and it would be implemented to the letter. based on the warning signs you provided for. >> i think the next panel can probably better explain what rational was. i think there there had been plenty of warning this was going on. i thought the certification was an excellent thing to make people declare yes, i have reviewed it in my facility, yes, our waiting times are according to the policies and procedures of the department. i know you can't get into specific take-aways, what vulearned about the va, over that period of time.

>> referring to the 93 other facilities. we have some initial reporting on those. as of yesterday, given the department 12 individual reports for them to examine and to determine what action would be appropriate in view of the specifics of each of those reports. very much active. i can tell you that at 42 different facilities of the 93, we found the practice of using the next available date as a desired date. it is something we reported in the final report and interim report. we have 19 facilities, where an apartment was cancel and

rescheduled for the same appointment time for the purpose of giving the appearance of shorter waiting time. we have 16 facilities, opposed to be on 13 facilities managers about what was going on in that facility. >> all of the individuals over an initiative over some level of management that pushed. >> it is a combination. when something is going on for as many years, not everywhere, but at a number of facilities, it is an accepted way. involved in scheduling, and they

come in as a new hire, someone says, this is hour you do t they may not realize that someone is telling them the improper way to do it. it is a combination of things, the bottom line is, who is in charge. when you get them a policy directive from vha, do you enforce it or ignore it? that is the bottom line. >> my time is expired. let me say, i thank you and your staff for the process tlau going through, it is unvaluable to the country's veterans and to the agency. >> your professionalism is helpful to us. thank you for that work. your investigation whether it be phoenix or the other 93 facilities, is focused on

schedule, correct? >> that is what we go in to look at. along the way, you sometimes become aware of other activities you need to look at that may be related. principally, they are wait time, there are place where is it is expanded. >> is it fair to say that the investigation started out in phoenix because of damming things being said about phoenix. is it fair to say that scheduling problems are pervassive throughout the va? >> absolutely. >> specifically, for phoenix. look. i mean, a good portion of montana heads down there in the winter time. was there parts of the year where the schedules was worse or was it that way all the time? >> we didn't try to carve out

the snow bird aspect. >> i was curious. >> we didn't find a good quarter in any of the quarters we looked at. >> what would you say to the folks, in the conference committee, we heard a lot from the members of the conference from both houses, talking about this isn't a work force issue. what would you say to that? >> i would say it is a complex issue with many aspects, one of those aspects is performance standards for the fgsz that you do have. without those standards, it is hard to determine how many doctors and nurses you need. it is a clinical space issue. vha guidance talked about a panel. priory care. for each doctor, so you can have

your patience ready to go. you come in, and phoenix, there is one office per doctor. it is a combination, in some facilities, they are under staffed. nurse and doctor staffing. we have sought the implementation of standards for year, we did a review on special care standards and found that only 2 of 33 specialties had standards. so you can fill those slots. >> would you you have a number of mds on your staff. you may infact be an md, you are? >> no.

>> when you are talking about, do you use the maybe this should be reflective to one of the mds on the staff. i tell you why i ask this. i am not an md either, if you try to apply private sector standards to the va, it is unfair. these folks are coming back with multiple problems. so, do you guys applies staffing standards or do you say, va, you need to set up the staffing standards. >> we said we believe they should have standards, if you are in a like-size va facility, in one part of the country or the other, the expectation is a certain level of productivity. i would ask dr. day if he would like to elaborate on that. >> the va create that only standard, aware of civilian

standards. without that dat ai don't know how you can make proper business decisions about what you are going to make or buy. >> thank you very much. >> there well 1,700 health care facilities in va, 93 are being investigated by you at this point in time. can you give me any idea or is it evenly split between the clinics? >> i would be guessing to give you that number. >> yes. i would like to get that. >> if someone at the table has t i will give it to you right now. >> that's fine. >> there is nobody nodding yes. to be finished, if it is a criminal matter, we have to present it to the u.s. attorneys

office for a decision. if it doesn't meet the threshhold for prosecution, we give the report to the department so that they can take administrative action where appropriate. >> would e fair to say, i don't want to box you in. these would be done by the end of the year? >> i hope so. >> thank you very much. sglts draft report versus the final report, and some of the changes made in that report, and get some clarisk as to time warrants. it was reported that a line was inserted. if you are the va. this is the line you want inserted. it says, while the case reviews and this report poor quality of care, we are unable to assert that absence of timely quality care caused the deaths of these

veterans, obviously, that was pertaining to the phoenix hospital. just some timelines. was this line included in the draft report? >> there are many versions of a draft report. the majority of the changes in our draft report came about as a result of further deliberations of the senior staff of the inspector general's office. nobody in va dictated that sentence go in that report, period. >> was the line included in the draft report sent to the va? >> it was not in the first version of that draft report. what i would like to do if i may, provide a timeline in writing to the committee that can make it very clear what is going on with that allegation. >> i guess the question, did the

va play any part in the inclusion of this line? no. >> no. >> in your report, you obtained a list of 171 patients waiting to seek services. most of them were mental health therapies. you noted in your report that between january of 2012 and 2014, that you identified 77 suicides. these patients didn't have their appointments scheduled or yet to be scheduled. what i am trying to get to, would a responsible person come to the conclusion that wait time, would that contribute to patient deaths? would a reasonable person come to that conclusion, that

manipulation of the wait times contributed to the deaths? >> i would say, we are in the business of making odds on whether something did or did not cause a death. 50%, 30%, 80%, that is not our purpose. dr. day will describe how we conducted those reviews. >> we looked at the fact pattern in each of the cases we described for you. so, one of the issues that you have to understand is that because you are on a wait list for cardiology and happen to die of a cardiac problem, the wait list factor was not important. if you on a wait list for

primary care, we may have been on a wait list, yes, you died. we don't see a relationship there. for each case, we wanted the fact pattern to demonstrate that a delay in care would have lead or dramatically impacted that patient did die. we saw negatively impacted care. i could not say delay caused a patient to die. >> so, the 171 patients who were delayed in mental health therapy, and 77 suicides, you see no link between delayed care? >> i didn't say no link, i said that, if you are trying to say that -- >> i am in the business of trying to find conclusions. figuring out what reasonable people would believe.

we had a female veteran, blind veteran, with diabetic problems in nevada. had to wait six hours to get care. two weeks later, she died. i have to believe that there is a link between the kind of care she was getting at that hospital, and her death two weeks later. i think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. >> so, the conclusion that we came to on each of those case, when we began the review, i thought we would find patients with delayed care leading to death. i agree that is a likely outcome, i didn't see it. all i can do is report the news that i find this. is what we find. >> i don't want to give the va a pass on this. i believe that is what the line

does, it exonerates the va of any responsibility and past manipulations of the waiting times. >> i have to disagree. i described 45 cases, 28 of which were negatively impacted because of delays, i can't say that those that died died because of the delay. in addition, i found that there was care that didn't meet the standards of care that we would expect for an additional 17 cases. so, i think i laid those fact patterns out in the report. the reader can come to their own conclusions. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator ronno. >> thank you mr. chairman. just following up the previous question. general griffin, would you agree that atransaction of negligence as a result of delay in care as

a causation of suspect a process that needs to be undertaken? >> that's correct. >> you noted in your testimony that wait times are not the only issue that you were focussing on. that when people do not follow headquarter directives, there has to be consequences. you are investigating some have you completed any of those at those facilities? >> 12 files to the department for their action they deem appropriate. the criminal decision lies with the u.s. attorneys offices working with around the country. va owns the decision on

administrative action, and in fact, shortly after our first report was sent to the va, they did take administrative action. we are trying to get these done as quickly as possible so they can move out. in every i.n.s. stance that they need to. we have to make sure we have all the facts right, prior to declaring that we are through, this is the final product. we are working dig gently on that we have a lot of other prosecutors ougz of wait time areas, which have lead to 500 arrests a year for the last six years, that you can't just drop. a lot of them are threat and assault cases, drug diversion cases, abuse of veterans, we are working seriously to try to get through the wait times, all the other investigations that were already in progress need to be

seen through to fruition. >> thank you the va is undertaking these proceedings, you mentioned in your testimony, in your conclusion that the va must address cultural can you talk about how a system as vast as the va can make cultural changes? what do you suggest that they do to implement these kinds of cultural changes? >> i think if you have a culture where it is okay to disregard senior people in your administration, that you need to come to realize that that is not acceptable behavior. perhaps, you will no longer be employed by the department.

