seen in the three different attempts at the agency to ensure that the internet remains open. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. customs and border protection commissioner gil kerlikowske said that border security is the priority for the agency. next he outlines travel and trade and ensuring transparency. and the progress made in decreasing the number of unaccompanied minors at the southwest border. from the brookings institution, this is an hour. good morning i'm darrell west vice president of government studies at the brookings institution and i would like to welcome you to

this forum on u.s. customs and border protection. and this event is being broadcast live by c-span. and as many of you may know customs and border protection is the largest federal law enforcement agency and also it provides the second largest revenue collecting source for the federal government. on a typical day, cbp seizes over 10,000 pounds of drugs, 650,000 dollars in undeclared or illicit currency, and $3.4 million of products with intellectual property right violations. so needless to say this agency is working very hard to safeguard america's borders while also enhancing legitimate trade and commerce. our feature speaker today is commissioner gil kerlikowske. he's going to discuss his insights from his first year of leading this agency.

he's also going to look at some of the highlights in terms of his vision for moving forward. the agency has put out a new vision and strategy 2020 document that lays out what the agency would like to do in the future. the commissioner was nominated by president obama and sworn in last year. in this position he oversees the dual mission of protecting national security objectives while also promoting economic prosperity and security. he brings four decades of law enforcement experience and drug policy experience to this position. before he took on his current position he served as director of the white house office of national drug control policy. he also formerly served for nine years as chief of police in seattle, washington. so our format today is the commissioner will offer his reflections on the past year, as well as his thoughts on the future. and then we will move to the q&a

period, so please join me in welcoming the commissioner to brookings. [ applause ] >> thank you, darrell, very much. it's a great pleasure to be back at brookings. and to have this opportunity. you know, brookings has such a remarkable history. this tremendous policy resource that we have here and the analysis that you all do that shapes debates. this wide range of economic, social, political issues, the opportunity i have to talk about drug policy just a few years ago to the issues around weapons, to trafficking and to tax reform. so something that's on everybody's mind. you get ready to celebrate your 100th anniversary next year. and the theme that unites the brookings program, governance and renewal is one that we at cbp can really embrace. i've been in office just over a year and i really appreciate him talking a little bit about the

complexity of the mission. because oftentimes i think cbp is looked at as an organization that is only focused on border security issues. we'll talk about it a little bit about that, but when you think about revenue collection, and you think about the huge role that we play in our economic security it's important to recognize and understand that complexity. so cbp, customs and border protection, was created in 2003. at that time, as in just before that, every border function was somewhat separate. so different agencies perform different inspections. so you had immigration, admissibility, you had customs inspectors for imports and exports, and you had agriculture inspections for items that could harm the nation's crops and livestock, and national -- and our natural resources. and like all bureaucracies, i think that the communication had

difficulties amongst, there were essentially three different port directors at every port. it just wasn't the greatest system. so we have a unified border agency as a result of 9/11, the 9/11 commission. and the creation of the cbp under the department of homeland security. and it allows us to craft a comprehensive strategy to secure our borders and support our economy. we have 60,000 employees on the ground, on the water, and in the air. both in the united states, and abroad and cbp is one of the world's largest law enforcement organizations. it's the largest law enforcement organization in the united states. the primary mission, of course, is to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the u.s., while facilitating lawful international travel and trade. we enforce nearly 500 laws for 47 different federal agencies from the food and drug administration to the consumer product safety commission.

so this wide array of laws that we have responsibility for in partnership with all of these different organizations. law enforcement ranks within cbp include officers customs and border protection officers that you see when you come into a port of entry and our agricultural specialists who do those inspections. they're the ones with the little beagles that are really cute and we try to really promote those beagles a lot. and they work at our ports of entry. between the ports of entry we have the united states border patrol and chief mike fisher is here with me today. they secure our border between those ports of entry. we also have air and marine interdiction agency patrol the skies and the seas, supporting the border patrol, as well as supporting state and local law enforcement. and we also have thousands of nonuniformed individuals, professionals, who manage trade issues, international affairs,

cybersecurity, and other important facets of our complex mission. while i'd be -- i'm a good fed so i'm going to give you a few more statistics to add on to that. just in a typical day, we process a million people at 32 lapd, air, and seaports of entry. we screen 70,000 truck rail and sea cargo containers. we process 4.4 billion dollars in exports, and $6.8 billion in imports. we seize more than 650,000 dollars in unreported or illicit currency. we discover 425 pests and intercept 4400 prohibited plant and animal materials that could hurt these crops. we seize $3.4 million in counterfeit products. and we apprehend more than 1300 inadmissible people at the ports of entry. we arrest on a daily basis 21

wanted criminals who attempt to enter the united states. we identify 548 individuals who with suspected national security concerns. we intercept 76 fraudulent documents. we fly 213 enforcement missions in the united states. and we seize more than five tons of drugs. 550 pounds of cocaine, 81 pounds of methamphetamine. 15 pounds of heroin. 9,000 pounds of marijuana. that's a typical day. then you have to toss in the unexpected. last year's surge in the arrival of unaccompanied minors and the families on the southwest border. and then the outbreak of ebola that required enhanced screening at our five major airports. so really what you see is no typical day. if i could summarize my first year it would come down to three "ts." travel, trade and transparency. and travel and tourism is vitally important to our nation's economy and cbp is

committed to making sure that lawful travelers are allowed, while those who wish to do us harm are kept out. in fiscal year 2014, we welcomed 107 million international air travelers. an increase of 4.5% over the last year. for those returning to the united states, the greeting from cbp was often welcome home. during the past five years, the united states has seen an increase of more than 19 million annual international travelers. and this growth has supported about 280,000 new american jobs, these travelers spent more than $220 billion in 2014 alone. we're mindful of that direct correlation between travel and tourism, and healthy american economy. but, our first mission, of course, is border security. and it remains our highest priority. we constantly strive for more

