you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, booktv, television for serious readers. .. sharing.

>> guest: it would be information on threats and risks, basically on threat signatures, potential attackers that would help a company if it chose to do so defend itself better. it's not going to be privacy data.

well, that's the hope. probably not. but it's a good first step, and i think if you talk to some of the sponsors, they would tell you, you know, we know it's just a first step, we know we have to do more, but we can get agreement on this, and it builds consensus on the hill to bring forward on cybersecurity. >> host: well, let's bring in tim starks of politico who covers cybersecurity for that organization to. >> hi, jim. you mentioned there was the real deal waiting in congress. what would that look like? what are things congress hasn't done it should be doing once they finish this bill, even if they don't finish this bill? >> guest: they have to think about dhs, its authorities, what are its roles. dhs has this grand mission to defend the nation's cyberspace, but they have neither authorities or resources. so that would be a good thing to change. they need to think about critical infrastructure. again, the bill in 2012 would

have dealt with critical infrastructure. probably not in the be right way, and you saw the obama administration put out an executive order in 2013 that imposed very light requirements on critical infrastructure to protect their networks. congress needs to go back and ask if that's enough. >> i guess that would be the follow-up question, what should protection of critical infrastructure look like? >> guest: it turns out it's really hard. we were a bit naive when we first, some of us, started working on these bills. what is it you want companies to do? actually make them have harder networks that will be less preen to breaches -- prone to breaches. and the nist framework -- i know i'm speaking in greek, but that's almost inevitable. the executive order called for nist to come up with standards

for cybersecurity that could be voluntarily implemented by companies. so the question is, if the companies voluntarily implement those standards, will they be harder to hack? if the answer's yes, we're better off. if -- it's a process. nist is refining them, some companies are doing them. the thing that was neat about the executive order that was different from what congress tried is the 2012 bill made dhs the uber-regulator for cybersecurity. it turns out everybody on the planet with possibly two exceptions hates dhs. it's not fair, that's just how it is. democrats and republicans stopping me in the hall saying do you really think we should go with the dhs? i knew what the answer was, and they would say, well, that's the administration position, and they would just shake their head and walk away. the executive order is sector-specific. it gives each regulator the

responsibility to insure companies are moving ahead and implementing the nist framework, so the banking regulators, ferc, all the different agencies -- >> host: and nist, of course, the national institute for standards and technology. >> guest: right. >> sure. one thing that we've heard from the administration recently that they don't want congress to do yet is to deal with the issue of encrypted tech products like your smartphone and creating any kind of back door for law enforcement or intelligence agencies. is that wise that they backed off of that fight? how should that debate be answered, if it even can? >> guest: for me, this is a rerun. i was the person who signed the regulation releasing encryption in 2000 because we had the same debate. it's true. law enforcement and intelligence will be hurt. you do increase risk to the

public. the flip flip side of that is you also decrease risk. yes, it'll be easier for terrorists and criminals to keep their messages secret, but at the same time, it will be harder for cyber spice or criminals to steal your data. to it's a balance. what we decided back in 2000 was in general the benefits outweighed the costs. and that's the debate we're having now. it's a different world. you have isis, you have a much more energetic russia and china, but that's the fundamental question. if your data is more secure, are we better off as a nation? and that's the position the administration took. i'm not a big fan of back doors. one of the reasons we decided against back doors the last time was that the belief that any back door that we built in would be found by someone else and used by them. so you do kind of compromise security wit. but no do you want -- but no doubt there's a problem for the

fbi, it's just a hard issue. i wouldn't see this as the end of debate. >> host: jim lewis, when you think about cybersecurity that the government and private industries face, are we thinking about the right things? >> guest: no. so that's the good news because people are beginning to realize that. we're still sort of shaped by thinking from the dawn of the computer age that i can defend my network. i can do whatever it takes to make my network hard to hack. you can make your network harder to hack, right? but you can't make it unhackable. you can't protect networks. and particularly determined state opponents like russia and china, they're always going to get in.

>> we're having some technical trouble with the program you're watching. we apologize for the interruption, and we're working to correct the problem. we hope to return to the program shortly. we're having some technical trouble with the program you're watching. we apologize for the interruption, and we're working to correct the problem. we hope to return to the program shortly. >> we're having some technical

trouble with the program you're watching. we apologize for the interruption, and we're working to correct the problem. we hope to return to the program shortly. >> we're having some technical trouble with the program you're watching. we apologize for the interruption, and we're working to correct the problem. we hope to return to the program shortly. >> we're having some technical trouble with the program you're watching. we apologize for the interruption, and we're working to correct the problem. we hope to return to the program shortly. >> a u.s. citizen be worried about cyber attacks and what kind. >> guest: a few years ago we

might have reached a point where you see the growing public awareness, a growing public concern, things like target and opm made people realize, you know, it's not just big government agencies, it's not just spies spying on each other, it's your average citizen. and so i think you need to be relatively concerned if your password is your dog's name, you're not safe. and if your bank isn't using dual factor authentication which is just, you know, you have to do two things to be identified, you're at risk. how much risk? you know, it depends how much money you have. if you have a lot of money, you're going to be more attractive. if you work for an interesting place, you're going to be more attractive. if you're an average person, will you get caught up when a big insurance company, bank or credit card company gets hacked? there's more risk than there was two or three years ago. >> sort of big picture, what's the worst case scenario for any

kind of attack, and how likely would that be? >> guest: we are having a contest at csis to come up with a replacement for cyber pearl harbor because it's really kind of old. we need a new catastrophe, and some people have said a cyber 9/11 kind of silly because no one's going to die, cyber katrina don't like that one because there's no water involved. what is the worst that could happen? it would probably be some kind of attack on the electrical grid. you don't want to overstate that, and so you can look for real world examples. we had the 2003 northeast blackout. that's what a damaging cyber attack would look like. you had the flash crash a couple of years ago when the stock market kind of went haywire. that's what a cyber attack would look like. it's not the end of the world, but it would be be damaging. it would cost the economy some money. probably no one would die, but you would notice.

>> is the collective drip, drip, drip of all of these attacks more damaging, though than, say, one or even two big attacks like that? >> guest: one of my rules that i've instituted in the last couple of years is anything that sounds like the plot of a few man chew movie is probably not a good policy. china has this 100 years' strategy to undermine the death through a death by a thousand cuts. i don't think so. the things that have been most damaging have been o to pm -- opm, target, some of the breaches at the department of energy a while ago that got nuclear weapons day. ooh, that was bad. but, you know, overall this probably costs the economy about $100 billion a year which sounds like a lot, but in the scope of the american economy which is $17 trillion, it's almost a rounding error.

it doesn't mean we should like it. you don't want to tolerate crime or spying, but i don't think it's the end of the world. >> host: jim lewis, on the flip side has cybersecurity defense become a big business? >> guest: a huge business and a huge source of investment. there's probably over 200 companies now in silicon valley each trying to come up with a different solution. if you look at the big i.t. companies, the googles, the intels, the facebooks, they're all buying cybersecurity companies. it's a growth industry. and the reason for that isn't because the threat has become so severe, the reason is that we all depend on this now. when i started working with this thing, it was kind of like a toy. you know, here was this thing on your desk, and you could go to a web site and maybe play pac-man, right? that was pretty exciting. now it's built into the fabric

of our society. the banks do the best job. they will spend huge sums of money to make their networks harder. and that creates demand for companies, for products and for skilled people. >> you mentioned china just a moment ago. i don't want to mischaracterize your position, but you see some positive in the agreement that was reached between president obama and president xi on cyber in september. what do you like about it, and what do you think the shortcomings are for that deal? >> guest: you know, it's something that -- i was in a meeting where people were criticizing the agreement. and for a minute i thought i was back in the reagan administration, because it's all the stuff you heard back then; well, they're going to cheat, they won't live up to the agreement, we were fools to do this. we're not talking about helsinki here, the helsinki accords. you have to start somewhere. you have to find a way to work with these people. and the chinese made a dramatic shift in their position.

prior to the summit when you talked to them, they said, well, we don't need to talk about economic espionage because, of course, we don't do it. a huge change. it's a first step. how well it makes progress and in reducing the problem will depend very much on how much the u.s. pushes on china to live up to its agreement. the biggest problem with it is if you look, the language was carefully designed -- and this was in our interests too to say there's a line. on this side commercial's i imagine the, we agree nod to do it -- espionage, we agree not to do it. on this side, traditional espionage, nothing said. so it's not clear to me how much we've caught the pla. the chinese would said we haven't caught nsa, but the traditional espionage part is still very much up in the air. >> host: so do you think the u.s. is also conducting cybersecurity attacks against state players? >> guest: the chinese always complain about it. and, of course, we have

mr. snowden to thank for knowing now that the u.s. has been very active. i was at a dipper a couple year -- a dinner a couple years ago with a senior nsa official who said that the internet had created a golden age for signals intelligence. so we benefit as much as anyone. >> host: speaking of edward snowden, did he do the country a service in the fact of getting this out here at least to have the discussion? >> guest: no. if snowden had limited himself to the domestic surveillance programs, you could make that case. what possible benefit to privacy does it do to reveal that we were monitoring russian nuclear launch facilities? right? that is directly related to national security. and telling the russians that we were doing that does not make anyone better off. what good does it do to tell the

chinese we were monitoring their nuclear facilities? that's not a privacy issue. so he did not do a very good job of doing the things that might have been good to talk about, the privacy and the domestic debate from the foreign intelligence side where he did real harm to national security. >> he will look great in orange to, by the way. club fed is nice, you know? they have volleyball, and the food is okay, i'm told. sorry, just kidding. [laughter] i am not a snowden fan. >> back to china for one second. i'm sure you've seen and heard the reports that there are still intrusions going on -- >> guest: no! >> shocking, i know. do you make them to be legitimate? i mean, there are different -- there are questions about some of the reports, who did what. do we know yet how well they're honoring the deal and why or why they aren't?

