militarization aspiration. senator graham who is the : commander in chief of the

iranian armed forces, secretary carter? who calls the shots? secretary carter the supreme : leader. senator graham who decides if : iran goes to war russian mark the supreme leader, right? who decides if they try to break out, the supreme leader? general dempsey: yes. senator graham does the people : leader's religious views compel him over time to destroy israel and attack america? secretary carter: i don't know. i don't know the man. senator graham i can tell you, i : do. i read what he says. i know the man. i know what he wants. and if you don't know that, this is not a good deal.

could we win a war with iran? is it your testimony that saudi arabia is oh k with this deal and they are committed to you they don't feel compelled to get a bomb because of this deal. secretary carter no, my : testimonicy can't speak for saudi arabia. senator graham well, you have : spoken for saudi arabia all over the american media reassuring everybody in this committee they're okay. you think they were lying to you? or do you think zooish of course not. of course not. who's your counterpart, mr. moni'sz? what is his name? secretary moneysmoniz: mr. sullahe.

senator graham have you read : what he said on july 22nd, according to middle east media research institute? about the side deal. on said we have... -- we reject the concept. what kind of arrangement has he made to make him feel so positive? secretary moniz: first of all, i had not red it. secretary graham i'm going to give it to you. you don't have to answer. would it be surprising to you he's telling the iranian people don't worry about this side deal, we're going to get a good outcome. i assume he's saying we reached an arrangement we're okay with. that's what i'm assuming. secretary moniz i would read it : differently just from hearing --

secretary graham we don't know : what he means. apparently we don't know what the ayatollah wants. i know what he means. he means he's reached an agreement where they acquire a nuclear weapon on the somebody stops them. secretary no, not everybody : believes it. senator graham name one : political party in israel. people who are actually governing the country. name one political party in israel that is for this deal. secretary kerry i didn't hear : you say political party. senator graham i'm sorry. : every political party in israel is opposed to this deal so when you speak about israel and this deal, it's not beebe, it's everybody. secretary: it's exley not everybody. the alan, former head of shinbet -- not a political party. senator graham: --

senator cruz: thank you for being here. general sul man any, the heads of the al quds forces has more blood on his hands than any living terrorist. secretary kerry said to the families of those men and women who gave their lives who were killed by general solomonic, we should apologize. secretary carter, i understand that the joint personnel recovery agency has the classified list of roughly 500 american soldiers who were murdered by iranian iuds. i would ask secretary carter, so that we can deal with secretary -- what secretary kerry suggested, that the department released that list to every

member in this committee declassify that list and release it directly to the service members' families. senator kerry senator, i never : said the word apology. i never mentioned apologize. i said we should thank them for their extraordinary service. i never said the word apologize. please do not the store my words. senator cruz secretary kerry, : it's duly noted you don't apologize to the family members of the service members who were killed by -- secretary kerry that's not what : i said. senator cruz do you apologize or : not? i don't want to put words in your mouth. secretary kerry i thanked them : for their extraordinary service and i would remind them that the united states of america will never take the sanctions off qasam so the money. senator cruz: moniz, the single greatest threat to the united states, if iran acquires a

nuclear weapon is that of an electromagnetic pulse. a nuclear weapon detonated in the atmosphere over these turn seaboard that could kill tens of millions of american's. on july 23, in testimony before congress, you told the united states senate you hadn't read the congressionally mandated commission on emts and you did not know what an emt was. secretary moniz: i said i did not know the 2008 report recommendations. i said i was quite familiar with the issue and we know about emps from nuclear air burst -- secretary cruise se: me read the testimony verbatim so i don't mischaracterize. senator johnson, let me read what you said. senator johnson, are you familiar with the emp's commission 2008 report? no, i am not, sir. you're not? do you know -- do you know what an emp is? you will have to explain it to me please. secretary moniz: that's a