efficient risk-based strategy to successfully execute that dual mission of achieving the most secure border while facilitating lawful travel. and we're committed to innovation. automated passport controls, which some of you might have seen in some of our airports, they have been proven to reduce wait times at these airports by as much as 30%. and these apcs, these automated passport control technology simplifies the process of international travelers, using kiosks, eligible travelers enter the united states more quickly, more efficiently with no charge, and no special enrollment. last may we set a goal with apcs to have them in 25 international airports here in the united states by the end of last year. and through partnerships, we met that deadline in october. today, 34 airports use apcs, and that's tremendous progress in less than a year. well, travelers are embracing apc and a reporter for conde

nast traveler, for example, decided to review the technology when she arrived at jfk. she stated thanks to the apc, she had the shortest wait time she ever had at that airport. sure you've experienced the same thing at jfk. another example of our commitment to safe secure, and stream lined travel is a travel app. everybody has an app and so do we. travellers can submit their passport information and customs declarations from their smartphones when they arrive. last september the mobile app was recognized with the future travel experience award. those awards are given to organizations that have gone the extra mile to improve passage or experience. our crowning achievement in all of this, we think, is our trusted traveler programs. through these programs we expedite the processing of low risk travelers, while allowing our officers to concentrate on and focus on higher risk travelers.

since the beginning of 2014, an additional 1.5 million people are enrolled in the trusted traveler programs through global entry as well as through sentry on the border with mexico and as well as through nexus on our northern border. global entry allowed expedited clearance for preapproved low risk travelers. members of global entry pay a fee, they undergo background screening and they receive front of the line privileges, and automatic membership in tsa's precheck program. cbp's primary goal, of course, remains keeping those borders secure, preventing people who would do us harm from coming. but we continually look at our risk based strategy, as well as a layered approach to security. extending our borders out, pushing the borders out. focusing our resources on the greatest risks. preclearance, having cbp officers at foreign international airports to inspect travelers destined to the united states, that provides us with the best means of

identifying and addressing threats at the earliest possible point. cbp cleared in fiscal year 14, 17.5 million passengers out of that 106 million that came in. that's 17 million people who didn't have to wait in line at the airport at customs when they arrived, they picked up their baggage, and they departed. we have preclearance facilities at a dozen foreign locations, including several in canada. this year we intend to expand that preclearance operations to new locations around the globe, extending our reach and pushing our zone of border security outward. let me talk about trade for a minute. turning now to the cbp's role in trade during the past year, we had this great opportunity to travel all over the united states. really all over the world. we've gotten to see firsthand how integral our mission is to the nation's economic health and vitality as well as to the

safety and security of our global supply chain. and in fiscal year 2014, we cleared $2.5 million -- trillion dollars in imports. $1.6 trillion in exports. we did 26 billion cargo containers. and that's an increase just as travel is increasing, so is cargo. global commerce involves hundreds of different types of forms. numerous federal agencies. the system actually can be quite time consuming and it can be costly for both government and private stake holders. and outside forces can have a significant impact on our operations. and last week, for example, i met with manufacturers of the retail and manufacturing industry who praised customs and border protection for reducing the maritime wait cargo backlog in the wake of the slowdown on the west coast. and that was very impressive to see. as you read over and over about the ships that were stacked outside of oakland, or long

beach, et cetera, we made sure that we had the people and the processes in place so that once that that labor issue was settled, we weren't going to be the stopgap for that cargo coming in to the country. first, we accelerated our deployment, also, in import/export processing and it's called automated commercial environment. the a.c.e. system. it's a huge shift. so we're moving from all of these paper-based faxes, original signatures, to a cost effective electronic submissions form. and it's the core of the president's executive order that he signed in 2013, and it's called the single window. and it's going to allow all relevant federal agencies to review and respond to cargo movement to reduce costs and speed the cargo process. there's another important change. e-bonds. they let customs brokers and other trade stake holders electronically transmit bonds to cbp. historically in that cbp paper-based system, they'd

receive our answer in about four to five days. today, they get an answer in 10 to 15 seconds. that's good for business, it's good for us. let me tell you about the centers for excellence and expertise. they're transforming the way that we're doing business by consolidating particular industries. instead of having to communicate with dozens of different ports of entry, over 300 ports, and perhaps getting dozens of different responses an importer can contact the center, designated for their particular line of business. so right now whether it's apparel or footwear in san francisco, electronics in los angeles, pharmaceuticals in new york, they can go to one virtual center and get an answer on those imports. the centers improve our ability to identify high risk cargo. they increase consistency in predictability, which is what we hear from over and over again in the industry. be predictable and be

consistent. so it helps our trade stake holders and their business decisions. in the travel environment, we have risk-based system for trade area, too, just as we do in the travel environment and that's called our trusted trader program. i talked about global entry. and sentry and nexus but we have a trusted trader program. let me give you a couple of examples. acas, air cargo advanced screening. as we know this was launched as the result of a true terrorist threat and explosives that were hidden in printer toner cartridges that were intercepted in express mail shipments from yemen and they were disstined for the united states in 2010. acas allows us along with our partner in the transportation security administration to jointly target and mitigate air cargo at high risk before it is loaded onto a u.s.-bound

aircraft. the cargo industry recognizes the value of this program. and it helps to improve security. it helps to improve the integrity of the supply chain, and prevents major business disruption. acas membership is expanded by 15% in the year that i've been at cbp we now have 51 participants. our customs trade partnership against terrorism, ctpat. we have lots of acronyms. you think the defense department has acronyms? listen i think we can match them. and we have a lot. we continue to build cooperative relationships with trade stakeholders, that strengthen and improve that security. we focused on amplifying our international engagement. we have a container security initiative. we deploy teams of officers to foreign sea ports to address the threat to border security, and global trade. posed by the potential use of maritime containers by both terrorists, and smugglers. these programs foster information between cbp and our foreign counterparts. and it pushes out our zone of security.