when people realize it is a new day in that respect. i think they will be more vigilant in how they receive directives from the senior leaders in washington, and i believe that the efforts that are undertaken in the various town hall meetings, and feedback sessions with the vsos and so on, can make the entire organization realize, these are the types of things we need to be doing. >> do you think that the provisions and the law that was passed, the veterans' bill that would allow for expeditious process for din plining, that that would help to change the culture in a positive way? i think the number of personnel areas in the federal government can be frustrating at the pace that it requires in order to go through all of the due process activities.

i think that ultimate impact that will will have on the department is to be determined. it will depend on how frequently it is used, if there are challenges, being the va is the only department in the government with the new abbreviated time frames and so on. >> the report, your report. put forth a number of recommendations, i am looking at recommendations 17 to 23. the va said they will meet those by september 2015. are there any recommendations that you consider more priority than others? for the va to meet? >> well, the 45 veterans

identified and take appropriate action regarding potential liability or institutional disclosures and so on. >> basically, your recommendations are in the order of priorities that you -->> it is in the order of the presentation of the report. doing the work, discovered 3500 veterans not an official list anywhere. we turned them over to the phoenix staff to be seeking out the veterans and not delay the care more than it had already been delayed. >> mr. chairman, my time is up. >> senator. >> thank you mr. chairman.

i do appreciate the hard work that mr. griffin and your staff. i think you have done a very good job. the report that you come out with is helpful as we try to solve some of the problems. i would like to ask of you and dr. day, normally, when a patient goes to see a provider, the provider becomes the responsible person in this situation. if you sign a chart, say come back in two weeks, sometimes there are situations where perhaps, he will be out of town, this or that, someone is not available. i can't imagine a situation where the scheduler wouldn't ask the one scheduling, you know, this can't be done, what do you want to do about it? so, can you elaborate on that? what happens in the va, when the

provider actually writes on the chart or however they do it, does the scheduler overrule that? the other problem i have, too, is, when the provider sees somebody back, say you inherit a patient like this. the cardiologist, you see on the chart he was supposed to come back in two weeks, now it is two months, where is the outrage from the provider at that point. as to why this wasn't done in a normal fashion.

in phoenix there, was not enough access in primary care to accommodate patient who is needed to go to the primary care provider. so, what would happen s the patient would be given a consult. he would be put in a space that wasn't acted upon. you next see the patient in the emergency room with more problems with diabetes. you see patients reenter the er with more problems with diabetes. with respect to the way they staff the office, the efficiency with which they run the office. you get chaos. i think that is what we were experiencing. you are looking in on a group of people who knew they couldn't

get it done correctly. struggling. >> that happened multiple other places. i think this would be the worst example i have seen. i guess what bothers me is the er doctor. i can see turns them over in the first place, them not getting scene in two weeks, whatever the time frame s sometimes it is appropriate you mentioned oddiology, it may stretch on with no problem at all. routine follow up. when the er doctors see them again in the er, they see that consult hasn't done. that is the responsibility of that physician.

where is the outrage from the guy that was seeing him? knowing that they -- >> i think there was outrage. they expressed their complaint to the leadership at the facility. and again, if people aren't hired, and the problem you realize nothing is going to happen. if the facility talks to the national leadership, i have a problem. you don't get a response. people get conditioned to, this is the way it will be in this system. that is unacceptable. so, nurses and doctors on the ground, i think they were anxious and upset what they saw. trying to deal with it the best they could. >> i know this is about scheduling, you mentioned that you felt like there wasn't any deaths involved as a result of the scheduling. in looking at some of the cases

that you present. there may not be deaths, we concluded there was poor quality of care on those. the problem, as far as claims activity. tort claim activity as previously stated. those are adjudicated in a court of law. the experts that have to be involved in that adjudication, in the case of the state of arizona, have to be people who practiced in that area of specialty in the state of arizona, it is a program function of the department to

address allegations of malpractice. which is why we provided them with the 45 names and said, you need to look into the 45 cases with your attorney, staff, with your medical staff and determine whether there is something that needs to be done for these people. >> i understand. the chairman will wrap me in a second. i guess my concern s when you see the cases and that particular situation, we have a culture of again, breakdown and scheduling, breakdown in scheduling among the this quality of care.

>> senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks again. to the witnesses here today. i know in response to senator tester's question, mr. griffin, you said the cases will be turned over to prosecutors if criminal violations are found. >> that is correct. >> on an individual basis? >> right. they are in different judicial districts around the country. >> and involve different facts. >> right. >> who will make the decision about which cases should be turned over to prosecutors? >> when we have evidence of potential criminality, it is our job to take it to the assistant u.s. attorney or u.s. attorney in that district, present the facts, they make a determination whether or not it rises to the level of the types of things that they are

presently involved with prosecutions of. >> the prosecutors will be making the decisions as they would with any investigative agency, whether or not it am be the fbi, drug enforcement administration? >> correct. >> what is the timing for beginning to turn over those invest gattive results? >> turn over to the department? or -- >> i am sorry, i was unclear in my phrasing. what is the timing for presenting those cases for judgments by the prosecutors, for determining potential criminality? >> when we feel we have developed the evidence that would support a criminal charge. >> has the prosecutor in any of those jurisdictions said to you, we need that evidence as soon as possible? have they given you a time line? >> no.

a number of cases in the investigative and prosecutive pipe line before this happened. as you know, it can take forever i know that much l when i was a u.s. attorney, i would say to investigative agents, some of the best in the nation.

what potential charges could be brought for the various types of manipulations, or different things. >> falsification of records, destruction of documents, obstruction of justice? >> right. >> you have investigative officers working for you. my feel suggest there are simply not enough. do you disagree with me? >> i would say that we are fully engaged.

could probably put twice as many people to work as we have assigned to the organization. >> you could put twice as many to work and they would all be busy. >> yes. >> busy doing very important work. which would lead me to the conclusion that there aren't enough of them. criminal investigations serve a vitally important purpose. i don't need to tell you, you are a very skill and able investigative inspector general and watch dog. the deterrent purpose of a criminal investigation and prosecution and conviction are irreplaceable there. is nothing like the deterrent effort of a successful criminal investigation to deter criminality. we aren't talking about

deterring government, state or federal. thank you for your service, my time is expired. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator murray. >> mr. griffin, i was really deeply disturbed to read your findings, how many cases of suicide and veterans with serious mental health issues were affected by substandard care. many facilities, and long wait

times for mental health care, hospitals are on your list, i hope yore team looks closely at the mental health care problems like they have done in phoenix. i wanted to ask you, the phoenix report really criticizes vha's resistance to change. your report, and. >> ignore directiveos how to do business. after a while, people will tow the line, when they realization there is a price to be paid. >> that has not been done? >> no. how can you have a certification

requirement that you apolish because some of the managers in the field are pushing back about it? because they might not be sure if their scheduling staff is doing it right. the ig staff might come after them for asserting something that wasn't true. or certifying something that wasn't true. you don't tolerate it. >> confirming the things you found at phoenix. the wait times are being manipulated. >> right. when your reports are completed, i expect the va to implement your recommendations, and hold people accountable as you referred to.