>> guest: couple issues. the first is cybersecurity companies, to your earlier question, has found a nice source of free publicity is to put out one of these flamboyant reports that says the chinese are continuing to hack, and then they get in the papers, and the company gets known. >> well, the fbi put out a notice shortly after too, so it wasn't just them. >> guest: yeah. the second thing is the agreement is relatively new. it's not like there's a switch in xi's office where you can go and flip the switch to the off position. identify talked about this with chinese officials, and they say -- now how much do you believe them? i don't know. we could use more information. people have to use their own judgment. but they actually said that president xi said in the summit, look, we've got 1.3 billion people and the idea that i control hem all is just nonsense. of course, folks are going to say that's not true, he controls them all. but i do think there are private hackers in china that steal for commercial purposes.

there are pla units that moonlight to hack u.s. companies. they may not be easy to control or under his control. so i think this will be something that will take months if not years for there to be improvement. the first step, though, is getting the chinese to say we will not support this. but they, they might have as much control as we hike to think. as we like to think. >> yeah. we think of china's government as somewhat authoritarian at least. >> guest: yep. >> like they would be able to control their government. >> guest: they have politics in china just as they do anywhere. and so some of the politics is xi is centralizing his authority and his control. he needs to clean up the party so it doesn't lose more legitimacy. that means anticorruption which tends to fist go against people who aren't x be i's allies.

but to do that, he needs supporters. and a key part of that has been from the pla, the people's liberation army. so if he turns on the pla and says to them basically, hey, i want you to stop making money, because the pla makes money from hacking, that creates political problems for him. it won't be easy. i think he'll move in the right direction. but it's not like this will happen overnight. and so we need to be aware -- and one of the things the administration did that was good, actually, was they linked the negotiations to the chinese domestic political agenda, the anticorruption campaign, the pla modernization effort. it's not an authoritarian regime. mao is gone. although the jacket remains. >> host: well, jim lewis, how'd you get started in this business? >> guest: three things. first, in high school in my economics class was across from

the computer lab. and this was the stone age. remember they had those old printers, those line printers, and you could program it to print out mickey mouse's held? really this is like cave painting. i saw that. if i had been paying attention in economics class, i'd be in a different line of work. i wanted to do that mickey mouse held. second in graduate school which was the dawn of computing, they basically told me you have to learn how to program or we're not going to let you graduate. that night i thought i would drop out. and then third, because of that graduate experience, i used to work for dick clark, a dynamic individual and a godfather of cybersecurity. one day he saw me walking down the hall, and he said you know how to program computers, don't you? i should have said no. i said, yeah, why? he sent me out to nsa to work with them. so there you go. >> host: are there other state players that we haven't talked about or that should be talked

about besides we've mentioned russia and china? we know about north korea. >> guest: there are four countries that are the most threatening opponents for the u.s. in cyberspace, and in addition to those two we would have to include iran and north korea. iran seems to have improved as a result of the nuclear deal. there are tensions, and so people will say the iranians hacked into a navy network, those were people who didn't like the nuclear agreement and were trying to sabotage it. but the level of iranian activity has gone down. hopefully, it will stay that way, but they had been doing quite a lot of work, and they still are very busy in the gulf. north korea, very strong capabilities. i think the sony incident scared them off a little bit, because they realized that they weren't invisible, that the u.s. could figure out it was them. and that really helped. but iran and north korea are the

countries that are most likely to miscalculate and launch some kind of damaging attack. >> and north korea was -- is that really what stopped them, do you think? was it just the attribution or some sort of other actions that we took that we just don't hear about in the public that often? >> guest: you know, people always talk about that, and i think the answer is, no. but i don't know that for sure. no one in the government has ever told me we did x or y to north korea. they have told me they were able to attribute, they were able to think about sanctions, they were able to get a message to the north korean leadership. but as to other things, i don't know. i have a whole repertory of jokes on that one. it's like turning off the power in north korea, who would notice? damaging a north korean film company, people would be grateful. there's not a lot we can do to that country. but we were able to frighten

them with our ability to say we know it's you, here's the people, here's their picture. it's embarrassing. >> speaking of people we may or may not be able to scare, this week justice department johnç carlin was talking about the case last month where they had a hacker collaborating withç isi. he was talking about -- >> guest: right. >> this is the wave of the future sort of, this is the threat that we're facing today. how realistic is the threat of cyber attacks from terrorist? >> guest: i think it's still pretty hoe because terrorists, unfortunately -- low because terrorists, unfortunately, are insane and prefer actions that do physical damage and cause bloodshed. so we've been hearing about the terrorist threat of cyber attacks now for more than a decade, and it's never happened. this fellow was collecting information to help isis in planning attacks. is so terrorists using it for espionage purposes, sure. haven't seen the attacks yet. you keep wondering why haven't they done it. and i think it's the psychological need they have for

violence. hopefully, that will remain true, but, you know, for me it's hard because every two years since 2002 i've had someone tell me we'll see a terrorist attack within two years. never happened. knock on wood, it'll stay that way. >> host: jim lewis, does cybersecurity cooperation stop at the, at a country's border, or is there international cooperation? >> guest: there's a growing amount of international cooperation, and the u.s. has done a good job in this administration in building that cooperation. it starts, of course, with the longstanding intelligence relationships we've had that people call the five is which is australia, new zealand, canada, u.k. and u.s., strong signals intelligence cooperation that transfers into cybersecurity. but we have also done work in nato, with other treaty allies like japan, important work in

oas and the asean regional forum and a little bit of work in the u.n. one of the things i'd say has change inside the last five years is now countries around the world know this is a problem, they're worried about it. they may not understand it, but when you have a shared fear, it's easier to get cooperation. >> the administration's focus has been on international norms. >> guest: yep. >> just sort of informal, voluntary, we'll agree to this, there are still people on capitol hill who say we need cyber-specific -- [laughter] and i know you're skeptical of that. what would be in between that? what would come after norms? once there's an acceptance of those, then what can you do? >> guest: you have to think of it as norms and confidence-building measures in parallel? and there's an initial set of confidence-building measures that came out of the organization for security

cooperation in europe. you can build on those to create transparency, to create accountability to reinforce the norms. it's hard to get a treaty. what are you going to agree to? we're going to ban cyber weapons. does that mean you ban teenagers? what does that mean? we're going to declare cyberspace a zone of peace. there are some countries that say that, we should demilitarize cyberspace. that would be a really good trick, unfortunately, it's about 20 years too late. a treaty is not in the cards for the same reason we don't have treaties on outer space issues that are similar. you can get a treaty when the weapon is horrific. so nuclear weapons, on wmd, everyone fears them, no one sees there is a legitimate use. cyber doesn't fall under that category. it's part of warfare. it's part of espionage. and i don't think anyone will agree. >> host: from a national security perspective, jim lewis, what is your biggest frustration

that we haven't done x or we should do y or -- >> guest: i worry about critical infrastructure, and i think that we, again, cyber doesn't happen magically. it doesn't occur in a vacuum. it to -- it occurs in a political context. when tensions were very high with iran, the iranians found vulnerabilities they could have exploited for something like the northeast blackout or something like pipeline disruptions. we were defenseless then, we're still defenseless now. how do we harden critical infrastructure? the other side of that is people always talk about cyber deterrence. probably doesn't make any sense, but the north korea example is perhaps indicative. if you let the other side now you can tell it's them and you might do something back, maybe they'll be a little more cautious. or so we need to harden

infrastructure, we need to think about how do we warn potential attackers. >> host: has the availability and use of the so-called cloud added cybersecurity threats? >> guest: no. actually, a lot of the cloud providers do a better job than, you know, home brew stuff. so, for example, if opm had been using cloud services from one of the big commercial providers, the incident may not have happened. if the cloud provider isn't doing a good job on security, you're at much greater risk. but overall cloud seems to have made things a little bit better. which is kind of counterintuitive, but it basically takes the am tours out of the e -- amateurs out of the equation and gives it to the pros. >> host: one more question. >> you mentioned the attribution issue. >> guest: ing yep. >> that we've been able to say to north korea we know it's you.