report. if you read further in the testimony, you will see my explicit statement. of course i know about the issue. i happen to know something nuclear weapons, emp is -- senator cruz do you agree that : an emp detonated killed tens -- secretary moniz it's obviously a : very potent weapon. senator cruz could kill tens of : millions of americans, would you agree on that? secretary moniz that would : depend on the specifics -- senator cruz you're refusing to : answer the question. secretary carter, is it correct iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world? secretary carter: i was asked before and i believe that's true, yes. senator cruz do you have any : doubt whatsoever if in excess of $100 billion goes to iran that some of that money will go to jihadists will who will use it to kill americans. secretary carter: i can't say that. i can say their maligned activities about which we're

extremely concerned are quite well funded today and it's -- senator cruz: i just have a second left. secretary carter the rest of : their conduct makes it important they also do not have a nuclear weapon. senator cruz finally, because a : i only have a second left. secretary kerry, you told senator lee this is not a treaty because we don't have diplomatic relations. that is directly contrary to the testimony you gave yesterday to the house. when you were asked -- when you were asked, why is this not considered a treaty? i will read your answer verbatim. secretary kerry well, i know -- : >> i apologize. the senator's time has expired. i promised the witnesses that i would get them out as every member that wanted to was able to ask questions. i want to tell the witnesses i appreciate their patients. i know it has been a vary long morning for them.

i also know they appreciate the gravity of this issue and the importance of allowing every member of the committee to at least ask questions and be informed by your testimony. senator manchin mr. chairman, : could we keep the record open in case there are senators that have written questions? senator mccain i'm sure senator : manchin will have a written question for you, as will senator nelson. so, i want to thank the witnesses and this is a very important. i think the witnesses. we are adjourned.

>> the hot line process fefn you keep your name confidential the report is sent down. facility has full access to whistleblower name and can retaliate. unless they explain themselves, they should retract their statement. >> i agree. when i made my first report i had already known that i was leaving. within 24 hours the chief of staff came forward that if i came any forward he would bring me up on patient-privacy violation. that's how we're treating people that want to give patient care. >> if you report anonymously

they can't get the information from. you really have to get your name to get a validation investigation. it was stopped immediately. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i'm truly stunned by your testimony today and what you've been endured in order to do the right thing for the patients of the va. those who were not provided adequate care should be disciplined and held accountable and instead both of you who came forward with your complaints, your concerns, your deep caring

for the patients at the va centers were the ones who have paid the price. this is just completely unacceptable and as i said as someone who has worked hard to strengthened whistleblower protection it is discouraging and appalling to hear the retaliation that occurred against you. now, you talked about the importance of being able to file a confidential complaint or concern really is the better word. the testimony today of the acting inspector general, there is a section saying that the hot line submission process has been

improved to ensure confidentiality. have you reviewed the changes that have been made and do you have any confidence that would prevent what happened to you? >> they wrote a sentence on a piece of paper. they didn't explain how they were going protect confidentiality. it goes into the ig. sents complaints. it also copies the medical review service. they look at the complaint. they decide whether to investigate it themselves. there's a significant portion that's invested by the facility. i can say that the quality people try hard to verify accuracy and completeness of the

report. they do an outstanding job. however i can verify in all. there's a potential for the name to be leaked even sending it to the medical review service. i would want to know specifically how the ig is going to prevent the names from being released. many times it's important to have the name of the person filing the complaint because they have tremendous amount of evidence. unless the ig can state specifically how it's going to protect the confidentiality i wouldn't believe a single word they say. >> what type of repercussions is that supervisor is going to deal

with. >> very important question. did either of you go to office of special counsel? >> i filed a complaint. >> i also did and still working with them. i truly believe that the office works as hard as it can but that is not the office for patient care. >> right. >> they get dragged into that and somehow the unfair responsibility gets placed on them. that is not their responsible. >> let me go to the issue of patient care. i find it as -- you were not even interviewed and i also find it incredible that a facility would be asked to investigate itself when their positions or