as i mentioned earlier, i have to it has some clinical knowledge of being able to triage how bad does this veteran need to be seen today as opposed to somebody else. that is not currently the case. >> this is low level, a lot of

people coming in. it is hard to put up with it. is that an excuse? >> no. i don't think there is an excuse for, i mean, i believe that over the years va's budgets have pretty much been matched or exceeded by congressional appropriators. if you don't know what your demand s how many are on secret lists, and you don't know, ghee, we need 30% more clin igszs, they can't even ask for it. i think that the responsibility is you have to do a serious analysis. undefeated adjacent of your clinicians, but the blend with a solid number that you can hang your hat on and say, in order for us to treat veterans in a

veteran manner, in a timely manner, we need this number of doctors, this amount of for rural areas and what have you. >> this congress, the country, wants to be there for the veterans, if we don't know what the need is accurately, we don't know what to provide. i echo that point. one other thing, you have been doing this a long time. we have been hearing this for a long time. a good job of regular ly -- >> we found a number of fac facilities out of the 93 where we concluded that there was no manipulation occurring. which is a good thing.

>> i thought it was important to hear from the inspector general first. take as much time as you need. thanchlgs you, obviously, we thought it was important that inspector general go first. we are pleased to be here after the inspector general. chairman sanders, ranking member burr, and distinguished members of the committee on veteran affairs, vas response to the inspector general report, regarding wait times and scheduling at the phoenix va hospital. i said at the time of my confirmation hearing, i will put veteransa the center of everything that we do at va. i offer my personal apologies to all veterans who experienced unacceptable delays in receiving care. it is clear we failed in that

respect. regardless of the fact that the report could not connect va deaths to this. veterans have earned, and desire. that is how we regain veteran trust, that is how we regape your trust, and the trust of the american people. the final ig report has now been issued, and as the inspector general said we conquer with the report recommendations, three have already been remediated and well on the way to remediating the raining 21, we began work when the interim report was issued in may. for accountability, we have proposed the removal of three senior leaders in phoenix. as we learn more about individual supervisors and employee roles and the problems there, we may find disciplinary

actions are warranted. we will take them. we are grateful for the committee leadership in establishing veteran access, choice and accountability act of 2014. this important act screamlines the removal of va senior executives, in the appeals process, if it is found. or allow va to fire senior executive officers without evidence or cause. we have taken other actions in phoenix, and improve access to care. including, first, putting in place a strong acting leadership team. good people, with proven track record of serving veterans and solving problems, they are operating in phoenix now, i have visited them on site. increasing phoenix staffs by 162 people. implementing aggressive

recruitment and hiring process says to speed recruiting. reaching out to all veterans being on unofficial lists or the wait list, completing 146,000 appointments in three months. as of september 5th there, are only ten veterans on the electronic weight list at phoenix. where va capacity didn't exist to create timely appointments, we referred patients to nonveteran came. 15,000 referrals to nonva care. we secured contracts, to util eye primary care. since my confirmation as secretary, i travelled the va facilities across the country. veteran service others and other

stakeholders, during the visits, i found va driven by the strong va institutional values of integrity, advocacy, and respect, and excellence. the icare, i am wearing that button here today. our people are making a difference. nationally, they have enabled the critical achievements as of august 15th, vha has reached out to 294,000 veterans to get them off wait lists and decrease the veterans on the electronic weight list by 57%. vha has developed the care initiative to develop timely access for care, decrease the number of veterans on the wait list longer than 30 days, and standardize the tools for access

management at all va facilities, where we haven't been able to increase capacity, we increased the use of nonva care. updating the an quited scheduling schedule, and working to acquire a state of the art, scheduling system. va medical center sdrektors and are completing views of the facilities schedulingly practices to be completed by the end of this month. so far, 3,000 of the reviews have been conducted nationwide.

we restructured vha's office of the medical inspector, to better serve veterans and audit function. on august 7th, i asked all va employees to reaffirm their commitment to integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence, i contend this to be repeated by each employee, each year on the anniversary of our establishment of a department. measuring patient satisfaction, to provide real time, specific information collaborating with vsos, and learning what other leading health care systems are doing to track patient access information. we are working hard to create

and sustain a climate that embraces cop structive dissent. that welcomes critical feedback and ensures legal requirements, that mandates commitment to whistle blower protections for all employees, yesterday, we announced the road to veterans day, our 90-day plan, begins with our mission to for their families, and for their survivors, we will focus our efforts to rebuild trust with veterans in the american people. to improve service delivery and set the course for long-term excellence and reform. as we move forward, we will continue to work with the ig, and other stakeholders to enshue

we will not wait to provide veterans the care that they earned and that they desire. we are going forward, focus on sustainable accountability in the future. more than personnel actions, sustainable accountability means making sure all employees understand how their daily work ties back to the mission for caring for veterans. how it ties to the mission, how it tied to the strategies, we want to make sure that everybody's behavior, every day, is guided by those valumes and that mission. to provide feedback to their supervisor when asked to do something that is impossible to do. we want to make sure that

feedback loop is daily, that every employee is getting daily feedback from the supervisor, and every supervisor is giving daily feedback to their manager. sustainability requires a better job of training our leaders. we need to encourage innovation, we need to encourage collaboration, and we need realistic ratings of everyone's performance. everyone cannot be the best. with sustainable accountability, fulfilling the how we can better serve veterans, who better to help us improve our department than the employees who are interacting with the veterans, we will judge the success of all of these efforts against a single metric. that outcomes. we don't want va to meet a standard. we want va to be recognized as the standard in providing health

care and benefits. i know, we can fix the problems that we face and utilize this opportunity to transform va to better serve veterans. mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your unwavering support of our nation's veterans. i look forward to working you and implementing the law and making thing better for america's veterans. dr. clancey and i prepared to take your questions. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much for being here and your patience and hearing the discussion with the inspector general. i think i'm paraphrasing one of the other members who indicated that the perception is you hit the ground sprinting, which is what the committee wanted from you. we appreciate it very much. i want to reintegrate a point you made. the strast majority of va employees. i know, it's the case and it's all over the country worked

tirelessly and worked very hard to to everything they can for our veterans. we should never forget that. we should also not forget when we're focussing today on the issue of timeliness and the need to make sure every veteran in this country gets timely care. we note, i can tell you absolutely in vermont that most veterans believe the care they're getting once they're in the system is of high quality and they appreciate the care they're getting and the work their staff is doing. what i just wanted to do is in a sense you talked about this if your opening remarks. let's focus on three or four basic issues. every member of this committee is outraged by the long wait periods that veterans in fars parts of the country are experiencing. so number one, i want you to tell us briefly what kind of