a couple years ago everyone said this was the biggest problem, we can't figure out who's doing what. everything else builds from that. have we gotten that much better, and if to, -- if so, how do we o that? >> guest: so i was at a meeting with the chinese and dod where dod said starting about eight years ago we put a huge amount of money into figuring out attribution. back then we could do one out of three cases, now we can do better than, let's say, three out of four. that's pretty good. and the chinese said can you tell us precisely how you do that? the answer was, no. but there was a line in this year's state of the union address where the president said as we learned with counterterrorism, it's the ability to combine intirchlt intelligence sources that give us our ability to attribute. the dilemma is we put so much effort into it, we're better than any other country in the world. don't get to say that very often anymore. and then when you go out with

something like sony, people -- it's either magic or they don't believe you, right? so we have tremendously improved our capabilities. it's not perfect, but it should be a warning to points they're not invisible -- to opponents, they're not invisible. you see this in the paper sometime, five years from now be attribution will not be a big problem, and that will be a good thing. >> host: jim lewis, tim starks, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> next, a house hearing on the veterans administration's relocation program. then labor secretary thomas perez talks about job training and workers' rights. and lye at 3 p.m -- live at 3

p.m., the u.s. senate will gavel n. on the agenda this week, debate on the military construction and veterans affairs appropriation bill. >> today arkansas senator tom cotton talks about possible changes to the disability insurance program and the rising number of people receiving benefits. live from the heritage foundation at noon eastern on c-span. >> all perps having business -- persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> core mat sue boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese-americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, mr. core mat sue took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> and this week on c-span's landmark cases, we'll discuss

the historic supreme court case of kicks orema turks su v. the united states. after the attack on pearl harbor, president frank be lin roosevelt issued an evacuation order sending 120,000 people of japanese origin to internment camps throughout the u.s. >> this is a recreation of one of the barracks. the barracks were 20 feet wide and 120 feet long, and they were divided into six different rooms. they didn't have sheet rock, they didn't have ceilings, they didn't have the masonite on the floor. it would have freezing even -- t would have been freezing even in the daytime. but this would not have been able to heat the entire room in a comfortable kind of way. >> challenging the evacuation order, fred korematsu defied that order and was arrested, and his case went to the supreme court.

found out how the court ruled in view of the war powers of congress with our guest, peter irons, author of "justice at war." and karen korematsu, executive director of the korematsu institute and daughter of the plaintiff. we'll follow his life before, during and after the court's decision. that's coming up on the next landmark cases live tonight at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion back. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> two veterans affairs regional office directors pleaded the fifth before the house veterans affairs committee at a hearing last week. the committee is examining allegations of misuse of the to program and its funds.

other v.a. officials did testify including the deputy inspector general. this is two hours and 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening, everybody. thank you for being here at tonight's hearing to discuss for the second time the v.a. inspector general's final report entitled inappropriate use of position and the misuse of relocation program and incentives. we're holding this second hearing tonight because the witnesses that we had requested to appear before this committee at the hearing on the 21st of october chose not to attend or were blocked by the department of veterans affairs from attending. their failure to appear led us

to unanimously vote on and issue subpoenas to compel their testimony, something we have never done before. the five individuals that we issued subpoenas to were danny pummill, ms. diana rubens, ms. kimberly graves, director of the paul regional office, mr. robert mckenrick, mr. antoine waller, director of the baltimore regional office. as we learned at our last hearing, the ig's report lays out the alleged abuse hofstra's relocation expense and permanent change of station programs costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money. and how ms. rubens and ms. graves apparently inappropriately used their positions of authority to put their own personal and financial benefit ahead of veterans, taxpayers and their

subordinates. as the saying goes, a picture's worth a thousand words, so let's start with the map, and let me describe in the simplest terms what tonight's hearing is all about. you can look at the screen up here. initially ms. greys and mr. waller -- ms. graves and mr. waller discussed his potential transfer to philadelphia. those discussions are eventually shelfed because mr. healthcare ken rick is transferred -- mckenrick is transferred from philadelphia ro director's job to become the los angeles ro director. then ms. rubens transfers from v.a. headquarters here in d.c. to fill now-vacant philly ro job and receives about $274,000 in relocation assistance. mr. waller is subsequently transferred from the st. paul ro director job to become the baltimore ro director job. ms. graves then transfers from her position as the eastern area

director in philadelphia to fill the now-vacant st. paul ro director job and receives about $129,000 in relocation assistance. finally, both ms. rubens and ms. graves retained their ses-level salaries despite assuming lower responsibility jobs. it seems to me that ms. rubens and ms. graves' use of the relocation expense program is an expensive and confusing waste of taxpayer money given that they both volunteered to take these positions. as my colleague, mr. kaufman, pointed out at the first hearing on this report, their relocation expenses were exorbitantly more than even the highest ranking military officials receive when they and their families are ordered to move. and i'm glad to see that v.a. has hit the pause button on this program. in my judgment, it ought to be scrapped altogether across the federal government. the ig report she woulds light

on v.a.'s policy -- sheds light on v.a.'s policy of providing relocation expenses and what i can only describe as gross and has been hazard abuse of the program. it also details a scheme by which transferred ses employees received big pay raises and large incentives with very little connection to the relative responsibilities, complexities and challenges associated with a new position. as i've said before, the report is damning, and i believe it's important to go over the facts and the findings of the report as well as afford our witnesses who are here tonight, those that are at the center of the report to have an opportunity to present their accounts of how events transpired. this is important both for our constitutional oversight duty and the department's transparency with the american people. after issuing the subpoena on

october 21st, i received requests from representatives of some of the witnesses to postpone the hearing or at least, at the very least, excuse ms. reekens and -- reubens and ms. graves from appearing today. i want to make it clear that requiring these individuals or any individual to appear before us today is not done to embarrass them as some may have asserted. they are here before us today because they are the subjects of this damning report which was completed at this committee's request. they are two of the individuals who allegedly created openings in philadelphia and st. paul for their own transfers to these locations and then also benefited significantly from v.a.'s relocation program to move to the openings that they allegedly generated. if this is not what happened, then i believe a public hearing is an ideal place for them to tell us what actually did

happen. this hearing is not a joke. the findings of this report provide a road map for further inquiry and reform. my suspicion is that this kind of behavior is rampant not only throughout the department of veterans affairs, but also the rest of the central -- of the federal government. v.a. must take aggressive steps to root it out, to hold employees accountable when warranted and be better stewards of taxpayer dollars. as i've said before, if v.a. put half the effort into pushing for true accountability or protecting their employees who come north as whistleblowers as they have for the individuals investigated in this ig report, then i honestly think the department would be a much better place. v.a. exists for veterans, not for itself or the unjust enrichment of its senior employees. that's why we take this ig report so seriously.

that's why we are here tonight to ask the right questions. is and that is why the public and america's veterans have a right to hear from these witnesses. with that, i recognize ms. brown for any comments she may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the hearing this evening is a follow up to the hearing nearly two weeks ago regarding the inspector general's report on inappropriate use of positions and misuse of relocation programs and incentives. the ig report made a number of serious charges. as part of our oversight efforts, the committee is looking into the use of reallocation incidents as well as looking into the culture of the veterans benefit administration. it is important that we get a better understanding of how v.a. uses reallocation incentives to fill be important positionings. -- to fill important positions.