it pushes out our border. finally, a word about that international engagement. the security integrity of the global supply chain depends on these international partnerships. the trusted trader programs which i described a few minutes ago, align effectively with something called authorized economic operator programs that are being implemented in other countries. and these are often done with our input and our training, which we are happy to provide. cbp is active in an organization called the world customs organization. and i believe that our participation in wco plays a critical role in helping build and foster ties. i couldn't have been more proud to nominate annie hinojosa, our deputy assistant commissioner for international affairs to be a united states delegate to the wco as the director of compliance and facilitation. she goes through an election process in june. and if anna is elected, she's going to bring 28 years of considerable experience, including being a port director, and her leadership can

strengthen our work with our key trade partners. last year i signed mutual recognition arrangements, three of them, mexico, israel and singapore. and last month, some of you know that secretary johnson signed a preclearance agreement with canada. that country's parliament will have to act to put that agreement in place. mutual recognition arrangements are a critical tool in aligning standards to the international community. these arrangements provide a platform to exchange trusted trader information, and to try to harmonize the reciprocal supply chain security programs throughout the world. we have ten of these agreements that are in place since 2003. and other countries now recognize that our leadership in harmonizing these regulations and securing our borders is to everyone's benefit. let me mention the third "t," transparency. i'm taking steps to make transparency and accountability hallmarks of my tenure at cbp. the public's trust depends on

it. the vast majority of cbp's employees do the right thing, they do the right thing every day. and they're dedicated public servants and they're committed to our mission. but there are times in law enforcement when a level of force must be used to safeguard the public or protect an officer or agent. and historically our default position after something was to occur was to circle the wagons, and say, no comment. one of the first things i did as commissioner was to change this to make our policies and processes more transparent to the people we serve. for every law enforcement agency that's part of an ongoing and intense debate right now about how and when and where officers should use force. and a use of force can include a physical restraint, the use of an alternative device, or the application of lethal force. cbp particularly the united states border patrol, has come under increased scrutiny and criticism for using force during

apprehensions. well march 31st marked the midway point for this fiscal year and we have recorded 385 uses of force. that means that right now we are on track to reduce our use of force by nearly 30% compared to fiscal year '13 -- or fiscal year '14. this reduction in the use of force is encouraging and it's considering that the assaults against our border patrol agents are trending up. as i said a moment ago, there are times when some level of force must be used. and in those instances, the force must be justified, and within our policies. with that in mind we have implemented a unified formal review process for use of force incidents involving death or serious bodily injury. and the review process will help us resolve use of force incidents in a timely and a transparent manner. training is critical when it comes to the use of force. we've issued newlines for all personnel and we've revamped our

entire training curriculum to put agents in simulated field situations so they can practice their responses when they have to make a split-second decision. and technology is extremely important here, too. we have an agency-wide working group to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating body-worn cameras into law enforcement operations in each part of our cbp environment. air, land, at sea, and between our ports of entry. and we've also equipped and trained agents with less lethal devices that can protect them. tools that would be practical in the rugged terrains that the border patrol enforces. these include things like tasers, and equipment that can incapacitate an aggressor. we've implemented these options because no apprehension, no seizure, no arrest, no pursuit is worth the risk to an agent or a member of the public being injured or killed.

that brings me to something that is too often forgotten when we discuss the use of force. there is a personal toll for every officer or agent who uses deadly force. and for many it's a burden they don't anticipate. they don't anticipate it because it is very rare in law enforcement. but when it does happen, it can stay with them forever. and does stay with them forever. in a recent op-ed in the seattle times, last august, a friend of mine, former king county sheriff sue rohr said something that hit home to me. she said we need police officers with the skills and tenacity of a warrior but the mind-set of a guardian. well, certainly this issue, policing in a democratic society, remains front and center for all law enforcement agency. cbp is no exception. one of the primary ingredients of transparency, of course, is integrity and it's one of our core values. last september, secretary johnson delegated the cbp the

authority. for the first time ever to police our own ranks, investigate our employees for alleged misconduct, and we're implementing this authority and we're doing it in a transparent way. secretary johnson also supported me in forming an integrity advisory panel under the dhs homeland security advisory council. the panel is co-chaired by the head -- former head of the drug enforcement administration karen tandy and new york city police commissioner william bratton. the panel is comprised of some of the best leaders in law enforcement and i am confident that they're going to make a significant contribution to our culture of integrity and transparency. we continue to emphasize the need for personal responsibility by every employee for ethical behavior, both on and off duty. sometimes law enforcement agencies have to respond to difficult situations. that grab the attention of the media, they generate interest

from all kinds of stakeholders. and transparency is critical in these situations. but it's also important in other circumstances. i want to give you one example during my first year. last spring and summer, there was an unprecedented surge in the number of unaccompanied immigrant children and their families. tens of thousands of them, primarily from central america, who arrived at our southwest border. these children are vulnerable to trafficking schemes by adults who were eager to take advantage of them. our agency's response to that surge, and the response by the department of homeland security in general, really illustrates our commitment to transparency, and openness, and it ultimately benefits the relationship with the public that we serve. this was a border management issue. since nearly all these people we encountered turned themselves over to a border patrol agent, or a customs and border protection officer, it was not a border security issue.