progress you have made in reducing those wait periods. number two, we all agree it is unacceptable for va staff, or high ranking people to be lying and manipulating data. what have you done to get rid of people who are acting dishonorab dishonorably? what plans do you have in the future? thirdly, and this is tough stuff. how do we make sure -- how do you lay the groundwork what we've seen in phoenix never happens again, and how do you address, in fact, what is a national problem? i think some raised the issue. it's no great secret we have a serious crisis in the number of physicians we have. especially primary care physicians, the number of nurses we have in various parts of this country. we have given you some tools, we're proud of the work that came out of the committee. we've given you tools, for example, in the education debt

reduction program. which is similar to the national health service core which gives you the tool go to medical school. maybe you can tell us about that. tell people, otherwise, who would graduate, young doctors deeply in debt. we have a strong debt forgiveness program in the va. in other words, what are you going to do address the difficult issue of bringing more quality physicians, nurses, and other medical purse tell me into the system. those are my questions. >> thank you, chairman sanders. >> first question, access to care. we reached out over 294,000 veterans to get them off wait lists and into clinics as of september 5th. as a result, va decreased the electronic wait list by more than 32,000 nationwide since may 15th. that is from over 57,000 in may to around 24,500 as of august 15th. we've reduced the new enroll lee

appointment request list from nearly 64,000 to right now approximately 1,700, which is a reduction of about 62,000. >> this is a combination of expanding va capacity and sending people out to the private sector? >> yes, sir. it includes things like in phoenix we moved in three mobile units from around the region. we increased clinical hours. we worked on overtime. it's a matter of putting the resources where they need to be put. we collaborated with the department of defense in some sights. collaborating with indian health service. those were the things that were done. also, we've had more people we've put into the private sector. 246,300 more patients have gone into the private sector. and any each one of those referrals actually is resulted in on average seven appointments. in a sense, that number understates the care that has been provided.

so we're making progress there, but more work needs to be done. and obviously, the bill you mentioned is going help us do that by providing greater access points. 27 more new points and the ability to hire more doctors and nurses. you asked about disciplinary actions. we talked in my opening remarks about the three individuals in phoenix who have -- who were seeking -- who proposed disciplinary action for. we have new acting director there in phoenix. in my american legion speech, i mentioned that we have over 30 actions that we've taken. around five include members of a senior executive service. about two dozen include million professionals. so we're following up as quickly as we can. as soon as we get information

that suggests we should take disciplinary action we're taking it. we stood up a separate team called tcall ed accountability team. i met with them as recently as yesterday. they report to me. their single job is to get after these as quickly as possible. >> let me interrupt. i'm running out of time. i want to ask you the third question. the inspector general made a good point. it's hard to know what you need unless you have good information. i mean, in your judgment, how many more doctors, nurses, medical staff do you need and how, at the time, when the country is not producing enough primary care physicians, et. cetera are you going get them? >> we need tens of thousands. deputy secretary gibson said in his testimony, i think, it was around 28,000. we're now going through a process -- >> let me repeat. that's an important point. with you're telling us you believe you need 28,000 new

medical staff? >> including clinicians and other employees. we're in the process of going through a big recruiting effort. i was at duke university medical school. i was with senate burr in charlotte and i went to duke. we talked to over 500 members of the duke medical community. i was in philadelphia last friday, i talked to members of the university of pennsylvania medical school. we're trying to demonstrate to young people studying in the medical profession that va is where they want to work. they want to work there because we have nobel prize winners, seven award winners. we do great upfront research. did you know that the nurse work that the va who developed the use of a bar code for tracking patients and medication. we're known for innovation and young people should work for us and the help you gave us with student loan forgiveness, debt

forgiveness, doubling the number is going to be very helpful and help us recruit. >> i've far exceeded my time. senator burr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome, and thank you for the role you're filling. i've got a couple of areas. one item you mentioned every private sector referral triggered seven additional visits. if you would, i would love to see the data on that. i know, that's what va actuaries have stated and what they believe. i think we need to get to the bottom of it and figure out why. is this a contractual problem? we contracted -- under medicare that would be under a bundled payment. it we're doing private sector right. we have to figure it out today.

i can't envision where every time we referred somebody to a private sector doctor it triggers seven additional appointments, visits we're going pay for. if that is the case, i would love to see the specifics on that when you're able to do that. with everything you went through, it's probably hard to believe that i would ask you this question. because you detailed greatly all the changes that we're making. but my question is this. how do you plan to change the culture at va and how do you plan to measure it? >> first, we will get you the data on the seven visits. as you know, many of our veterans have multiple illnesses, but we'll get you the data and we'll sit down together and talk about that. in terms of changing the culture. changing the culture is probably one of the most difficult leadership challenges. whether it's in the private sector or the public sector. i think the most important thing we've got to do is to open up

the culture. as i described earlier high performance organizations have the improvements made by the employees not by the leadership. the leadership helps. they pick the strategies and the leaders and they help create the culture. we've got to get every employee involved. so on the first week, i met with the union leadership. the majority of our employees are union members. about 58% are union members. i met with the yunon leadership and i met with them three times in my first five weeks. and i'm asking them to recommit themselves their values, mission, and help me engineer the changes that we need to make every time i go to a site, i met with the union leadership as well. i include them in our leadership meetings. i make sure i talk to the whistle blowers from the site. i do a town hall where i explain to the employees that i want every employee. i want every employee causing us to change. i used a diagram.

i used it yesterday and used it with employees that basically says that the most people think of an organization structure like a pyramid. at the proctor and gamble company you would have a ceo and at the department of veteran's affairs you have a secretary. i take that and i turn it on its head. i say this is where our veterans are. our veterans are at the broad base of this pyramid. the people caring for the veterans are the most important people in the organization. i'm on the bottom. i'm at the apex. what i've got to do is make sure that the communication is flowing up-and-down that pyramid to make sure that we care for the veterans. the boss of the operation is the veterans. the boss is the person next to the veteran. serving the veteran. frankly, some of the things that happened in the past don't fit that picture. for example, we had some of our positions who serve the veteran downgraded in the annual salary

is not hundred -- tens of thousands of dollars less that we're able to pay them. those are important people. we've got to -- so i've encouraged our leaders to seek exceptions to the poll policy. we've got to get back to putting the best talent up working and receivering the concern. culture change is difficult, but i think we can do it. >> just to make one point. the point about measurement. va has a unique all employee survey, which is going out into the field to all employees, and it's much more thorough than other federal departments. one of the areas that we can measure and to track closely is psychological safety. do people feel empowered to say we have a problem here on the frontlines. i need help. this isn't working. so we will be keeping a very close eye on that. >> we accident out last week. i would be happy to show the results with the committee when it comes back.