other medical personnel who are the subject of the concern. >> correct, the investigation process needs to be overhauled and needs to be changed significantly. there's such a vested interest in negative information. it's not just the ig. the hospital of medical investigation investigated poor caisht -- patient care. the fourth one was valid at the time i was there. they missed the depth of the problem. they tried to smeared my credibility. however, when i spoke -- i had access to redacted witness list

they said they never asked us about you. those questions were not asked, and so it's not to have a good strong va system but a good quality oversight you need to have a strong ig but honest omi office mid -- medical inspector and i don't believe it exists today. >> do you think the inspector has the expertise to do these kinds of investigations? >> i would say say. >> i would say absolutely not or they have expertise but they're having the same problem in they're not allowed to report findings. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

doctors thank you for obvious concerns for patients by posting and standing your own name out front. i appreciate that very much. you know or have worked in private hospital? >> except during residency. >> in terms of a private medical, these problems in terms of a doctor wanting to point out -- >> i honestly when this came out at the veterans affairs because i had been in the truly sector i thought this was an oversight and this will never happen again.

there's quality assurance. there's a way to bring forward complaints from anyone. it could be from lower level positions all the way to higher level positions because they're not necessarily looking to fiction a -- fix a blame on somebody, they're looking to fix the problem. >> there are models such as administration that has more effective system -- >> right. >> no to fix the problem. not necessarily to punishment. just to fix the problem. >> correct. >> one other aspect of the issue is that -- this might be -- a tendency to not address the problem because resources aren't available to fix it? >> i would have to disagree with that. >> i ask that as a question. was that something you -- i'm going to ask both of you to

respond. you know, i don't -- i can't fix this so i don't want -- the problem doesn't exist. that kind of logic. i don't know -- i don't think that's correct. >> truly because your annual bonuses are based on whether or not you have problems or not there's tendency to suppress all negative information. it's not just in the last year, it's been in the system for decades. there are many dedicated employees. they know if they speak up, they'll get fired. >> even if you didn't want to report something you know what, i'll pick up the rest of the

work. your license made it very difficult. >> the whole compensation scheme, there are no problems here rather i originally asked as a question, if i can't fix it, i'm going to make it go away, i can't admit any problems on my watch? >> there's a problem with how they're evaluated. you can be an exceptional physician, do incredible patient care but if you -- like in the er if you're above six hours my evaluations were dropped because we didn't have the resources. i wasn't evaluated about how a good physician i was. >> there's a connection in a sense that you are a very good physician but you don't have all

that you need and therefore you're downgraded. >> you look at the system issue not the person issue. many of the problems in front line are related to systems. many of the problems in middle and upper-level management. they deliberately overlook issues of patient care including life and death. >> well, again the doctors thank you for you commitment. i appreciate that very much. >> a bill on energy committee. i just want to acknowledge for va in shreveport. his testimony be included in

record. thank you. >> well, thank both of you for being here. i appreciate your courage in coming forward. tell me -- dr. nee, how do you get in a situation where you inherit this type of situation? you have people that are trying -- how do you get in a situation where you're doing -- somebody is going a bunch of test and nobody is even taking the trouble to read those? is that not having enough staff or is it -- >> i think it's people -- >> laziness. i was only one person when i

arrived and my work ethic was inpatient, outpatients within 24 hours and not 12 months. this was not a resource issue. it was people that didn't want to work that hard and you're not going to come and tell me otherwise. >> just very little care for the individuals involved -- >> i would never imagine looking at those boxes and being ok with that. i don't know where they were at. many people knew they existed. >> very good. tell me about the culture of the whole thing. you know, we have a situation where you have people that are practicing and you're bringing forward facts where the practicing is not very good practicing. again, is that because -- the boxes aside but just in basic

care, is that because they're incompetent? is a numbers-driven game? or are people under the a gun? >> they care more about public imagine than patient care. i can tell you that the frontline staff are some of the best in the va. some are less than ideal. i don't think that mixture is any different in private sector. speaking up and identifying problems the first major reaction is not to fix the problem, the nature is not let the problem be known by anyone else. there are millions of quality care episodes that occur across