first we never lost sight of our primary mission to maintain the security and safety of the border. we deployed extra agents to the areas most affected, we continued to stop smugglers and disrupt transnational criminal networks. second we treated the children and families with professionalism, and compassion. we recognized the situation as a humanitarian crisis, and i am proud of how the agents and officers conducted themselves, many of them having donated clothing from their own families to these kids. and third we developed a multimedia, multicountry strategy awareness campaign called know the facts. it's about how dangerous it is to make the journey north to the border, and in that campaign we emphasize that no legal papers or path to citizenship awaits those who cross illegally. we took those actions under heavy public scrutiny and throughout the process we gave

full disclosure to the press and the public, while maintaining the privacy of the children who were in our care. and our actions were supported through the inspection process by the inspector general, and the department's office of civil rights and civil liberties. this was stressful and difficult experience for our employees, but they showed the world how cbp responds to this kind of crisis. i could not be more proud of those individuals. well those are some highlights from my first year. but what's ahead? what is cbp's future? it's called a vision and strategy for 2010 that darrell mentioned. it's a milestone for our agency. it represents the first comprehensive strategic plan from cbp in nearly a decade. clearly recognizes that cbp must balance border security with our nation's economic competitiveness. these are really two sides of the same coin. cbp is going to continue to mature and advance the following strategic themes. first collaboration.

the complexity of our mission, which i really outlined this morning to you, requires that the agency serve as a global leader in delivering border security, and expanding strategic partnerships. innovation. cbp must remain vigilant through innovative initiatives to continually advance, and transform the agency so that we're more agile, and that we're more adaptable organization. and integration. cbp must lead in the development of the seamless global network to integrate border enforcement capabilities, and meet the demands of a constantly evolving landscape. well, these three strategic themes, collaboration, innovation, and integration, have surfaced in various ways in the form of many of the accomplishments i outlined for you earlier. they continue to permeate our culture that should be in our way of thinking. these themes are essential to meeting our goals.

specifically, we have four goals. combat terrorism and transnational organized crime. advance comprehensive border security and border management. enhance u.s. economic competitiveness by enabling lawful trade and travel, and promote organizational integration, innovation, and agility. and that vision -- that vision and strategy outlines how we plan to enhance both our agility and our ability to meet these increasingly global and increasingly complex challenges. we intend to lead and aggressively champion strategic partnerships that facilitate the integrated risk informed, intelligence driven law enforcement operation. this requires a whole of government approach as well as an international unity of effort. we're committed to transforming our trade and travel processes through technology, through public/private partnerships, and simplifying and integrating processing capabilities.

to do that we have to harmonize processes across ports of entry, including operational approaches to risk management. and we must continue to expand our risk-based strategy, and constantly refine our information and data collection capabilities. effective border management requires layers of security that must consider points of origin, modes of transit, the actual arrival at our borders, and even routes of egress or departure from the physical border to a final destination. finally cbp must strengthen its culture, and that culture depends on our ability to recruit, train and retain exceptional people. accomplishing our mission directly depends on our workforce, we're committed to getting the very best people for the job. that includes placing women in front line positions to remain competitive with modern professional law enforcement operations.

well women comprise about 7% of the united states marine corps for example, but only about 5% of the 21,000 agents in cbp's border patrol are female. with that in mind we sought and obtained approval from the office of personnel management for the legal authority to specifically recruit women for entry-level border patrol positions located on the southwest border. and to date we've received 5500 applications. in closing, let me emphasize cbp intends to be a standard-bearer for other customs and border security administrations around the globe. and our core values of vigilance, service to country, and integrity will continue to serve as the bedrock of our culture. ensuring unwavering commitment to the highest levels of professionalism. our vision is crystal clear. to serve as the premiere law enforcement agency enhancing the nation's safety, security, and prosperity through

collaboration, innovation and integration. i appreciate the opportunity to share that vision with you here today. i thank you, and i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> thanks. so thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us, both on the past, and the future. you mentioned some of the travel innovations that you have helped to implement and spread. i am a user of the global entry program, and the tsa, they are wonderful programs, i highly recommend them, and thank you for your work on implementing

them. you mention in your remarks that you -- your agency does a lot beyond border protection that obviously is an important priority but you're also very actively involved in promoting trade and commerce. and i know you travel to various countries around the world. what are they doing? and how are they helping to promote trade and security? >> well, in your opening remarks you talked about the revenue collection. which was important. the revenue that we collected actually is what made us a free country for funding the revolutionary war. many customs organizations around the world only see themselves as revenue collectors. that is changing markedly as we see the changes in the world right now when it comes to security. so here we are at both locations, both on the border, and at these ports of entry, and we need to be able to not only do our economic and customs fulfill those duties, we need to be able to help those countries understand the importance of, one, sharing information, and,

two, recognizing the importance of border security. and we have these requests just literally stacked up in the office from countries that would like us to come talk about our experience. and we're very proud to share with them not only what we think has worked and what's been successful for us, but we also tell them what hasn't worked, as well. and where we could improve upon. and i think they value that level of honesty, and dialogue. >> you also mention some of the use of force initiatives that are under way and i think you specifically mentioned possibly adding body cameras to some of the officers, use of tasers and so on. i'm curious, what's the implementation schedule on this? where are we now? and where are you wanting to go? >> the border patrol is made particularly significant changes in their training -- reviewing their entire training curriculum right now. but for instance in the training center in artesia and new

mexico, there are a variety of different kinds of fences that exist along the border now. this gives those agents in training an opportunity to practice. we have a field test going on of different types of body-worn cameras to take a look at those. those seem to be very popular right now in law enforcement. oftentimes, of course, that evidence can exonerate an officer. but it adds a different level of transparency. along with that are the -- our advanced training center in harper's ferry, west virginia, we're also experimenting in looking at a variety of different mechanisms. things that can help to stop pursuits, because oftentimes people will flee in vehicles. along with a variety of less lethal technology. we think that will be a tremendous benefit to the united states border patrol. but also to our customs and border protection officers.