>> thank you. >> one last question. in the press release that va sent out prior to the release of that report, the release stated that you had asked for an independent review at scheduling and access practices beginning this fall by a joint commission. i've got a schism question. why? why do we need a joint commission to look at the same thing that the ig is looking at in 93 facilities right now? the ig reported on since 2005 and are we waiting until fall to implement changes in that until we've got a joint commission report back. >> i'll ask dr. clancey to clarify my comments. it's not just any commission. it's a commission that does this kind of work for a living. >> full of commissions. as soon as we hear the word commission, boy, we start

looking for who is hiding. >> it's not about hiding. it's about benchmarking best practices. this commission does this across the country and will help us understand best practices in all facilities not just the 93 the ig is looking at. so we plan to use this commission to improve. it's unfortunate their name is commission. that's -- >> so just to expand for one moment. they accredit the vast majority of private sector hospitals. in fact, they cannot get paid by medicare or medicaid if they're not accredited. this is following a standard practice in the private sector. these are going to be unannounced surveys. we have put a huge amount of effort into making sure the schedulers are trained. we have enough people hired, we're looking for ways to get exceptions to get their grades increased as the secretary just indicated. but this is also going to be looking at is it really working? how does patient flow work? what what happens to people who wait in the emergency room who

leave because they have been waiting too long? and so forth. it's going to be an independent check for us and give us an opportunity to spread good practices and opportunities for improvement across the system. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> senator tester. >> thank you very much. just as a side bar, i would love to have you incorporate montana into your travel plans by the middle of next month. it would be great. second number of per capita veterans in the country. they're some of the best veterans in the country, too. i'm a little patient on that. let me ask you this, you moved three leaders from the phoenix office. were they reassigned or terminated? >> what i said senator tester we proposed disciplinary action against three leaders. this is process that has to be taken for leaders who are in that strata of employee. we have proposed the disciplinary action. it now goes to a board and there's a process that it goes

through. since we have proposed that action, we have taken the leaders i talked about, moved them to phoenix. they're in an acting role. if leaders? yes. >> i think one of the concerns is you have to protect employee's rights. we need to be able to terminate people when they deserve to be terminated? >> i agree with you entirely. believe me, as i said in my prepared remarks, we're following the disciplinary -- we're following the investigations and as soon as we're capable we're taking action. >> the ig made many good points. one of the things he brought up was the analysis because of the scheduling don't have a clear pattern in how many folks need the kind of services they need. and then there's also the fee-based information out there. i don't know if that's better or not as good or the same. how can you make a determination 28,000 medical staff?

i mean, you're a wonder worker, probably. the fact is that information hasn't been hammered out? >> no. we're going through a process right now where we're going location by location, specialty by specialty to understand how many people we really need. >> when do you think the process will be done? >> let me ask dr. clancey a comment on that. she's leading that process. >> sure. yeah. >> so in response to a previous report from the inspector general and dr.d day mentioned t briefly. we created and deploying a tool to assess productivity which includes space in that. i would guess by the end of the calendar year, next year. >> you'll have a firm grip on how many medical staff you'll need to have when the process is done. you'll have already set up standards for doctors. that's part of the thing, too? >> yes. in addition to how many stort staff do they need to make them as efficient and productive as possible. >> i want to kick back to

something else the ig said. i tried to pin him down on the staffing thing and he said staffing is part of it. the other part is facilities. where are you going put the docs and medical staff? in montana facilities i don't know if there's as big as a problem but pretty damn close. you'll have docs there but not any examination rooms. so what -- do you have instruction plan moving forward? it's unfair. you've only been in the job six weeks. >> i think it's five, actually. >> all right. >> obviously you're right. facilities are very important. and the action you took with the bill gives us the ability to have 27 more facilities. and not surprisingly wunl of the facilities will go in phoenix, where, obviously, we have a need. we have an issue right now we're working. it's around leasing.

we have been following an appropriate, i think, strategy of leasing facilities rather than building them. because the population, as you know, is moving. you've talked about the increase in veterans in montana. >> we're currently working through the gsa on this process. the -- >> to get down to it, secretary. i appreciate you telling me what you're doing. do you have a construction plan moving forward for the next year, three years, five years? and so you can come to us, some of us are appropriators on the committee and say we need this much money to serve those coming back. >> we have a construction plan but we'll be renewing our forecasting as i mentioned during my conformation hearing. i'm not fied that our forecasting is robust. >> okay. i want to talk about it very briefly. i ain't got much time. it's pushed out for another two years. is it open to all hospitals if they contact the va?

let's say the great falls hospital in great falls, montana wants to get there. what do they do? >> let us know. our, again, our principles look at everything through the lens of the veteran. if it's good for the veteran, we want to do it. >> okay. i think that in this particularly rural areas, that's going to be critically important. i've got some other questions i'll put in the record. frankly, for you, as we move forward. but know that i know you're committed to the job and surrounding your people with the committee with the job. middle management has been a problem not only with this administration but the previous one. i think you need to hold them accountable, too. >> i want to spend some time with you on the plan veteran's day. one of the steps we'll take is reorganize the department. we have nine different agree graphic maps for the department. we have 14 websites that require different user name and passw d

password. the veteran doesn't want that. they want one map and website. that simple my indication will flatten the hierarchy you describe and provide for information coming up-and-down quickly. >> thank you, senator tester. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for visiting reno. >> and las vegas and las vegas on behalf of myself and the governor. perhaps minus tesla relocating and locating in the state of nevada, it was a terrific opportunity for him to discuss with you, as myself, the concerns we share about nevada's veterans. thank you, again. >> you're welcome. may i say working with the state governments is critically important for our success. >> you're proving that. thank you for doing so. i want to talk about the reno or the nevada for a couple of minutes. as you're probably aware of, the inspector general's report they

did a va claims initiative and we're able to recognize it about 32% of the claims were inaccurate. unfortunately, for the state of nevada that ig report they did in june focussing henri know found that 51% of the claims reviewed were inaccurate. >> and that being the case, have you had an opportunity to review these reports from the ig? >> i have. but i also have to say that i've asked the ig to give me all of the reports of the last five years, and they gave me a triage version of the reports. because i want to go back and look at all the reports that have been issued and not acted upo upon. i know, the situation in reno having been there. we have new leadership on the ground. we're making some progress but we're not to where we need to be. and the new leadership knows

that. >> let's talk about the leadership a moment. i called for management changes in the reno. do we have a permanent director at this point? what is the timeline? >> we're in the process of obviously identifying the permanent direct per. >> we mentioned that -- >> and we'll partner with you on that. >> okay. we mentioned there, perhaps, is a need for four additional employees in that particular office. what is the status of that? >> we -- i have to check the hiring status. but we need more employees in the veterans benefit administration. we need them in that office. there's nothing holding us back from hiring them. we do need more employees and veterans benefit the administration. right now, as you know that office and elsewhere, we have all the employees working mandatory overtime. we're stopping mandatory overtime october 1st because it's not sustainable.

but in order to be able to sustain our progress going forward and continuing to drive these claim backlogged down, we've got to hire more people. there was some money in the bill that was recently passed that was taken out the bill. i think it was $400 million. we're going to need some of that money back. we're going to cost save to try to find money to be able to hire the employees and continue to work. >> and you tend to agree with me, i'm sure, that over time isn't an answer long-term. short term perhaps we can make some headway. but long-term pay and over working some of the employees probably isn't the answer. i think there is a structure overall change that needs to happen. 345 days out from benefits and medical claims is just unacceptable at this point.

would hope that additional employees willing -- the resources are necessary. as you know, i talked to the management in reno to figure out what do you need and they told us additional resources were not necessary. please let me know and anything i can do to help. change needs to occur. i know, you haven't, in your position real long. but do you have a direction you really want to go that are going to be necessary to reduce these backlogs? >> we have made progress. the claim backlog is down by 56%. i think deputy secretary gibson has said and i agree with him that the changes made in the veteran's benefit administration over the last couple of years have been astounding. you're right. we have done it by brut force in what we need to do now is reengineer the process and get the resources we need to do it in a sustainable basis. and drive down the backlog by