the nation because the va does do incredible work. when they drop the drop, they drop the ball so significantly that people die. >> i think we have to be very careful. you know, there's some tremendous people. the vast majority of people are doing a great job and taking care of patients. it's try to go figure out what in the culture -- >> it's at the higher level of the administration. absolutely, they wanted to work hard. when you come in from the private sector and work same work loads they were making fun of it. you're not going to do well if you continue working at that

level. they've been put in place and it's just an acceptance. >> i don't hold that against them because they were between a rock and a hard place. they would be retaliated by superiors. two of my chief of staff and yet they made decisions i certainly didn't agree with. i also knew they had no other choice. and in other ways they try today -- tried to make it up to me. >> dr. nee in written testimony -- >> absolutely. how did they disparage your

repuation? >> i have not presented any evidence to them on multiple occasions which was false. they had evidence, the first time they had evidence and the second time there were two hours of testimony they refused. if i am truly lying put forth the testimony and that's not forthcoming. so i mean, you have to think about that. someone is putting in a letter to a senator of the united states and it goes out that you are a liar. >> very good. thank you all very much. >> thank you, i want to thank both of you. just a quick question. we read consistently about the lack of young professionals

going to the va, nurses, doctors, shortages. in light of what we heard today i think it would be more discouraging for a young physician to want to be a part of a health system that is a dysfunctional as you've described. if we could maybe sort of fast-forward here, what can you tell the next generation of health professional why they would work in the va and what kind of hope that they would be able to exercise the abilities that they've gained? do you have a sense of what the next generation is going to want to do in terms of having a health professional in the va? >> i personally would not encourage anyone currently. there has been talk a lot of it

about reform, and that's not what this culture needs. it needs a complete transformation. until that can be put into place, i personally would not encourage anybody to take a job there. >> i stay within the va because it's important to me. i'm willing to stay. everyday i face a day of frustration, hopelessness, when will this maddens stop. i would not encourage unless they fully understood that they were going into a correct retaliatory administration and that needs to change. there should be a line drawn in the sand that anyone who retaliates against a front-line employee will be brought on charges in immediately. they have everything they need

except the administrative confidence to run it. >> those are very powerful statements i believe from both of you. the next kind of comment i would make that we pass the bill, mr. mr. chairman you may help me with this, recognizing the heels of what came to light. there was no structure to fire people, they were just moved from facility to facility. there were 800 that were identified as being deficient. in your statement you said, dr. mitchell, i'm sorry i missed your opening statement you said

something if i did that you would be fire. it's easier to fire a medical professional -- i mean, is it -- obviously it is. >> i don't know about the hireups. what i do know is what you said. they nearly moved to -- the chief of staff that screamed at me routinely was just moved to another side. i don't know why it's easier to get rid of the people that speak up except that the people that speak up -- it's much easier to kill the messager than to deal with the problem. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> we can -- break later. >> yeah. should be right here.

>> why don't you begin? >> thank you chairman kirk. since 1981 has been champ -- championing. if it weren't for great work for

whistleblower none of us would know about the problems of the va. we had great concern and did something unusual. we held a joint congress with afghanistan press in order to help us better understand what was going on in the department. in our 34 year's history nearly 800 current va and current employers contacted us. we reported credible submissions from 35 states and the district of columbia. va employees across the country fared they would face repercussions if they dare to --

if they were to dare with a descending voice. some were willing to be interviewed and quoted by names but other said they contacted us unanimously because they're still employed at the va and are worried about real -- retaliation. many have come to doubt the willingness to protect them. these dears appear to be relate founded. we believe it is oversight at its worst. issued a subpoena demanding all of our records that we had received from current or former employees at the department of veteran affairs. of course they refuseed to comply with the subpoena.

we believe it created a chilling effect and the numbers slowed to a trickle. just last month the ig sent a white people to dozen to congressional offices publicly attacking whistleblowers. he pointed out quote in attempt to go defend itself work the va criticize sizes itself healthcare inspection in the first place. the paper fascinates character and officer i -- information.