>> so one of the big challenges in border protection is getting information in realtime and having it be actionable to the officers. information that arrives two days too late, or two weeks too late, obviously, is not very helpful. so, what have you done to get information to the front line agents in realtime so that it can improve? >> i think when you go to those ports of entry right now and you see using the apcs that i mentioned or the mobile passport control, you go through customs and you see a customs officer in a blue uniform and they're busy entering data. and looking at a computer screen. when that information is already up on the computer, they can spend the time asking the right questions, and verifying the information, rather than merely doing data entry. so that's particularly helpful. the other, of course, is pushing the borders out. so, that when someone is entering the united states and clears customs or attempts to

clear customs where we have foreign locations, we can actually make a recommendation whether or not that person would be declared inadmissible should they arrive in the united states. that's a huge time savings but it's also a huge security savings. so our technology and our improvements in technology, while still having a long way to go are an important consideration for us. >> so one more question and then we'll open the floor to questions from the audience. it seems like workforce development is a key and your agency, as well as in most agencies, you know, some bureaus are having difficulty recruiting workers, retaining them. what are some of the new initiatives you have under way? you mentioned kind of diversifying the workforce, bringing more women in. what are you trying to do to deal with some of these workforce development challenges? >> i think one of the things we see with our employees is the value that they place in working

for customs and border protection. honestly our very best recruiters are the people that work within the organization. they have friends, they have family members, we work closely with colleges, and particularly community colleges. we were just down in brownsville at ut brownsville and others to talk about the benefits, and what you can give back to your country to be very frank about it. what you can give back to your country by joining customs and border protection and being a part of this important mission. >> why don't we open the floor to questions and comments from the audience. if you can raise your hand we have a microphone. there's a question up front here. so there's a microphone coming up to you. if you can give us your name and your organization? >> thanks, peggy, congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook on higher education. so, a couple of questions. one about foreign students.

i wonder what kind of data the customs people have from the, what's it called, the foreign student database, because i think there's been some slips. and i wonder if you can prove -- have improved that. and the other is pregnant women. i had thought that there was some kind of a restriction of someone who is seven or eight, highly pregnant, is not allowed to come in. but maybe i'm wrong about that? but i know we have a problem with the tourists -- birth tourists. so if you could talk about those two. >> there's absolutely no prohibition to someone that is allowed to enter the united states, regardless of whether or not they are pregnant or giving birth. so there is no prohibition at all. the student visa information, i think, was highlighted during the boston bombing information. and and there's a fusion center

of state, local and federal law enforcement in boston. the discussion was how can more of that information if someone is no longer a student, so they enter on the student visa, but then they drop out of school or they never enter school, et cetera, how can we be more attentive to that? that is both a state department system and also with our uscis part of the department of homeland security. so we actually have to work in conjunction with them. i think you're exactly right, more attention is being paid to that now than -- and more information is being shared than had been in the past. >> other questions? question right here. this gentleman right here. >> hi. tim wharton with international trade today. i saw that cbp recently released statistics on the fiscal year 2014 seizures for intellectual

property rights violations. and i noted that they were -- there were fewer of them than the previous year and i wondered if cbp had any thought on why the decrease? >> the report that's issued talks about not only the value, but the number of seizures. for violations of the intellectual property rights. and we do that in conjunction with i.c.e. immigrations and customs enforcement. their investigations. we jointly staff an intellectual and property rights command center for information coming in. over the past few years, those numbers and the value of those seizures have increased quite dramatically. only within this last year did it kind of plateau out. we want to make sure that we're going after the things that can cause most harm to people in the united states. counterfeit pharmaceuticals. counterfeit air bags.

counterfeit computer cripships, those types of things. so we're concentrating on that, and we continue to make progress. but i wouldn't -- i wouldn't look at a one-year slight decrease as being really demonstrative of what's going on. >> near the back. gentleman with his hand up. >> hi, commissioner, good to see you again. eric coolidge of the american shipper magazine. i have two questions. you've been praised for your outreach to the trade community, to industry. it's been a year or more since there's been a trade symposium that customs typically hosts. just wondering when you're planning to host or have another trade symposium to bring together the trade community? and then update them. and then second, the -- with all the budget constraints that cbp and dhs have, have you been under any pressure to privatize any of your missions or use some

kind of third parties to, you know, outsource certain functions, and maybe i'm thinking in the ct-pat arena or maybe there's other functions. >> when it comes to vetting those organizations and those travelers, because we want to make sure that the people and the trade community has the least amount of risk to the public, is reviewed, i only want that done by employees of the united states government that are representatives of customs and border protection. so there's no intent to outsource that. we do use a number of contractors, we look at a number of different databases, in that vetting. but if we're going to give that trade group the kind of good housekeeping seal of approval, i want to be assured that it was done early and completely and professionally. and i think that's particularly important. when it comes to another trade

symposium, as you know, the federal government has been under a lot of scrutiny for certain conferences. so we look at that very carefully. that's why before when you got lunch, now you get a bottle of water, if you're lucky. so we'll be looking at putting that together within the guidelines of making sure we're good fiscal stewards. but bringing people together with us is just a key element of the relationship and the communications needed. >> smart move. you can't be too careful on the conference fund out there. right here is a question. >> thanks. huffington post. you spoke about the unaccompanied minor situation last year. i was wondering if you could give us an update on what you're seeing this year and if the response or you know the way the border patrol is handling it this year is any different from last year? >> well, as i said, i couldn't have been more impressed the first week that i was sworn in to office.