2015 which is our commitment. >> if there's anything i can do to help and support. we have initiatives here. we would like to offer our services any way we can. i want to change directions quickly. that's on women veterans. there are nearly 2.3 million women veterans that served in the military. that number, as you know, is continuing to grow. since you've been secretary, have you reviewed the care and services for the women veterans to make sure it's adequate? >> i have, and we have work to do. in fact, every stop i go to whether it's phoenix, memphis, las vegas, and go into the medical center. one of the things that strikes me is how we build facilities years ago for male veterans. because there weren't female veterans. i also check in to see do we have a medical practitioners and obgyn in other areas. i look in the prosthetics lab to

see if we're used to making prosthetics. we were talking to gary of the disabled american veterans, they've done a study now on what it means to make a prosthetic for a female who is pregnant. these are things that we've never had to deal with before. now with 11, 12% of the veteran population being female, as you have indicated continuing to increase in absolute numbers these are things we have to get after. >> i think it may take some legislation to expand this. i would be eager to help your administration in moving forward on the initiatives. something needs to be done and look forward. >> we love to partner with you. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator murray. >> thank you very much. before i ask my questions i want to say to senator heller thank you for asking the question. there's a lot of work to do in terms of privacy and doctors knowing how to care for women.

one of the barriers for women to get care is child care. if you don't have a place for your kids you don't show up. particularly for mental health it's a serious issue. i would love to work with you. thank you for being here. i want to tart with talking about the fact that the ig found several cases in which veterans face delays in care or stable care. and subsequently took their own lives. va's newest wait time data show it is takes far too long to get into care. the ig's finding said that simply meaning the wait time met trick isn't enough. veterans need to be assigned to a regular provider. they need care coordinated across the hospital and between specialists and get the type of care they need when they need it. we've been working on this for a long time now. and i want to ask you today why do you think that the va continues to struggle with providing appropriate mental

health care? >> senator murray, i think mental health care is a problem in the united states. i think it's a problem in the va. one of the things that excites me about the job is that many of the things we see at the va is we're kind of the path finder for the country. whether it's, for example, the use of the bar code for in a hospital to make sure somebody gets good care. and i think one of the things we have to do is increase the number of students studying mental health in school. when i was at duke university medical school i met with 17 res debits who graduated from the medical school working at the va. only one was a psychiatric. i asked the young people why are young people not going into psychiatricy or mental health. my father-in-law, who was a prisoner war in world war ii. he was a b 24. he was shot down over germany

over austria. he walked across germany. i'm sure he had post-traumatic stress. we didn't know what to call it. he never wanted to talk about it until he joined a va group of p.o.w.s who felt comfortable talking about it. they told me the biggest issue is insurance reimbursements for mental health are far below the cost. we center to get a handle on what is going on in the area. and find ways to encourage people to go to school in mental health. in all of my recruiting speeches so far. i've talked about the importance of mental health. i'm trying to encourage young people to get into the discipline. i think it's a national problem, but va is on the cutting edge of it. >> we'll continue to work on that. that, to me, it's a serious issue. it's a country issue. our veterans are at the front of the line. we have to make sure we have the providers and the understanding

across the va and the culture of the va to watch for this. in your testimony, you talked about improving the department's leadership training and breaking down some of the va's bureaucracy as a way of enhancing accountability. that needs to happen at all levels. i liked your chart with the veterans at the top. there's a lot of people between you and then. we need to make -- that's why i gave out my cell phone number. we need to look at everything from training new clinic managers to oversight and effective intervention by medical centers and network leaders. how do you make sure these changes happen at all of those levels across the va? it's a huge system. >> it is a huge system. it starts by getting out and going to these different sights and meeting the people and understanding are we providing the right leadership. do we have the right strategic choices? do we have the right systems? are we, you know, doing things that repeatedly will lead to a

good result, and do we have a right culture? for example, i was at the site was actually in reno, and a young person was talking to me in a town hall about ways we can improve our computer system. one of the senior managers stepped in front to try to stop the conversation i had to ask the senior manager to move out the way. but, you know, it wasn't appropriate. or i was in philadelphia last week -- this was a sight that had a training program on town halls that used oscar the grouch. i had to talk to the employees about no matter the intent, perception is important. and the perception of oscar the grouch on a presentation is not going to be acceptable. we have to dive into the culture and dig and figure out what is going on that is wrong and set the example to do it right. i tell everyone to call me bob.

i was bob before i became secretary. i'm going to be bob after wards. that's not trite. that's done because we need to flatten the hierarchy. we need people to be like a family. to call each other by their first names. to feel comfortable turning in problems. we need to reward people who turn in problems not chastise them or not ostracize them. these are some of the things we're doing. it's hard work, but it's under way. enter okay. and really quickly, you said you committed the va to a modern scheduling system. can you tell me when you think it will be done and the training for the employees to use it? >> right now we're doing quick fixes on the establish system. those quick fixes are coming out periodically over the next few months. to change the whole system and bring in a new one will take some time. we like it to be done in 2015. >> that includes the training?

>> yes, of course. in fact, when you put in a new system, we want to commission it. we want to verify people know how to use it before they sit down and are qualified to use it. >> thank you very much. >> senator graham. >> mr. speaker, i don't think i'll call you bob in this setting. thank you very much for your presence, as i said earlier. a series of questions related to the same topic. first of all, i would like to offer my assistance as i have done with previous secretaries. you have testified, the chairman of the committee has great interest in trying to help the va have the necessary professionals to meet the needs of veterans. i've asked previous va secretary how can i help? what do you need? what tools don't you have to help solve the problem with no response. so, again, if there's changes in the law, programs that are necessary to encourage loan forgiveness, whatever the story

is that would help you attract professionals, i would like to be of assistance and ally. here is my scenario of a couple of stories. leeman is a smith center veteran. i mentioned him in the opening remarks. he had the good fortune of the va telling him that he no longer needed to drive four hours to omaha, nebraska to have a colon os i. that suggests there's a change afoot. thank you. down the road, about an hour in plainville, kansas, larry macintire tells me that last week he drove three hours to wichita to get a cortisone shot in his shoulder. he goes to wichita several times a week for other minor procedures. there's a c block within 25 miles of plainville but it doesn't have the professional capability, since it, of

providing court zon shots. what exists is a hometown hospital. brooks county medical center plainville kansas that could provide a cortisone shot in the same town where mr. macintire lives. and certainly less than the 3 1/2 hour drive to wichita. so on the one hand, we've had some success. on the other there is still remains the issues we're trying to get at within the va but also in implementation. first of all, in implementation of the care act, what -- when the 40 miles is the determining factor as to whether or not you can access health care, how do you going to treat what that c bock is capable of doing and determining whether or not that veteran lives within 40 mailes f a facility. or the facility that can perform the service that the veteran needs. >> that's an excellent question. one of the technical changes

we're working with the committee on is to give the secretary the authority to interpret that the way it should be interpreted. in other words, let's look tat through the lens of the veteran. does it make sense for the veteran to get a cortisone shot closer to home? you know, what makes sense? and one of the things we're asking is to give the secretary that flexibility in the technical changes to the care bill. >> you do not believe so you that authority to make that determination now? >> no , sir, but i think just by simple my putting in a phrase it would be very simple my handled. we've been working that with the staff. >> does there seem to be impediment toward accomplishing that? >> no , sir. >> let me go back to arch in the interim. before the care act is implemented, which my guess is november is the best scenario. you have set aside $25 million for outside of the va care. that, ai assume spending expires

a couple three weeks away. arch is an existence and the care act gives you the authority to do two things with arch, one, is to extend the contracts to extend the program and the second is to expand the program beyond the geography that is currently served by an arch program. do you have any questions about your ability to extend the program arch and do you have any questions about your ability to expand the program? >> one of the technical changes that we're asking for in the bill that pertains to arch is the ability to just extend the contract wes have which will allow us to accelerate the expansion of arch. >> so the language in the care act is insufficient to allow you to extend the contract? >> it needs a modification. >> how do you -- when do the contracts expire? >> it's not the -- i don't think it's the expiration as much as the assumption we can use them