we were please today see acting ig griffin step down and we're hopeful for a brighter future in the office with new acting ig but is still being advised by the same counsel responsible for that offices misconduct. as they noted they're still not a permanent ig after a vai -- vai -- favorable from many that have come forward and we commend their good work. by merely addressing isolated incidents is not if you have. va is struggling with toxic culture and something must be done. private meetings with them are not enough. he needs to be elevating their

status as well as holding retaliators accountable. congress should also update legislation for accountability for those who retaliate. they should be able to hold retaliators responsible something nearly impossible, unless discipline retaliators. the definition of wrong doing of va managers should include retaliation against whistleblower. congress should extend to contractors and veterans. the government has fail today care -- failed care to our veterans. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discus how va

oig interacts with whistleblowers. i've testified at congressional hearings in any previous role for audits and evaluations. i welcome the opportunity to share with you the work of all components of our oig. counselor to the inspected general and mr. david day. i assume the the position of the inspected general on july 6th, 2015, in the past weeks i have taken steps to strengthen the whistleblower program as well as protection. these actions are outlined in my

written statement. i took these actions to establish clear expectations and set a tone at the top for our organization regarding importance of how we protect rights and confidentiality. oig is primary site for reviewing fraud abuse and mismanagement. our hotline serves at the central point of contact for individuals to report allegations. we take this seriously our responsibility not to take information, when individuals contact us we advise them of their right to submit complaint to identify themselves or remain confidential or waive right and

advise them of consequences of the decision. all complaints are evaluated we must be highly selective in the cases we accept. we also make case referrals to va in accordance with complaint referral directive who make effort separate we continue our inquiry until we are satisfied or we will open a case to review the matters further. in many cases these referrals involve veteran's complaints regarding episodes of medical care and it is not possible for va to review the complaint without the oig, disclosing

identity of. we discuss they provide written consent to discloses their identity. if they say no, it goes no further. there's a lot of confusion on the role of the ig regarding whistleblowers and retaliation. for example, the oig does not make a determination as to whether or not an individual who makes a complaint or provides information to us has made a protected disclosure. it's a legal determination made by the office and special counsel, the merit systems protections board or the u.s. court of appeals for the federal circuit. they have the authority to provide whistleblower relief. they face many challenges reported. they present a task.

for example, it is difficult for us to reveal adequate complaint without details of which clinic is involved. we cannot contact an individual to obtain additional information if they choose to remain anonymous. some identify themselves but later are unable or decline to provide critical information that should enable to focus resources more specifically. oig works to protect the identity. at times they become known based on other sources of information. some individuals who have asked confidentiality voice the same complaint to va management, coworkers, media outlets and

made statements that they are going to come to us or they have come to us. everyone has their own perception as to what the going on. they may sigh the oig coming in and making sure that the i's are dotted and the the's are crossed. we have different challenges. specially those complaints that could be criminal. we need whistleblowers to bring the central issues forward. although the perceptions are directly related to their complaints, at times they are not in the position to know all the facts or they overemphasize the viewpoint.

we are not on anyone's side. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from the whistleblowers today and address these important issues. i'm continue to go reevaluate businesses processes to ensure that they provide adequate protection. this concludes my statement and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> let me ask you a question. we have daniel bryan when they set up a hotline from va employees she got 800 complaints. you hit with a subpoena asking for all of those names. it seem that had you want today retaliate against all of the whistle whistleblowers. why did you issue the subpoena? >> i did not issue that subpoena. and i think there might be a communications breakdown. from what i understood the concern was to understand all of

the issues with relation to wait -times and make sure we had the sites identified and sites where potential harm could occur. that was the method used. we understood that pogo didn't have the authority to investigate these and we did. >> do you understand the feeling based on the record that the the sub sub committee has received that you could retaliate on those people? >> i do understand that they could have the perception, i do not think that's the perception of the eig. va had approximately 150 sites plus, we were not sure if we had all the information. it's something that pogo may