especially when we see a v.a. where many important leadership positions go unfilled. we must determine whether these programs work and are they working as intended. if they are not, then we must work together to make sure that they are used as a recruitment and retention tool and not simply a means to reward specific employees when the usual tools of bonuses and pay increases are not available. to further our efforts in this area, the chairman joined me in requesting that gao look into the appraisal value offers or avo programs not only at the v.a., but across the government. i'm looking forward to their report in the very near future. the allegations in the ig reports are serious and highlight a culture of crony bism within the v.a -- cronyism within the v.a. benefit

administration. i hope our witnesses will be able to help us to get to the bottom of this. we all respect the rights of any of our witnesses to avail themselves to any constitutional rights they may have. but at the end of the day, we simply must find answers and make the reforms and changes we need to make, to insure that veterans come first. with that, i yield back the balance of hi time. >> thank you this much, ms. brown. our first and only panel we have has the following individuals already seated at the table: mr. danny pummill, ms. diana rubens, director of the philadelphia regional office, mr. robert mckenrick, director of the los angeles regional office, ms. kimberly graves, director of the st. paul regional officer, mr. antoine waller, director of the baltimore regional office, ms. linda halliday with the

v.a.'s office of inspector general. i also invited former undersecretary hickey to testify tonight as a private citizen as her activities were heavily featured in the report. however, she did not respond to my request. i would ask the witnesses to please stand and raise your right hand so that we can swear you in more your testimony. for your testimony. do you solemnly swear under pen penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. before we start, i want to read rule 3e of the committee's rules whereby it states each witness who is to appear before the committee or a subcommittee shall file with the clerk of the committee at least 48 hours in

advance of his or her appearance or at such or time as designated by the chairman after consultation with the ranking member a written statement of his or her proposed testimony. we have been trying for over a week to get testimony from the department. we were unable to receive that. i was told we would have it by friday for mr. pummill to give us, then when i arrived in washington today, i was told we would receive it by 2:30. then i received a really two-sentence summary and was told this committee would receive nothing else from the department. so i'm going to read it to you. in summary, danny pummill's oral statement will cover v.a.'s actions to date in response to the ig report. he will discuss v.a.'s accomplishments, the elimination of the avo program across v.a.

and the ongoing review i of other relocation incentives to insure appropriate controls. mr. pummill be, i know you're not the one that made this decision. and i'm sure whoever that person is, is probably watching or listening. but it's not acceptable. i am sick and tired of asking for information from the department and being given a run around and to be -- i mean, i was asked if you could provide the testimony, and i said of course you can provide testimony. if you provide a written statement prior to. and the reason for that is to allow members of in this committee to read that testimony and be able to formulate questions that are important to that testimony. and we don't have that. and so because of that, i'm not going to recognize you for an

opening statement, but i will be asking some questions of you in the next few minutes. ms. rubens. the ig report concluded that you used your position of authority for personal and financial benefit. what evidence do you have to dispute that conclusion? >> sir, i've been advised by counsel not to answer that question to protect my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution. >> let the record reflect that ms. rubens has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. ms. rubens, let me be very clear. are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the grounds that you believe the answers will incriminate you? >> sir, if the advice of counsel has been to not answer anything that will unsure i protect my

rights under the fifth amendment, i will continue to assert that. >> ms. rubens, was mr. mckenrick lying when he said that he told you that he would only move from philadelphia to los angeles if it was a direct reassignment? >> sir, i've been advised by my counsel not to answer that question to protect my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution. >> let the record reflect that ms. rubens has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. ms. rubens, please let me be very clear. are you declining to answer the questions that this committee puts forth solely on the grounds that you believe that the answer will incriminate you? >> sir, i've been advised by counsel not to answer any questions that might incriminate me. >> the report cites, ms. rubens, an e-mail from former undersecretary hickey to you which said she was, quote, all in to help and make it happen. closed quote.

as in move you to philadelphia. what was ms. hickey's role in your transfer and mr. mckenrick's transfer? >> sir, i've been advised by counsel not to answer that question to protect my rights under the fifth amendment to constitution. >> let the record reflect that ms. rubens has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. ms. rubens, please let me be very clear, are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> sir, i've been advised that any question that might incriminate me i should, in fact, assert my fifth amendment rights. >> ms. rue wednesday, why -- rubens, why didn't you post the philadelphia job? were there are any other candidates other than you that were considered for the job? >> chairman miller, i've been advised by counsel not to answer that question to protect my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution. >> let the record reflect that ms. rubens has asserted her

fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, and let me be very clear again, are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> sir, questions that might incriminate me, in fact, i've been advised by me counsel to assert my fifth amendment rights. >> ms. rubens, according to the ig report, the hiring effort for the vacant ro director in los angeles was suspended at the direction of your office in the midst of the hiring process. why did you seeming hi out of the blue -- seemingly out of the blue stop the effort to fill this position? >> mr. chairman, i've been advised by counsel not to answer that question to protect my rights under the fifth amendment to the constitution. >> let the record reflect that ms. ruinens has -- rubens has again asserted her right. you are declining to answer

solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> i've been advised by counsel not to answer the questions to preserve my rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution. >> ms. rubens, are you refusing to answer any questions put before you this evening? >> no, sir. >> ms. graves, the ig report concluded that you used your position of authority for personal and financial benefit. what evidence do you have that disputes that conclusion? >> [inaudible] >> upon advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> let the record reflect that ms. graves has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-indiscrimination so, ms. greys, let me -- ms. graves, let me be clear with you, are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on

the grounds that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. graves, with as many management challenges that have existed at the baltimore office and your years of experience in vba, why didn't you volunteer for the position? >> upon advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> let the record reflect that ms. graves has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. ms. graves, please let me be clear again. are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> upon advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. graves, at what point did you put your name in for the st. paul opening? the same opening that the ig concluded that you helped create? >> mr. chairman, upon advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and

decline to answer that question. >> let the record reflect that ms. graves has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-indiscrimination. ms. graves, let us be clear. are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> upon advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right, and i decline to answer that question, sir. >> ms. graves, whose decision was it not to advertise the open position at the philadelphia regional office? >> mr. chairman, upon advise of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> let the record reflect again that ms. graves has asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. ms. graves, please let me be very clear, are you declining to answer the committee's questions solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? >> on advice of counsel, i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right under the constitution and decline to answer that question. >> thank you.

mr. waller -- excuse me, mr. mckenrick, i apologize. since this report came out and prior to this hearing, have any senior leaders at v.a. reached out to you regarding the statements you made that were included in the report? >> no senior leaders have talked to me about the statements that were made. it's my understanding that it's under investigation. >> did any v.a. officials instruct you as to what to say during this hearing? >> no, they did not, chairman. >> the ig concluded in its report that you were essentially forced or coerced to move to the los angeles ro from the philadelphia ro to, is this correct? >> i was not forced or coerced, sir, i was direct reassigned. >> and what does direct reassigned mean? >> direct reassignment means that the agency has determined in the best interest of the to agency that arguably i was the right person at the right time

to take that assignment. it went through a vetting process, chairman. >> and had you not taken that assignment, what would have occurred? >> i don't know, chairman. >> ms. rubens stated in her interview with the ig that you contacted her on your own x you volunteered to go to los angeles and that she was dumb struck that you called her. is ms. rubens' statement an accurate description of your initial contact that resulted in your transfer to los angeles? >> she was correct in that i did contact her and we did discuss the reassignment, and i was interested in the west coast. that was based on my participation in erb panels which are hiring panels. i participated in san diego as well as los angeles.

>> mr. mckenrick, are you familiar with the penalties for perjury found in title 18 of the u.s. code? >> i am, chairman. >> you stated that i would have to be reassigned, meaning i'm not jumping up and down saying send me to l.a., send me to l.a. you also said it's not a volunteer in my mind. i am not volunteering. you said that under oath to the inspector general, and yet today it appears you are telling me something different. do you wish to revise your statement to this committee? >> in that statement, chairman, it was a process of learning about the stations on the west coast, the opportunities. i had several dialogues with several individuals about the challenges of those stations. i did express an interest by making that phone call and several other phone calls to

inspire -- inquire. the final discussions were between myself and the chief of staff, then-v.a. chief of staff, and it was through that process and the offers that were made there that the final decision was made. >> mr. waller, my time's run out, but i need to ask you very quickly, did you like your job at the st. paul ro? and if you would -- there you go. how about your family? did they want you to move from st. paul? >> not at the time that we had these discussions, no, they did not. >> did they like live anything st. paul? >> we enjoyed living there, yes. >> did you feel pressured or manipulated? >> i do believe there was

pressure for me to take another assignment. >> and by who? >> well, it started with, you know, telephone conversations with ms. graves as well as ms. mccoy and ms. rubens as well. >> okay. ms. brown. >> thank you. i'm going to go back to mr. mckenrick. you're presently at the los angeles v.a. facility? where are you presently? >> i am. >> uh-huh. i visit that facility. it's, is that the -- you're the top person at that particular position? >> for the department of veterans affairs, congresswoman brown, i am the director of the los angeles regional office in that office. >> okay. that is a very challenging

position but also, i would think, a very interesting position in that you have opportunity to work with very challenging communities that need a lot of help and assistance. did you after doing your research, did you decide that you wanted to take that position? >> i found that the position was very challenging, and i was confused in the process of what was being offered for me to go. and my position was that if i was to go, i would have to be direct reassigned and that the agency would tell me that there was -- that i was the one that had to go, the best candidate to go at that time. there was no one else that thatd do that mission. i was committed to the mission, and i am committed to the mission of the v.a. i have struggled with a direct reassignment in another federal agency in the past. ..