moving forward. we can move more quickly. rather than going through an entire rebid progress excess for new contract. >> arng arch is not going to go out of business, the pilot programs before you get a technical change? it will continue? >> i think -- let me check on this to make sure. it's extended for six months. what we're trying to do is extend the expansion as quickly as we can. and the way to do that is the technical change. >> you don't need an expansion. you don't need a technical language to expand from six months. >> to extend for six months. no. >> yes. and your expansion authority? >> we're okay on that. i think the -- again, the technical change we're seeking would allow us to accelerate the expansion. >> mr. chairman, your indulgence i would only say i was surprised as an author of the legislation gnat pilot programs were narrow to begin

with. small geographic areas. my expectations was the va would choose five sights that are statewide. we expected the entire to be the pilot program not a matter of a county or two. and that's -- you have an opinion. you have thoughts about your willingness to expand arch to a larger statewide agree graphic area? >> again, consistent with what secretary deputy secretary gibson said, we need to look at this, again, from the standpoint of the veteran. if it's good for the veteran, then we should expand it. i think that's what he said. we'll expand it. so we're looking forward to working with you on that. >> if you can get us the analysis of the arch program done by the va we asked for a long time. for months. we would like to see what the report says about how you analyze on the va department of veterans affairs analyze the program. i would assume it says good things. >> i would assume so, too.

about providing care. >> all right. it's been a long, productive hearing. be mr. chairman, may i say one thing? because, first of all, i want to clarify one comment i made. you recall i send funding for vba it was roughly $400 million that was part of our original $17.6 billion dollar request. it did not end up getting passed. that's why we brought it up. we want to continue to drive down the claims. secondly, i was trying to say earlier that leasing becomes very important. leasing is a strat gha we're using to move our footprint out provide greater access and care, and right now we have an issue that we're trying to resolve with the general services administration, the gsa, where they resicinded our blanket delegation of authority in july for these contracts.

now every one of our lease contracts need an individual delegation from the gsa. those that exceed 2.85 million, which many of them do, 59% of the 27 do need to go through relatively laborious process. we're working with gsa to resolve this. while we do that, we believe there's a need and a case to be made for an independent 20-year medical lease authority for va to carry out its mission and continue to provide the point of access. i want to make sure. >> sure. it's been a long ongoing problem. we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> secretary, dr. clancey thank you very much for being with us. thank you for the hard work you're putting in now and the changes we're seeing. in hearing is now adjourned.

the house panel will focus on the potential threat the u.s. could face from the terrorist group isis. customs and border protection officials will testify before a house homeland security subcommittee hearing. live coverage gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> with life coverage of the us house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2.

here on c-span3 we compliment the coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings. on weekend c-span there p 3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story. and our new series real america featuring are kooifl government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. by your reated by the cable tv local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> now justice department oversight hearing. inspector general michael or wits testifies about the ongoing

investigations including the death of u.s. border patrol agent brian terri in a so-called fast and furious investigation. this house judiciary committee is just over an hour. on august 5, 2014, 47 of 72 statutory u.s. inspect ares general signed a letter to congress in protest of constraints that have recently been imposed on access to agency records constraints that impeded efforts to perform oversight work in critical areas. the conduct of meaningful oversight by any office of inspector general depends on complete and timely access to all agency materials and data. as such, section 6 a 1 of the inspector general act expressly provides for such ax excess. restricting or delaying an inspector general's access to key materials, in turn, deprived

congress and the american people of timely information which we to evaluate an agency's performance. limiting access except in narrow instances is at odds with the necessary independence of inspectors general and is contrary to congressional intent. the hearing will exam will agency component at the department of justice have overmined the independence by withholding, filtering, or delaying the essential records based on a novel interpretation of the inspector general act as well as restrictive readings of other statutes. in each of the three instances of interference, we will hear about today a review of agency response with the oig in the mind set that use doj leadership as the ash or it of what information the inspector general receives. they believe they must ask for and receive permission to review

department of justice data and material and that sanctions oig investigations as necessary to advance its own advisory responsibilities alone. the mission of doj's office of inspector general is to detect and deter waste fraud, abuse, and misconduct in doj programs and personnel. and to promote economy and efficiency it in the programs. efforts to reduce transparency such as those described by the inspectors general in the august 5th letter leave agencies vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct and will not be cone doned. not every inspector general who signed the letter has experienced barriers to access, each one signed in support of the principle that an inspector general must have complete, unfiltered, and timely access to all information and materials available to the agency that relate to that inspector general's oversight activities without unreasonable

administrative burdens. i welcome our witness today, the honorable michael horowitz. i am pleased to have him here to describe the challenges he's face and share his valuable insight so we may evaluate for ourselves whether the executive branch is executing the inspector general act as congress has intended. and whether additional action is needed to restore congressional intent. now it's my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. i thank you for convening a hearing on this topic. we have an obligation to preserve the continued independence and effectiveness of the office of the inspector general at the department of justice. inspector general horowitz, we

welcome you here before the house judiciary committee today. i suspect that members -- membership of this committee is virtually unanimous in recognizing the need for vigorous oversight of the department of justice. no matter which party controls the executive branch, a strong and independent office of inspector general is key to protecting civil liberties, reigning in executive overreach, safe guarding taxpayer dollars, and preserving the public trust. i have the privilege of having voted for the original inspector general act of 1978. both in the house committee on government operations, then under the leadership of jack brooks of texas and subsequently on the house floor.

it's my suspicious i may be the only one that has done those things on this committee. i've reviewed the 1978 committee report, accompanying the passage of the inspector general act house report ate-5 a 4. it was our intention then and remains our intention today that, quote, each inspector general is to have access to all records, documents, et. cetera available to his or her agency which relate to programs and operations with respect to which the office has responsibilities. simply put, the inspector general is to have complete and direct access everyone sid emphasized to all the information he or she deems

necessary to conduct thorough and impartial investigations. recent legal analysis by the fbi's office of general counsel, unfortunately suggests otherwise. they reason that the inspector general act actually prohibits the fbi from sharing certain sensitive or confidential materials. included but not limited to grand jury information, title iii wiretap information and consumer credit information. members of the committee, i find this analysis wholly unpersuasive. nothing in the inspector general act authorizes the department or its component agencies to refuse even these materials to the inspector general.

began borrowing from the 1978 report, the act was designed to assign to each inspector general primary responsibility for auditing and investigative activities relating to programs and operations. that's a direct quotation. it's difficult to imagine how the inspector general of the department of justice might conduct those auditing and investigating responsibilities without full access to relevant court documents, intelligent reports, or financial records. it's also difficult to imagine how the inspector general might conduct effective oversight of the department of justice if the materials it requires can only be obtained with the permission of department attorneys.