i was in mcallen, texas, and i got to see perhaps in a room this size literally dozens and dozens and dozens of kids sleeping on concrete floors because we didn't have the contracts in place to remove them. we didn't have the nongovernmental organizations available. all that changed dramatically. so one, we're in much better shape today, because of having these contracts. having additional detention space, and having food and medical care available should we see that. the good news is that certainly so far this year, and if you remember march and april were certainly high points of the influx of kids, last year, those numbers are down significantly. and we're very pleased with that. but we're certainly keeping a watchful eye on it. perhaps we'll be down to the

levels of 2012, fiscal year 2012 kind of the way it's trending now. so we're glad about that. >> so you mention this problem of counterfeiting. and we have counterfeit pharmaceuticals, computer chips, you mentioned air bags. how big of a problem is this? and what are the most effective ways we can deal with this? >> well first i think the -- one, it's a significant problem. and when you mention how much are you actually seizing? how much are you identifying? you certainly know, and i certainly admit that we're not seizing or identifying all of the counterfeit materials. but first we have really experienced people. really knowledgeable people. we have people that can examine women's shoes. my wife wondered about my new interest in women's shoes. but we have people that can examine these things and really have, and really determine whether or not these things are counterfeit. but then we have other experts that can look at the computer chips and air bags and those

kinds of things, so that's important but i think the second probably most important part of all of this is that the more we expand our international foot print and the more we're in other countries, and the more we develop relationships, and paths for communication in those other countries, the better we are at identifying something before it ever gets in the container, before it ever gets headed to the united states. and i think that's helpful. >> gentleman right here on the aisle, a question? >> i am from japanese think tank. sorry, my english capability is -- but rising risk to help terrorism in japan i have to request two question to you. first, what kind of a

skoorpgs -- cooperationship between yours and japanese government to border protection from the terrorists? another say which agency is counterpart in japan for cbp? second question, for that means terrorists? another say which agency is counterpart in japan for cbp? second question, for that means how u.s. and japan government sharing data? >> so i think that on the equipment issue, there are kind of two parts of the equipment. one is the equipment that the border patrol would use in our air and marine agents would use between the ports of entry. so we have tethered stats many of which have come to us from the department of defense and they have infrared cameras and high technical surveillance equipment in these tethered arrow stats. we have unmanned aircraft.

a uas program that's also very helpful. we also have things like ground sensors that can be trigger information or alerts to the border patrol agents. and then the border patrol the border patrol agents and then the border patrol agents have a variety of equipment in their trucks and also the ability to have night vision goggles and things like that. so that's between the ports of entry. . at the ports of entry are different pieces of equipment. one is radiation portal monitors so cargo coming through can be analyzed to see, if in fact there's a dangerous level or some concern about radiation. the other is something we call a nonintrusive inspection devices. really it's just big x ray machines portable x-ray machines and also those that are mounted within. and they can scan a piece of cargo coming through and kind of

look inside it. and then of course the last in both of these areas is the knowledge and experience of our personnel. one of our agricultural inspectors the other day was looking at a pallet of fresh vegetables that had come in but he looked at the pallet itself the wooden pallet and said, you know, i think that pallet is thicker than what i've seen in the past. not by much. just a little bit. and, of course when a k-9 checked on it sure enough it was filled with drugs. so the level of experience and expertise that our people have is technically particularly helpful. i was recently in tokyo but only for a short period of time. but i know our relationship with the government of japan on these issues is very close and very strong. thank you. >> i was in aruba last year and

discovered that the u.s. customs office there is actually on the island. so you basically go through the customs process before you get on the plane as opposed to arriving here. is this a model you're seeking to expand? are people happy with that? >> i think the agents in aruba -- >> they seem pretty pleased with us. >> they seem very happy about that. but we're in canada, abu dhabi, ireland, bermuda and the bahamas, also. so we're in negotiation with about 25 different airports right now around the world who have an interest in this. one, it really improves border security. but no, ma'amumber two, what most people don't recognize is that those airports pay 75% of the salaries and benefits of the people assigned there. so that's 17 million people that i talk about when they landed at jfk or dulles or los angeles, they just picked up their bag

and got to go and didn't clog up any custom line. so we see a real benefit in that. we'll see how it goes. >> right here is a question. >> from the washington homeland security roundtable. i have a question about the joint task forces created in november. i wonder if you can speak to the successes that you have seen or hope to see from these groups, especially since cbb is leaving? >> the joint task forces are secretary johnson's goal for his effort -- unity of effort. essentially taking i.c.e., homeland security investigations customs and border protection and the united states coast guard and saying, how can all three of you work better together, cooperate and collaborate and the coast guard is heading out of florida, and heading up the caribbean golf area. customs and border protection is

heading up from texas to california. and then homeland security investigations really concentrating ongoing after particularly the human smuggling networks. so quite often the arrest of just a young person who is involved in smuggling a couple of people doesn't really get to the network. they have started but they have not been in operation. we believe that sometime around july the joint task forces will work but the secretary gave myself the coast guard come man dot and the i.c.e. director an opportunity to really be a part of forming that unity of effort collaboration. so i think we're looking forward to that and i think he's really to be commended for pushing that. >> in the very back, there's a gentleman with his hand up. >> yes. i'm jose diaz.