so what happened? you got reassigned? >> yes. >> did you get compensation and the other, relocations and all of that? >> do with the benefits of a value offer as well as a relocation incentive to go to baltimore, along with a salary increase as well. >> did you have additional responsibilities in that reassigned? reassignment speak with i'm not sure i understand your question. >> was it lateral or was it a promotion? >> it was a lateral as far as i

was concerned that it was the same capacity as director of the regional office. so i consider it to be a lateral transfer. >> i am asking you to get additional reimbursement funds for it, or was it just a lateral? >> right. just a lateral transfer. >> let me ask the question to the ig. you've heard the testimony. is that contrary to your report? >> we classified the position space on the pay bands that they just. i believe st. paul is a pay band to which is higher than baltimore, which is a pay band three. so baltimore would essentially have lesser responsibilities. >> van where? >> than the st. paul, minnesota,

where mr. walz originally was. >> that's interesting. maybe b va need to go back and relocate, reevaluate everything i know about baltimore. it would definitely be more challenging than the other location from actually physically going to baltimore and visiting the va facility. what about mr. mckinney's testimony? because it seemed to be contradictory to your report. >> mr. mckenrick i believe said all along that he would not go out to l.a. without a directed reassignment. i think it is consistent with our report because he didn't go, you know, because he wanted to go out there. and i think that's the testimony that we have, that we provided

to the committee. and i think that when you don't take a directed management move, one option is you can be let go. >> that is one option, but the other option is that he was the best, he felt, qualified person for that particular position. >> i can't answer whether he was the best qualified for the position or not. there were a number of candidates that applied for the position out there. i think it was over 100 candidates when ms. rubens office canceled that last hiring action. so i don't know. it's their opinion, not mine. i don't know mr. mckenrick. >> yes, sir. i yield. >> freeze the clock for a minute. i want to go back, ms. halliday,

on page 34 in the transcript, question is asked of mr. mckenrick, did he want to go to l.a. or did he want to stay? basically it says, i guess your first discussion with ms. rubens on this, if you prefer to stay in philadelphia or did you want to go to l.a.? mr. kenrick says, stay in philadelphia. yield back. >> would you like to respond to that? >> i can practical -- the process is a learning process. it's not study. it's getting information from different individuals and engaging in an think i want to learn more about it. it is interesting the kind of the position is open. i was part of the last panel. it is interesting to me. did someon someone say the absoe want to go? i want to learn more about it, yes, i am interested. as the process goes and/or different things and you talk to

family and what about the challenges, it's an interactive process that allows you to say no, i'm not going to be able to do this and less on direct reassigned because you are in the nation, you are part of the team, you care about what happens in va. into the agency has determined about me that i'm the right person at the right time to go, then yes, i'm willing to do my part to step into it and continue. as an army reservist they didn't think you want to go to iraq the first or second time. you step into what your job was because you were the right unit or the right members to go, and we did that. >> one last comment. i understand it was 100 applicants, and you turned out to be the best person that va felt for the position. seemed to me that's a complime compliment. >> i can't answer to what va thought above me, ma'am. spent i'm going to yield back the balance of my time spent

mr. lamborn, you'll recognize a five minutes. >> and when. thank you for your leadership in bringing these subjects up for a hearing. mr. amato, and like to ask a few questions. both secretary gibson in his letter to the chairman on october 20 and chief of staff neighbors in response to the ig's recommendations committed to completing proposed accountability actions by october 31, saturday. now that this deadline is past what, if any, accountability actions have been taken? >> congressman, resides the freezing of the hbo program, complete reload at all incentives and moves inside of not just vba but va, the secretary is responsible for all, i guess you'd say punishment and enforcement inside of va delivered proposed actions to both ms. graves and ms. rubens on october, i believe

on october 31. thethere under the new process,e accountability act to get under the appeal timeframe right now because of that appeal timeframe i believe the first part of seven days and then there's an additional five days to the merit board are complete, then he will release what the proposed punishment is. >> okay, thank you. at the committee sitting in a previous dig ms. rubens received the hbo program benefit because the position was tough to fill, quote-unquote. is that correct? unkosher where? >> yes, that's correct speak as an opm policies restrict use of relocation incentives for hard to fill jobs. however, at the committee said last month inspector general concluded that the position was never advertised. so my question is how was ms. rubens eligible for these incentives that the va never try to fill it? >> the office in philly is one

of our larger regional offices. it's a very complex office. it has multiple lines of business. is not just a claims office. they have a pension center there, and insurance and. there's a lot going on, and we've had a history of problems in that office that we been trying to work through. we wanted somebody in that office that could not only to the claims but the of the lives of businesses, but also work with the local legislators, elected officials in the area, the unions. there was a union issue there, the employers, the veterans, the veteran service organizations. we felt that ms. rubens at all those attributes. she was probably our most experienced person inclines in all of vba. i testified that that was our roughest, toughest are all at

the time. we wanted our best person of there. >> so you didn't advertise the position to get an interview anyone else. just determined she was the one and that it was tough to deal and needed the incentives all at, all as one decision? >> yes. >> let's talk about baltimore. we were told that 131 people applied for the baltimore r.o. job that went up when was advertised. why were none of them considered for the position? >> same set of circumstances, congressman. when we are looking at filling a r.o., everyone has their own set of problems. antoine in minnesota have done a very, very good job. he was very aggressive with the, handling union problems. it was good at what with the

legislative and working with the local vsos the baltimore had a history of problem after problem after problem, nothing we seem to do seem to be able to fix it. moving into one of their was the right call. is dramatically improved reduction -- antoine. since he's been there. it's kind of like, if you want to replace an infantry commander at fort riley, kansas, you don't go out and look at a bunch of applicants. you look and see who is my best infantry colonel or general promotable that i can put in that position. antoine was the person in that case. >> if you go back in time would you still have signed up on all the moves highlighted an inspector general's report? >> if i could go back inside i still would've made all the moves, yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. pummill, before recognized mr. to cover come is

there a reason why you can perform the committee on what the proposed actions are? >> i'm sorry? >> is there any reason that you cannot inform this committee as to what the proposed actions are? >> i was told by our legal advisors right before this hearing that i can't give the proposed action until they have a chance to go to the first part of the appeal process, but just to let you know that we are using the expedited new act to impose those punishments. >> i apologize. before i recognized mr. lamborn i wanted to again reassert to the committee that you both have asserted your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, numerous times. both of you have done it on, as the basis for the refusal to answer the questions that have been posed to you because of your respective subpoenas.

ms. rubens and ms. graves, considering your assertions of privilege, the committee intends to in your questioning this evening, but be advised that this thing will be held open to allow the committee to evaluate the validity of your fifth amendment assertions. thank you both will be subject to recall in the future should the committee decide to question your in the future. i ask unanimous consent that ms. rubens and ms. graves be excused from hearing today subject to recall. without objection, so ordered. thank you very much, and we will also remove your name tags from your seats because you did at there. thank you very much. -- because you did appear. >> mr. takano, you are

recognized for five minutes. mr. mckenrick, you sat on a panel responsible identifying and interviewing applicants for the l.a. va a r.o. position. why worked one of the best qualified applicants selected after the second job announcement? >> i can't answer that. after a the panel screen of the resumes, came up with qualified the best qualified and which those individuals to interview, we interviewed those individuals and then we selected the ones that we chose, this focus, to pass forward. i'm not even sure where they went once we were done with our part. the executive management office would handle the packages from there. >> we don't know why anyone was selected in that they'll? >> i do not know whether they survived the process above is or

they simply were not interested in the end after they found out all the facts. >> do you know why the position was advertised for a third time? >> i assume because no one accepted it or was appointed in the prior panel. >> but as a pale, as one of the panel members, you don't have any -- >> we move on. >> all right, thank you. during the course of the career in the federal government did you ever negotiate salary, relocation incentives, or pcs in relation to prior locations? >> i have not. sours with individuals at a lower level on a g. is a skill i discuss about with him but i was not the final negotiator. >> were you aware if you volunteered for the l.a. va r.o. position that you would not be eligible for incentives or benefits? >> i did not know that.

if you're entitled to travel and other incentives to go out and take the assignment spent but this has no bearing on whether or not you are maybe looking to be directed? i mean -- >> in my informational process of learning about the station on the west coast, and i believe at one time all three stations, oakland, san diego and l.a. are all open come and learning about the challenges of the different stations and the west coast of what i know to be the east coast in the va i was interested in that edited to interest. it was appropriate for people ask me the questions they did frofrom my point of view there a senior leader i would've followed up on those leads as well. and as i went through the process it was clear it would be challenging for me and i had said i would only go if director reassigned. >> but you were not aware, but that decision was not related to an awareness of eligibility for

benefits or incentives related to whether or not you volunteered or were directed? >> no. i get to work out the final details on what those would be. that was not part of what i was driving to what i said direct reassigned. it was am i the best qualified candidate. if you're going out again you are not find anyone out there that's meeting the criteria. and as general hickey had said undersecretary hickey, i was all in and i am all entered i want the agency to succeed and to serve the veterans. >> were you aware and management directed reassignment was according to ms. hickey quote a comment process that cs neo does? >> i'm not aware of what that means within va or other agencies, chairman. >> okay. winter completed other relocations with the federal government, were any of these relocations management directed? i think he did answer a question like this before.