to be clear, the current leadership of the department of justice has taken extraordinary steps to make sure that the inspector general has eventually received access to the material he seeks in each before us today. attorney general eric holder and deputy attorney general james cole are not the problem. they are both intervened personally on multiple occasions to overcome the fbi's objections and to compel production of the materials in question. i commend them for that leadership. but i do not know who will hold these posts in future administrations. we should not be willing to entrust this key oversight matter to men and women who may feel differently about the

effectiveness of the office of inspector general. in may of the year, deputy attorney general cole asked the office of legal council to issue a formal opinion resolving this dispute. i hope the principle deputy assistant attorney general karl thompson and his team would adhere to the plain text of the statute and to our obvious intent and grant the inspector general unfettered access to every document in the department's position. if the office of legal counsel find ambiguity to hold in place any of them on the inspector general's access to information, the house judiciary should be the first to act to correct their mistaken impression. inspector general horowitz, we

welcome and we look forward to your testimony today. and to your assistant's legislative response is indeed required. i thank the chairman and yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. and chair understands that the gentleman from ohio would like to make a brief statement welcoming the inspector general. >> i thank the chairman. i'm looking at the letter you signed along with a bunch of other inspector generals from august 5th of this year. the first paragraph talk abouts serious limitations on access of record and the second paragraph department of justice recently faced restriction. i was going to say welcome to the club. it's no -- i think it's noticeable that four of these six republican members here are also from the oversight committee. i know, we have a hearing tomorrow on the very issue. we have been frustrated from the kind of response we've gotten

from the internal revenue service and the department of justice. we share your frustration and want to commend commend you. i've been impresds pressed with your service to the pubic. this is critical. thank you for the hearing. thank you for your work and being here today. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. all other opening statements will be made a part of the record. we thank our only witness for joining us today. if you would please rise i'll begin by swearing you in. to do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me got. thank you very much let the record reflect that the inspector general responded in the affirmative. as inspector general, he oversees a nationwide work force of more than 400 special agents,

auth a auditors. previously worked as an assistant united states attorney for the southern district of the new york from 1990 to 1999. after this he served as in the criminal division at maine justice as deputy assistant attorney general and chief of staff. he has also spent time working in the private sector most recently as a parter. he earned his jurs doctor magna cum laude. we appreciate your presence today and look forward to your testimony, your written statement will be entered into the record in the entirety and ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. thank you, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congressman conyers, members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to

testify today. information agency files go to the heart of our mission to provide independent and nonpartisan oversight. that's why 47 inspector generals signed a letter last month to congress expressing their concern about the issue. i want to thank the members of congress for their bipartisan support in response to that letter. the ig acted by congress in 1978 is crystal clear. section 6 a provides that inspectors general must be complete, timely, and unfilters access to all agency records. since 2010, the fbi and other department components have not read section 6 a in that manner. therefore, refused request during the review for relevant grand jury, wiretap, and credit information in their files. as a result, a number of our reviews were reviews were significantly impeded. in response to these legal objections, the attorney general or deputy to attorney general granted us permission to access

records by making a finding that our reviews were of assistance to them. they also stated their intention for all future audits and reviews and we appreciate their commitment to do that. however, there are several significant concerns with this process. first and foremost, the process is inconsistent with the clear mandate of section 6a of the ig act. the attorney general should not have to order department component to provide us access to records that congress has made clear we are entitled to review. second, requiring the oig to obtain mission from the department leadership seriously compromises our independence. the oig should decide which documents it needs access to. not the leadership of the agency that is being overseen. third, while current department leadership has supported our ability to access records, agency leadership changes over time and our access to records should not turn on the views of the department's leadership. further, we understand that other department components that

exercise oversight over department programs and personnel, such as office of professional responsibility continue to be given access to the same materials without objection. this treatment is unjustifiable and results in the department being less willing to provide materials to the oig presumably because the oig is stat torely independent while the opr is not. this treatment once again highlights opr's lack of independence from the department's leadership which can only be addressed by granting the statuer toly independent oig with jurisdiction to investigate all alleged misconduct of the department. the independent nonpartisan oversight made the same recommendation in a report earlier this year and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the senate to do just that. this past may, the department's leadership asked the office of legal council to issue an opinion addressing legal objections raised by the fbi.

attached to my written statement is a summary regarding these issues. it is imperative the oig give its decision promptly. moreover, in the absence of a re resolution our struggle to access information in a timely manner continues to seriously delay our work. it also has a substantial impact on the morale of the oig's auditors, analysts who work hard everyday. they face challenges getting timely access to information primarily with routinely requests. in two audits we had a hard time getting information in a timely manner. we are hopeful the oig will give an answer promptly. however, should an olc opinion interpret the oig act that limits our ability to access

information pursuant to the ig act we will request a prompt legislative remedy. for the past 25 years my office saved taxpayers money and improves department operations. delaying access to information has substantial consequences for our work and lead to incomplete, inaccurate or significantly delayed findings or recommendations. i cannot emphasize enough how critical it is to get these pending access issues resolved promptly and hopefully olc will issue a legal opinion finding that section 6a of the ig act means what it says. this concludes my prepared statement, and i would be pleased to answer my questions that committee may have. >> thank you, mr. horowitz. i will begin the questioning. the only explicit limitation on an inspector attorney's investigation within a jurisdiction for 8e.

it provides the attorney general with the authority and carefully circumstances to prohibit the office of inspector general from carrying out an audit or investigation. to envoc section 8e the attorney general must explain the reason for his decision in writing and make a determination that a lip limitation on an ig's limitation of authority to disclose certainly describe etiquette gories of information or prevent significant impairment to national interest. my question to you is, has attorney general holder at any time during your tenure used this formal procedure to limit your office's access to material essential to. he has not. that's one of the arguments we forward, which what congress set up to limit our access, if there are sensitive matters. that's the provision that it simply is not a standing objection to our access. >> in your experience, prior to

your troubling experiences with the reviews you site in your testimony, had any department of justice component ever asserted the right to make unilateral determinations about what requested documents were relevant to an office of inspector general review. >> from speaking with others in the agency, that had not happened before 2010. >> how valuable is your authority to act as grand jury or other sensitive material to your ability to execute rigorous oversight of national security matters? >> it is critical, mr. claireman. these of the tools of the trade for the fbi, other law enforcement agencies. if we can't access every piece of information in their files, with oversight of the fbi's use of these tools and its handling of national security, we won't know the full answer to what's going on. >> and according to your office, the fbi's information is

unsupported by raw and con trierry to the inspector general act and the general rule of grand jury secrecy. would you outline the three reasons why the office of inspector general is entitled to access of the grand jury material that the fbi claimed was privileged. >> certainly. 6a of the act could not be clear as congressman just outlined in his opening statement. the grand jury rules prior to 2010 we regularly obtained grand jury material because we have attorneys for the government working for us. i'm an tern, we have a number of attorneys working on our staff. that would be the other exception. and third, in the national security area, there's an additional exception in the grand jury rules that has before 2010 been used to get us grand jury material. so there are at least three reasons why we should be getting this material. >> you testified earlier that at

no time has the attorney general complied with section 8e and given you testimony -- or a statement in writing, as to why material would not be provided. have you had the opportunity to have any verbal discussion with either he or the director of the fbi as to why they are choosing not to make this material available to you? >> i have raised my concerns with both of them and the response from the department has been, most recently, to send the matter to the office of legal council to evaluate the two. the fbi's competing legal argument and that is where the matter currently lies and has for several months now and it is very important that opinion be issued. it should be clear that we are entitled to it. but if there is a contrary

ruling, we want know sooner rather than later so we can work with congress to fix the problem. >> has there been any previous opinions put forward by the office of legal council with regard to this issue? >> there has and that again is one of our points. which is in 1984, prior tower existence, which we came into existence in 1988, they found that the office professional responsibility was entitled to ook says grand jury information. we are at a loss to understand why that same opinion wouldn't apply us to, given we have the same oversight responsibilities and on top of that unlike with opr, congress found that we should be getting thee materials and put a provision in law that says that. >> thank you very much. chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, chairman. you have anticipated some of the questions i