regarding the issue of apprehensions of minors and unaccompanied mean nors and fami border, you mentioned that you expect a drop towards the 2012 levels. this is a larger dive compared to for example, the projection made by the migration policy instituted that thinks it is going to go to the 2013 levels. so you expect a larger? >> i'm hoping that it will be at about the 2012 level in looking at the numbers so far. we have much better information now about predicting than we perhaps did in the past. the earlier -- earlier warning from march of last year was the information that the border patrol presented on the apprehensions. now we have very good relations and interaction with officials in those three central

american -- three central american countries. we also think that dangers awareness campaign that i mentioned is pretty helpful. by the way we've almost always issued that and said it's a very dangerous thing to try and enter the border to cross the border. we know from the number of people that perish or suffer really hard, physical conditions that it's dangerous. but the second part of that campaign was unique last year and it said even if you get here, you're not going to be allowed to stay. and i think that was an important message. >> i think we have time for one more question. i have a question about the global supply chain. you know, it seems like a lot of security issues concern that and so i know you kind of focused a lot on trade and commerce issues. how are you going to be identifying high-risk shipments

and what are we doing to making sure that supply chain is, indeed secure. >> i think aside from having people in those ports and making relationships with the other governments and being at the ports themselves and wanting to -- and being willing to demonstrate to other governments how we go about identifying these things, there is a second part of that and that is that we need to make sure that we're exchanging information in areas that may be at risk. we're not going to examine 70,000 individual 20-foot equivalences that they are called that can come in every day to our ports of entry. everything we do is based upon risk. we're always seeing and certainly have the rule of law and certainly have the authority behind us to be the regulator, to be the enforcer. but, quite frankly, to the trade

community, we weren't as open to developing relationships and communication with the trade community. we're the regulator and you're the trade community and we're on opposite sides. that really is not true. the trade community wants to make sure that what they are bringing into this country is as safe and secure as what we wanted to be and when we really opened ourselves up to having, for instance, a federal advisory committee made up of a wide array of customs brokers, traders, shippers, retail manufacturers, et cetera, when we opened ourselves up, we expanded our network of eyes and ears because frankly, if you're a shipper and someone comes to you and says gee i would kind of like to ship this and i don't want to go into much detail and on and on and the shipper says, you know what i'm an authorizer, i'm not going to do

that, i'm not going to put my risk, my organization at risk. we want that shipper then to call us and say, you know, darryl was just here and we're a little concerned about -- we don't know much about him and we're a little concerned. we love and value that exchange of information. that's -- with all the technology, it still gets down to that human factor. >> i like that exchange of information until you involve me. thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on travel, trade and transparency. we appreciate hearing about your new initiatives and good luck in the future. >> good. thank you all very much. [ applause ]

tonight on c-span 3, a recent hearing with v.a. whistle blowers and talking about the country's economy and financial challenges and later a health care forum with former house majority leader eric can for and health and human secretary kathleen sebelius. whistle blowers from the veterans department spoke about retaliation used against them for reporting wrongdoing. employees told members of the house veterans affairs subcommittee that they faced demotions and public embarrassment for their actions.

u.s. special counsel carolyn learner was also a witness and spoke about the number of whistleblower protection claims. this hearing is two hours. >> good afternoon. i would like to ask unanimous consent that the admiral -- seeing no objection additionally i would like to ask unanimous consent that three statements be entered into the

hearing record two from whistleblowers. hearing no objection, so order. the hearing will focus on the department of defense -- i'm sorry. within the department of veterans affairs particularly, the types and levels of retaliation that they experienced when reporting problems. it will serve as a follow up to the hearing conducted by the committee on july -- in july 2014 where we will address what progress the department has made since then to correct its retaliatory culture and where va has failed to correct conscientious employees who seek to improve services for our nation's veterans. the three whistleblowers we will hear from today come from va facilities across the country. the hostility they received for

their conscientious behavior shows the retaliatory culture, whistleblowers are castigated for bringing problems to light, is still very alive and well in the department of veterans affairs. the truth of the matter is the congress needs whistleblowers within federal agencies to help identify problems on the ground in order to remain properly informed for the development of effective legislation. for example, the national wait time scandal that this committee revealed at a hearing just over a year ago, which resulted in the secretary of the department -- the secretary of the department resigning simply would not have occurred without responsible va employees stepping forward to fix problems. in the years since that scandal originally came to light, a new secretary has come to the

department and he has stated that one of his primary missions is to end whistleblower retaliation within va. the congress also passed legislation that makes it easier for the secretary to fire poor-performing and bad-acting senior executive service employees. and who in some cases perpetuate and encourage retaliatory behavior. despite these efforts, retaliation is still a popular means used by certain unethical va employees to prevent positive change and maintain the status quo within the department. in january full committee chairman jeff miller introduced legislation which i co-sponsored that would improve protections provided to whistleblowers within va. it will also discourage supervisors and other managerial employees from attempting to retaliate against whistleblowers

by imposing more strenuous penalties for engaging in retaliation including suspension, termination, and loss of bonuses. it is very simple. if you retaliate against or stifle employees who are trying to improve va for our nation's veterans, you should not be working for va. and you certainly should not receive a bonus for despicable actions. to that end, i encourage members to join with numerous vsos and whistleblower protection groups in support of hr 571, the veterans affairs retaliation prevention act. along with the whistleblowers here today we will hear from the office of special counsel regarding the efforts va has made since our last hearing to improve its treatment of whistleblowers and where improvements remain absent and needed.