>> one was over to that was a management directed reassignment. i've met with other offices that were not. >> thank you. mr. waller, when you speak with mr. pummill about your reassignment to baltimore? me speak with yes. the timeframe. >> i'm not sure. probably sometime in the month of april 2014. >> was it before or after you agreed to the relocation to baltimore? >> it had to do with the number of discussions that were leading up to my excepting the opportunity to go to baltimore under reassignment. >> what did you discuss? >> we discussed some of the incentives that were being offered as far as my relocation that was going to be important for me to accept in order to

take on the new assignment of the baltimore regional office. >> mr. chairman, my time is up. >> mr. bilirakis, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. question for mr. mckenrick. why we do not go to l.a. and less viewer directly a signed? >> the challenge for me, i want to serve at i'm committed to the people out there and the people in the community as well as the regional office. that's my assignment and i will always raise the hand always raise the hand of the agency says we can't find anyone. my challenges leaving my children back here in the philadelphia area, at a cost of living. i itemized that in my rebuttal to the chief of staff that it was, i have to go through and find the numbers for you, but i think 39% announcing, cost-of-living 10%, 9% increase in health and other food. the cost of living was much more expensive in california. the regional office is located in wilshire boulevard just west

of hollywood and it's a very expensive part of the city. you don't have to live there but you continued for hours on end every day just like washington. >> so you had reservations speak with you say that again? >> you had reservations. >> yes, but when the decision was made and i'm directly assigned, i was all in. >> ms. halliday, was va using appraised about you come the appraised value program inappropriately and too frequently in your opinion, or existing opm guidelines to broad and late too much discretion to an agency's? >> the sample is really too small for the number of people that received the abo within vba to give you a good answer. i do think it was not improperly

justified has to need. initiative and look at closer. acos i've are expensive by the october recruitment. they are important when you're trying to move executives across the country at all federal agencies were put his faith in that program, not just the va. >> okay. next question. did you review the real estate market in ms. rubens as part of the investigation? and if so, did those support the eventual purpose and reseller prices for home speak with the oig did not review the real estate market for ms. rubens. we looked at the fact that there were two appraisals that are given on the sale of the potential house. they are averaged together and that becomes the adl average price that would be paid on the

house but we did really analyze the real estate market. >> okay. question for mr. pummill. understand the opm regulations indicate that relocation should be used sparingly. how can va seriously conclude that all positions are critical needs a difficult to fill when they are normally dozens of applications to fill senior field positions? >> i don't think we can. i think that when we were using the avo program, that we were not paying attention everything we should be paying attention, and we were not looking at all the procedures and policies that were in place. one of the things the sector has done, he's put a hold on that come and inside of the va i put a task force together to look at all moves, all incentives, all

promotions come everything that we do for senior executives to make sure that everything is being done for the right reasons. i think we link heavy toward, it's so important to get the right person at the right place at the right time to take over -- to take of our veterans, that we were not look at the second or third order effects as we are supposed and we need to do a better job of that. >> when asked to i oig when using stso ploys abound with way to get around the mandate pay freeze can be responded and i quote, i would say that this is probably true. do you stand by your statement? >> i did say that. >> thank you. no further questions. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you the mr. mckenrick, did you write a letter to the deputy secretary sloan gibson asking to be moved back to philadelphia in the summer of 2014? >> i did not. >> you did not. >> chairman, i did not. >> thank you. ms. brownley.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to say that prior to mr. mckenrick support appointment, many of us who represent southern california had been in contact with them secretary shinseki to urge the va to quickly fill this position which had been vacant for nearly a year. and there was an enormous backlog of claims at the l.a. office, and without this position being filled we were very concerned that veteran claims would continue to take far too long to process. and i am certainly disappointed to learn that the delays in filling the vacant position in los angeles may have been exacerbated by senior vba leadership. i would also like to say that since ms. mckenrick filled the position he has made a real effort to increase the va's visibility in our community. he has come up to ventura county

come which is my congressional district, on several occasions to participate in federal benefit events that were organized by my office and other local veteran organizations. he has also come to participate even in the age a defense to learn more about the community -- vha -- for which i'm very grateful. in my case with mr. mckenrick he has been both professional and committed to helping the region's veterans. however, the purpose of a hearing here today is to find out whether senior level officials at the va put any pressure on employers to vacate their positions and relocate. the allegations against these vba senior executives our cities and appreciate that mr. mckenrick has appeared before the committee today to help us get to the bottom of what happened in philadelphia. so the l.a. regional office has long been, mr. pummill, this

question is really for you come and l.a. regional office has long been one of the poorest performing offices in vba. and filling this position should have been a very, very high priority. but according to the ig's report, the first to job postings did not result in hiring a director i think that's been mentioned earlier, despite 168 applications, five of whom were considered best qualified. win a third job posting was made, the 112 applicants who applied were not rated or ranked. so according to the former vba deputy chief of staff, the hiring process was suspended at the direction of ms. rubens office. were you aware of this action? >> unfortunately, i wasn't. the way we divide up duties and responsibilities is the

undersecretary was very much involved with her staff and the reassignment of the regional offices. iran the staff, the headquarters, the budget and the operations, and pretty much didn't get into that unless i was called and specifically like him to oppose is because they felt it would be a conflict of interest and that as they did in negotiations with elected. i probably on did two or three. i know lots of problems in los angeles. the undersecretary was very concerned about getting the right person of there. i do agree with you, mac is the right person, strong leader, gets along great with a local communities. i think we made a good move there. >> i can, mr. pummill -- again, mr. pummill, the office of personnel management guidelines preclude any salary increases for ses employees across all federal agencies, and back into

ago secretary shinseki stop all the performance awards. but my understanding is vba paid $321,000 in salary increases to reassign vba employers in fiscal year 2013, 2014 and 2015. so can you explain that the vba justified these salary increases speak was yes, congresswoman. the first case that i was involved in was actually antoine out and when we were negotiating and we're talking salary, i had to call over to the chief of staff and ask, are we allowed to do a salary increase for ses. i thought there was a pay freeze it and as i got back was, actually building you can increase their salary is during a pcs move. so if these duties and responsibilities are such that there were complex or greater,

amid lower ses to it higher level, or there's issues such as los angeles or baltimore, serious issues, long-term issues that should not be able able to fix, then you have the authority -- we couldn't get the pay raise but we could recommend a pay raise to headquarters and the pay raise could be approved at our headquarters. outside of a pcs move we could not raise those dollars. >> thank you. i yield back. >> dr. roe, you recognized. >> just a couple brief questions. mr. pummill, i which is inquisitive about how it doesn't would be hard to fill if you didn't take applicants for it speak with congressman, i can't answer that. i don't know why they stopped taking applicants. >> it looks to me like if the target of you wouldn't have a lot of applicants. but when you quit taking it and see it's hard to feel, i think what happened was and it's clear to me what happened was you were

getting around some rules. let me just speak to you from somebody who's these veterans every day at home they can't get the claim adjudicated, that their care is delayed, they can't get him. and i look year at people making hundreds of thousands of dollars, moving up close to 200 with 13% increases, 11%, 15% am on and on. and i've got to go into social security rates of vince that they get a big goose egg. do you see how inflammatory that is when we go and talk to people and tried to explain that, have the vhs benefiting before then? look, i understand it's a big, complicated organization. i get that. you do have to pay good people. i understand that, this is hard for me to understand what i go back and explain to veterans that can't get care, can't get a colonoscopy, and we see this sort of behavior. do you understand that? >> i actually do understand.