have received and we didn't even care if we had the name as far as i knew. we just needed to know the site, should we look at it. so i do think that there might have been some communication issues here. >> can you -- if the situation the confidentiality is the core stone of the work they have no interest of getting the -- >> thank you for the opportunity to clarify. there was no confusion. it's true that she wasn't there at the time. counsel of her office contacted pogo general counsel and we told them right away that we were very happy to work with them to give them any information without having to get any identifying information about

the individuals we were speaking. we wrote that in an e-mail to them. give us a second. we're overwhelmed. we're happy to talk to you. the next day we accepted a season of the people who had contacted us. >> if i ask you to withdraw the subpoena, what would you say back to me? >> at this point i would hope that there is no information at pogo that would have resulted in patient harm that we wouldn't know about to go take a look at. i'd like to ask morgan -- >> within 24 hours of complaining her identity was disclosed. it seems that the disclosure about confidential sources is routine at the ig's office.

>> i'd like to speak to that. i definitely heard dr. mitchell with what she said. i believe her confusion her complaint went from senator mccain's office to va. it did not come directly to us. it's very hard for us to protect confidentiality and i do not believe that they came from our office based on the facts that i'm looking at. however, it did go to va to medical center and i can understand some of the frustration that dr. mitchell has. >> daniel, i would expect that if -- could you talk about this subpoena and the work on that. i would expect that if you gave the information those 800 employees would receive severe

retaliations. >> there's no doubt in our mind that that was on uncanunacceptable step. there was no question that we were going to turn over the identity. i would agree with you sir. well, we have have -- it has expired and we are waiting because they haven't withdrawn the subpoena. it would need to go to court and have the court enforce it. there's been a number of senators who have question and why they have done this and they haven't been willing to do so. i believe the matter has been turned to the economy -- committee for review as well. >> i would ask you to withdraw it. er i --

>> i will take that under strong consideration. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman. >> chairman kirk, thank you members of the sub committee. given the time limitations my statement will focus on three areas, first role and retaliation cases second an everview of -- overview. starting with our role, make declosures of wrong doing. there are separate processes for these two types of cases. it meets a very high standard of review. i send the matter for the

investigation. they must submit a report to my office. the whistleblower is given an opportunity to comment on that report. i then determine whether it's required by statute and whether the findings of the agency appear to be reasonable. this includes whether action including discipline has been taken. i send that information president and congress, that's the process for disclosures. protects workers specially retaliation. unlike disclosure cases where we do not have investigative authority, retaliations conducts investigation and determinations if retaliation has occurred. we can get relief for the employee including a stay, reversing termination and losses

as a result of termination. that is in a nutshell is retaliation complaints. i'll talk now about how our agency is addressing them. it has 40 employees with jurisdiction over the federal government. we prioritize work on va cases. perhaps most significantly an expedited review process for retaliation cases. this process allows to present strong cases to the va at an early stage spending significant time and resources. in the past year 22 corrective actions including a settlement on behalf of katherine mitchell and two other phoenix employees.

my written testimony summarizes a number of the other cases we solved through the program including three whistleblower complaints last week. agree to resolve many other cases including -- we led to importance in va with many more cases pending. the disciplinary action include termination of employees and the suspension of four employees who improperly handled prescription drugs. these are some of the positive steps we are seeing. there are however several

ongoing areas that require more attention. a particular concern is the accessing of employees medical records. in many instances va employees receive care. in several cases medical records have access without adequate justification possibly to discredit them. i've also notified the va that it should consider corrective actions which could deter these types of breaches. certainly i want to comment briefly on two whistleblowers. received va reports generated in response to disclosure made by mitchell and nee. after i review and have the opportunity to comment on the reports we will submit information to congress and

president. i can't provide details at this time. doctors mitchell and nee obstacles to change in an organization like the va. their efforts will lead to improve care at phoenix and i want to thank them both. in conclusion, we appreciate the committees' interest. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. i would like you to go into detail, the method of retaliation you described, goes into the employees medical record maybe that employee has been a veteran and has caught care and will use that medical information to retaliate against the employee.

>> yes, that's -- >> that sounds heinous. >> it may not necessarily be someone who is retaliating. it could be a colleague. i understand about 40% at the case load is from va employees? >> that's correct. that's correct. both disclosure side and retaliation side. >> what was the worst case where they accessed the whistleblower medical record. i'm a little hard pressed to say, my written testimony provides more detail on it. i want to stress two steps that the va should take. one they should make it much harder to access medical records. they need a better lock on the

system. doctors need to have access to medical records. coworkers and colleagues do not and they shouldn't. it seems like a fix. the second thing and the bigger picture that i think the va can do is valuate how it stores information and stop what we are hearing is we need the the employee's address to mail them a w-2 or pay stub. there's no need to go into an employees medical records to get their home mailing address. so if they can stop it would go a long way. >> until you -- you guys have 216 in 43 states. is that true?

>> yes, that's correct. that's just on the one side. it's not on the disclosure side. it's happening nationwide. that's right. i can talk more about the numbers if you like me to or -- >> that's great. senator -- >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding the valuable hearing and thank you to our witnesses if your time and your insight. as i have seen in the wisconsin va facility and indeed in the rest of the nation, the role of whistleblowers is critical to running an effective organization. an agency has to be open to accept criticism. this has been tremendously

important to the mission of taking care of our veterans. i wanted to thank you for mentioning ryan in your statement. people like ryan truly make a difference, and in particular he helped turn around what was happening at the va in wisconsin. after considering the testimony that witnesses have given and i apologize how tarredy i was in being here, i didn't get to the heart of some of the problems of the va. i want to talk about the culture that i have just seen that exists against whistleblowers. you said that no other federal agency has taken a proactive approach of training managers on whistleblower protections yet complaints about prices are up.

in fact your statement that it's on track to receive 38 prohibited practice complaints this year and that more than 1300 or 35% of those will be filed by va employees. you also make this point va now surpasses dod in the total number of cases filed despite the fact that dod has the twice number of civilian personnel. i know that secretary mcdonald are working to change the culture but complaints keep coming. more has to be done to change culture at va and -- to improve the system so that there is aggressive action against those who retaliate against whistleblowers. the question i have for you is -- that i would also like to

hear what she has to say what to change culture here? >> there are important steps that the va can take. we have to keep working the embrace with the blowers. changing the culture begins with an understanding that we need employees to come forward and report health and safety issues. we don't shoot the -- that's great. i understand the secretary tries to meet with whistleblowers when he goes and visits facilities, that's trerr -- terrific.

after he leaves, they have to be told to recognize and support whistleblowers. they need to keep meeting with whistleblowers, listen to them and praise them and repeat it until it gets hold. they could do more training. they are training now. hospitals need to get trained in what whistleblower is important why whistleblowers are important, the more they are trained it will really help. >> i would love the rest of your statement in writing if you could, but i did want to give her a chance to respond oh to is -- to that question. >> thank you.

it has to be tough. it has to be a point where somebody would take great pause to do that. i think you need training in the va system with regards to the hr personnel practices. you need training in leadership. i think leaders have to step forward and protect wristle -- whistleblowers. maybe they don't have the tools in the pocket to do that. i personally in the three weeks i was here i added a comp oabt -- component of training. people in the medical facility attend the briefings are criminal investigators i normally give that. i told them that i wanted that piece in there. that doesn't touch everyone in the va system but it touches a

lot of people. so those would be some of the things i would look ated at. >> thank you. >> i won't take a lot of time. so 40% of the cases are va, so that means 60% of the federal agencies. it's remarkable. >> yeah. ..

the. >> mayors many more igs across the federal government at this point, and without reservation i can to its the worst shop in the government. >> pretty decisive. >> simple. >> on that i will let our members go. we will be in recess here. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] a. >> on monday c-span is partner with the new hampshire union leaders for the newspapers august 3 voters first foreign. also attend republican candidates have been invited to participate with event taking place at saint anselm college in manchester.