i come from a very small town where people don't make very much money. is a big deal, $10,000 is a big deal where i come from. i can tell you as a veteran, i spent 33 years in the army. i really care for veterans. i want to do the right thing. we had 20 vacancies in vba this year, tony r.o. vacancies that we had to go. our goal was to get the right person to those. one of the things we've done is in the last couple of years we now pay more money to more veterans has to do with ever done before. i am responsible for making sure that $90 billion a year is paid anin benefits and services to veterans of the united states. >> my point is, it doesn't matter about the 90 billion. what matters is what gets paid one better. that's what they see as their check the when they see this as one person that has a 13 or 14% increase in this battered is

getting practically nothing at our social security recipients this year get a big goose egg, nothing but their costs go up. that's a problem for i have personal. i've a tough time for the. and mr. mckenrick, did you, and i'm asking you a very difficult question, but there was a difference in the oig's report that would be some risk to you to lose your job if he didn't accept this mandatory move. obviously you soldiers on. i appreciate that. you it took place and maybe didn't want to go to in los angeles. but you did that. were you worried about losing her job if you didn't take this assignment? >> i understand -- >> you said i'm going to try and spin i showed interest at different levels that i was excited about the opportunities that i was interested in his speech is the answer yes or no? i've heard it all before.

is your answer yes, i was worried about it, or no, i did not any concerned about that. >> if i would've said no, there was always the concern that they could use that to remove the. my prior experience told me that if i did not accept what i would've been removed. that was not the case that it didn't feel like i was pressured in this instance. >> that's fair enough. mr. waller, i can't see you, but you, for some reason and i just like to have your explanation, you didn't use the a deal program or opted out of the. what was the reason speak with at the time the video was offered, my house that i owned in st. paul, or minnesota, was devalued, underground from what it would take to pay off the loan. so the offering of avo would not have been of benefit to me. >> according to the ig's report you and ms. graves had a conversation during which she

asked about moving back to the east coast and you said you'd be interested if there was an opportunity in philadelphia. during this conversation was the possibility of baltimore ever mentioned to you by ms. graves? did she ever mention of baltimore? >> not in our initial conversation. baltimore have not been a part of the conversation. it was on the subsequent to my initial conversation that ms. graves asked for my interest in baltimore. >> okay. my time has expired. >> thank you. ms. titus, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask mr. pummill some questions. i'm working on a letter right now to the ig, which i mentioned at a previous hearing, asking him to investigate if there any g. 15 employees you may view the influence of our to better their situation at the expense of others. i'm also asking them to investigate how many gs-15 is have moved to jobs with reduced

responsibility while retaining their previous salary. i would invite and welcome any of my fellow members of this committee to join in this request. this brings me to specific question about mr. and russell who was formerly director of the we no r.o. apparently they couldn't get rid of mr. russell even though he did a terrible job. the r.o. was one of the worst in the country is on leave with pay for about a year i think. now he is teleworking as a senior advisor in the das office of field operations here in washington, which is a three hour time difference. i'm just wondering if you anything about this can how many people applied for that job? was a great just for mr. russell? is he doing the same amount of work getting the same amount of pay? do you any sense how often this type of special position is greater at the central office here in washington or in area offices or regional offices to

take care of this kind of problem? >> congresswoman, i don't know if that's ever been done before. i do believe that the position was created for mr. russell. without getting myself in trouble here, i believe it was part of a court settlement that kind of restricts what we can and can't say about it. one of the issues we have is, one of the great advantages of this new account the act is it's pretty quick and it's done with and we will see how it works out on the first couple of months we are doing. but with our gs employees, the rules, the regulations, the protections are such that it's almost impossible to do anything. we tried to do the right thing. in mr. russell's case, i can assure you he is performing gs-15 work. he is being held accountable on

a daily basis, but it was a very strange situation that we had to do to get in the job. >> apparently didn't have to move somewhere. he got to stay in reno and work by phone or computer or something. >> there are no provisions in the law that allow us to forcibly move a gs employee. we can only do that with ses employers. and with the ses we try not to. we try to negotiate as much as possible so they are not forced moves. we just don't have that available for our gs. >> speaking of that, the philadelphia r.o. had a lot of problems under mr. mckenrick so you moving to los angeles, which also had a lot of problems. then you move the person from los angeles to renew that a lot of problems. is this a good strategy that you people from poorly performing offices to other poorly performing offices? the individual that was in los angeles that we moved was

acting, was just there temporarily. we had gone to assist the people but they were acting. they done a pretty good job for us while they were in los angeles. mac was brand-new to be a. -- to be a. would while i wasn't involved with assignments by the when we brought him in, i love his leadership ability. i love how it works with people, negotiates with him and gives his organizations to work. in retrospect we should have taken somebody that we hired outside of vba and stuck them in a most complex hard to work regional office. he did a good job for us a better, but he was much better suited for the los angeles office and he was for the philadelphia office. and i think that's played out. he is literally improved in 89% in the short time that he's been there. sometimes lead to move people around. we always don't make the right

decisions, and there was a huge bomb in the tradition with the 20 vacancies trying to get the right people in the right place and move everybody around. >> from his primary qualification was not that he lived in philadelphia indicated that open to put someone else in? >> not that i'm aware of, congresswoman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. pummill, you said it was probably a mistake to have put mr. mckenrick in the philadelphia office? >> if i had been making that decision i probably would not have put mac in philadelphia as his first assignment. >> because in his fy 2013 performance evaluation, mr. mckenrick's reviewing officer, ms. rubens herself wrote, and i quote, his leadership through this fiscal year has resulted in multiple successes and a steady increase in production and quality in the last quarter, and i fully expect mr. mckenrick's leadership to result in continued improvements

during the coming year. closed quote. dr. benishek, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pummill, to the best of your knowledge, has any of the va in place mentioned in the report been interviewed or questioned by federal agents in regard to the findings in the report? >> i have no knowledge spent no knowledge of that, okay. can you tell me all a bit more about, i know we suspended the relocation program, and you mentioned some other things, but could you tell me again what specific has been done within the va to counter act a coulter this seems have allowed this misuse of funds to happen? >> i had a long conversation actual again today with our secretary sloan gibson. he actually understands, so does the second trick of them have an

accountability problem. as i was telling the congressman decides you a minute ago. we pay out a lot of money. i understand that you can't the appetite of money and not be held accountable. i mean, we have to be account to the congress of the turn. we have to be responsible for what we do in our jobs. adept secondly so to hold people accountable. if we don't hold them accountable we can make culture change. he's committed to come under the new law, holding at least the ses is accountable. one of the things he asked it to put out here is in all the cases that he's worked, since he's been given this position of overseeing the ses enforcement, these proposed actions on all they began, some of the decisions are final, some of the decisions are still in the appellate process that is moving vote on every single one of them, understands they need to

hold people accountable. >> i just would like another commitment from you, mr. pummill come in the incident that ms. titus just brought up about we know and her i think discussed with the whole situation there, would you be willing to work with us to try to develop better rules for those employees that we can make it easier to deal with this type of situation in the future? >> i personally would but i think you have to fight a large federal government. these are -- >> i know, but i think we can work on this. i think ms. titus believes that this will add up like to get some advice from you as well to work on the. mr. waller, do you believe that anybody in the va has missed use of their positions in any way in this whole situation? >> mr. congressman, i believe during the course of my

conversations and my ultimate decision to go to baltimore came with pressure to accept the assignment. i did, in fact, accepted that assignment and i went into that opportunity with all the passion that i could delete and continued to lead the regional office spirit so that is a yes then? is that what you're saying? i understand what you are saying in that you take the assignment, but my question is do you believe that anybody in the va missed use their position? >> i can answer that, congressman -- i can't spend have you receiving a retribution or negative consequences, following the publication of the ig report? >> i'm sorry? >> have you had any retribution or negative consequences following the publication of the

ig report? >> no. know, congressman, i have not spent mr. mckenrick, have you had any of that? >> congressman, i can only add to that the constituents are very well aware of what goes on here in washington. and when i go to town halls just a week or two ago there were questions about the document that were shredded in a way. that i can tell you there were no documents shredded in l.a. and the ig report found and. it's very careful how we get things out of the public. the retribution comes from them for what is said or done. i've received nine from the agency, brought from the constituents they want to know answers and to what accurate facts. i would start to see we have to struggle to get those facts out from the va as well. there's opportunities when we put misinformation out without getting all of the information. >> mr. pummill, to the best of your knowledge has ms. rubens by ms. graves apologized to american veterans and taxpayers in regards to their behavior and? >> i have no knowledge of that?

>> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you. ms. halliday, if you would, clarify mr. mckenrick's comment that no documents were shredded at l.a. >> i would gladly clear that. what happens in a shred process is that goes, the documents go through a series of reviews. mike leavitt staff when they went there they had received a tip that there were documents in the final shred bin that was going off to destruction. my auditors took those documents out of those bands and certainly look at the to see with a legitimate document they needed to be recorded in these records. they did not destroy. they get handed back to the senior officials so that they would be processed correctly. we would've been negligent on our part had we just let them get destroyed.

in fact was the last been, i think it was nine documents. the other part of it was that you couldn't tell how many other documents may have been destroyed because it was requirements to maintain a log on the destruction of claims documents. that did not have a record of disposition officer. so there was nothing to really compare a period of time to another period of time. so -- >> it's your testimony had those documents remain in that vital shred bin it would have been shredded? >> absolutely. >> ms. brown. >> i would like mr. mckenrick to respond to that. and let me just say, i like the way you soldier up. >> thank you, congresswoman. i'll try not to say chairmen

when i address you. i beg to differ. i don't know, we're not prepared to talk about shred here and i acknowledge that and i apologize for that think the issue but that was the answer to the question. the shred is never employed as a red been out of the desperate and our regional office every piece of paper that is not packing trash or food trash, newspaper or magazine goes in that 11 under their desk that every piece of paper in that kinkind of get that go through t before the pickup, deal process. we change change it made it betr based on the recommendations. but everything that was found in the 60 documents, i look at 13,800 documents taken from the red and great shred bin that into the process after the surprise review, the records management officer review. been put in a locked great shred bin at 13,800 documents reviewed. batting 1000 in the great shred

bin. not want i can than in the final process. all 16 initial documents were found in the red shred bin prior to the review process. of that nine were ultimately by the ig found to be o of concern. we've worked on of concern. we've worked on that ever disciplined individuals and that's the responsibility we owe you all and the american people and the veterans come and we learn from our mistakes. that's what we require from our employees. they were zero integration advanced. >> mr. chairman, we had hearing on the shredding before this committee. i yield back. >> i don't believe that changes the fact that 16 patterns would've been negatively affected had inspector general not removed those documents from the final shredding been. >> thank you, chairman miller and ranking member brown for holding this meeting. i was appalled to learn that inspector general's report that include ms. rubens and ms. graves improper use of their positions and authority for

personal and financial gain. and i'm disappointed that the va is forced to use resources to investigate yet another potential scandal instead of focusing their time and attention on improving patient care. we need to change the culture of the va to be more veterans focus for our veterans deserve access to a high quality health care system and not subjected to one that is bogged down in personal issues like this. veterans in my district and across this great country deserve better. i want to go back to mr. mckenrick. can you explain the process of shredding, one. and number two, do you have any concerns about the methodology or legitimacy is a bold report from the inspector general's office? >> thank you, congressman your chairman, there was none down in the final grade locking shred things. they were in the ig report says

that they were found, and it was a clearly laid out that every employee has a red shred bin under the desperate our process at the time was that the employee on pickup day, the records management officer, then you they're coming around to the employer would go through, the supervisor would go to the documents, the records management officer would go through the documents and then they would end up in the locking great shred bin. does a process. we need to tighten up the process to get there was a hiring, a transition to the old records management officer we applied and became a new records management officer that he was seasoned into. he was involved thought the transition and a six-month period. he was in place before -- >> let me remind you, i asked you the question. >> sorry. >> you have any concerns in terms of the report, the methodology on the report sequence we identified that there were 24 errors, omissions

or misstatements in the ig report that were not factual or accurate or misleading, from our point of view. >> you are referring to the shredding report? how about insurance of the investigation which this hearing is about? >> correct. spin that's what you're referring to speak was correct, the shredding report. >> ms. halliday, what is the number one priority recommendation that you gave in terms of fixing the current scandal? and hasn't been accomplished? >> if you're referring to the current scandal as the abuses and the prominent change, i believe the process has to be tightened up so that it does not repeat. so i looked at the recommendations in the report all dealing with strengthening the process as -- >> if there was one thing he would do that would make the biggest difference, what would that be and hasn't been done?

>> the one thing that tends to make the biggest difference is holding people accountable for the actions. >> okay. >> it sends a message. >> and you would think that has not been done? >> i believe mr. pummill said there in the process. i have no information from the ig's standpoint spent half our army, mr. pummill come in making sure that people are held accountable? >> both the individuals were delivered their proposed punishment on october 31. they are in their appeal process right now. i believe that a '70s. at the end of the appeals process we can notify the chairman of this committee what the punishment was. >> okay. thank you. dr. woods.com you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mckenrick, i want to go back to your evaluation report if you will for just a second. where it says apple expect

mr. mckenrick so should result in continued improvement during the coming year, that was my ms. rubens. so based on that recommendation sounds like you're doing well, succeeding in philadelphia. i do want to ask about the process just a little bit of your family with offices if i wish reporter is a similar to what you experience in the military with other people reading you only allowed to get so many people the highest marks, or does anyone can get the highest marks? did you have to do a support forum? how is this process compared to that which i'm familiar with, and you are? >> it is similar to the office of evaluation report. we do provide input. i am not aware what the criteria is above my level. i know what the ranking criteria to i know i put into. there's a discussion with mike senior and eventual probably three levels up it is approved and were told several months later with our evaluation is. >> was ms. rubens evaluating many people or just you? to jeff a lot of people under

she is evaluating? >> i don't know the profile above me. >> i'm curious as to why you would be the only person to have to be rector reassigned? >> if you're giving an opportunity to defend myself on the philadelphia issue, i will. i personally am challenged by investigation which was, according to ms. halliday, a very collaborative come in depth investigation, over 100 witnesses a no one ever asked me a question that i was director for two years. i worked with employers who were seizure, the unit president i can take all the good work we can do. i can think about the meetings we had. we discussed those same issues they raised and we talked about challenges and how to work through those. you can always find that anything you do but you got to look for the good and acknowledged that as well. >> one of the things i'm trying to drive that is, and maybe

someone else can come up with the answer to this, but it just seems strange to me that you were the only person in your position in the american that was under consideration for a direct reassignment. because the assumption that one might make is that, one, either you were the best person in america that could take this job, and that's what i want to director resigned you, as opposed to someone else who maybe had similar qualifications and ratings and they chose you. i just can't believe that you are the only one that they felt could fill that position. so it leads people to wonder why that is the case. i'm not knocking your qualifications or the job that you did, but i just got to match up to my to get other people that have been considered and i don't see that anywhere. did you here in this process of anybody else? did you ever ask hey, am i the

only person be considered to be directly reassigned? >> congressman, and interactive process i did discuss the challenges out there and what other directors were not standing up to go out there, why things are so hard to fill out there. as i went to the process they learned as as i went to the interactive process and even with the chief of staff, i struggled with some of the stations but it is a much higher cost of living. it's a much different type of environment. >> i understand that. my question is why would you the only one that was targeted for direct reassignment? there's got to be other people with pretty good qualifications, and you were not looking for this. >> to be frank, i started the conversation. i engaged in a. i thought it was there for the officials decided are you interested and it was interest interested. i can't answer as to why i am the one that survived that process. >> are you the only one that got

put through the process usually my question? at any time to ask and find out is anyone else being approached for this assignment, or just you? >> the only other assignment heard about was mr. waller went to baltimore or -- >> i'm not talking about that. i'm just saying was anyone else being considered for direct reassignment for the job that you got assigned to, besides you? >> not that i'm aware of. >> that's what i want to find and hopefully we'll find out because i find it curious. so why do you think ms. rubens thing to do a job where your seemingly doing very successful, doing very successfully? >> i can't answer that question either. not my decision spent thank you. i yield back spent i refer you to page 33 of 34 of the transcript data content adequate mr. mckenrick said interest in the challenges of the position and of the position announcement of an want to learn more about it is different than either

applying for it are raising my hand and saying send me to l.a., closed quote. ms. kuster. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and my questions are directed to mr. pummill. is it typical for ses is a more senior positions at the vba to take on these director positions with less responsibility and and a lower pay than? does that typically happen? >> the first unaware of what the ones that occurred with ms. graves and ms. rubens. >> and is it common for upper level vba management available to take positions of lesser responsibilities? are you aware that ever happening before? >> these are the first to i'm aware of. >> okay. and do you know why in this case of these two individuals chose, or took lower level positions? do you know what the reason was

behind that? >> i don't know for sure. i can speculate. i know that ms. rubens had been in her job for a long time and was a little bit wore out with the whole d.c. action and wanted to get back to the basics, to an r.o. again. on kim graves come to be perfectly honest, i was in the deputy job for two years and in the first couple weeks in a new job i had discussions with the undersecretary that maybe it was time to move came from area director to an r.o. because were having problems in the eastern area. ..