i was very pleased to learn the office of special counsel recently took action on behalf of a whistleblower in the va from the eastern colorado health care system. this employee was removed from her nursing duties and assigned to a windowless basement after reporting the misconduct of a co-worker. thanks to the efforts of osc this whistleblower has returned to her nursing duties at another clinic while her reprisal claims are being investigated. representatives of va will also be here to address why whistleblowers continue to have their livelihoods jeopardized for attempting to make va a better service provider for our nation's veterans. i look forward to the discussion we will have here today on this important issue. with that, i now yield to ranking member kuster for any opening remarks she may have.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. this afternoon the subcommittee on oversight and investigation is holding a follow-up hearing to the hearing that our full committee held last july. i believe that some of the most effective hearings this subcommittee holds are follow-up hearings. they enable us to examine progress that has been made and current problems that still exist at the va. that is the core of our work here, to identify problems and work together to fix them and ensure the highest quality of care is being delivered to every veteran. today's hearing will focus on va's treatment of whistleblowers, who play a crucial role in ensuring the va is held accountable for providing quality care for our nation's veterans. whistleblowers were instrumental in helping this committee uncover the wrongdoing in phoenix, arizona, which helped inform our drafting of the veterans choice act.

we must ensure that no one is afraid to come forward to report instances of mismanagement or wrongdoing that hinders our veterans' ability to receive care. in terms of the department of veterans' affairs and its treatment of whistleblowers, a great deal of progress has been made. va has established the office of accountability review and has reorganized the office of the medical inspector. the va is also the first cabinet-level agency to satisfy the requirements for the office of special counsel's whistleblower certification program. in addition, the va and the osc have implemented and expedited the review process for whistleblower retaliation claims. i'm pleased to hear that the va has taken these steps moving forward. however, there are still too many problems that exist regarding how the va treats and handles whistleblowers. osc is responsible for whistleblower complaints from all across the federal government. yet it estimates that 40%, 40%, close to half of its incoming

cases in 2015, will be filed by va employees. osc reports that the number of new whistleblower cases that va employees remains overwhelming, quote unquote, and that its monthly intake of new va whistleblower cases remains high at a rate of 150% above historic levels. according to osc, these alarming cases include disclosures of "waste, fraud, abuse, and threats to the health and safety of our veterans. the large number of complaints received from va employees is to some extent a reflection of the size of the va, but it also raises serious red flags as to the continuing problems that are systemic throughout the va system and the treatment of va employees. the osc testimony highlights some troubling concerns that the va sometimes investigates the whistleblowers themselves rather

than investigating allegations raised by those whistleblowers. the osc also references several cases where the medical records of whistleblowers were improperly and unlawfully accessed in what seems to be attempts to discredit some whistleblowers. as a "new york times" article last year outlined, there is a, quote, culture of silence and intimidation and a history of retaliation at the va. according to the whistleblowers testifying before us this afternoon, this is still the case today. they will testify about this environment of intimidation and retaliation and the use of sham peer reviews and investigations in order to silence whistleblowers. as i stated before, i believe that the va has made some progress in this area. but clearly, more remains to be done. va's culture of retaliation and intimidation did not happen overnight but it's a culmination of problems that are deeply engrained in the va system.

we must also not forget that the vast majority of va employees are involved in health care and industry that also has been seen by many to be intolerant of whistleblowers. this culture of intimidation and fear for va employees cannot be changed overnight, but for the sake of our veterans and the sake of ensuring that the va's providing the highest quality of care, this culture must be changed. many of the va problems that we will discuss today highlight the va's lack of accountability and absence of collaborative spirit between leadership and va employees in order to seriously address whistleblower complaints. this afternoon let us begin the process of identifying what steps the va needs to take going forward as the va works toward the secretary's goal of "sustainable accountability." i'm hopeful that this subcommittee can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to find ways to assist the va in its monumental task of changing

this long-standing culture and reform the manner in which whistleblowers are treated by improving the process whereby all va employees are working toward the common goal of helping and serving our veterans. mr. chairman, again, i thank you for holding this follow-up hearing and before i yield back i want to take a moment and thank our whistleblowers for appearing before us today. it takes real courage to put your careers at risk for coming forward and calling attention to these problems and concerns. it's my hope that we move forward creating a culture at the va that welcomes whistleblowers and acknowledges your importance in better serving our veterans. i hope that in the months and years ahead the va will be known as an organization that welcomes and encourages all employees to work together to solve problems. and i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member kuster. i ask all members to waive their opening remarks as per this committee's custom.

with that, i invite the first and only panel to the witness table, seated at the witness table. on the panel we will hear from miss megan flans, director of the va's office of accountability review. the honorable caroline lerner, special counsel. dr. christian head, m.d. associate director chief of staff, legal and quality assurance for the greater los angeles va health care system. dr. marilyn hooker, m.d., neurologist and president of afge local 342. at the wilmington va medical center. and mr. richard tremaine, associate director of the va central alabama health care system. all of your complete written statements will be made part of the hearing record. miss flanz, you are now recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, chairman coffman, ranking member kuster, and members of the committee. va exists to serve veterans. that service takes place in interactions between veterans and front line va employees. doctors and nurses claims processors, cemetery workers and countless others upon whom va depends to serve veterans with the dignity, compassion and dedication they deserve. we depend on those same employees to have the moral courage to help us serve veterans and taxpayers better by helping to make our processes and policies better, safer, more effective, and nor efficient.m efficient.o efficient.r efficient.e efficient. the department's responsibility to protect whistleblowers is an integral part of an obligation to provide safe, high-quality health care and other benefits to veterans in legally compliant and fiscally responsible ways.

it is important to keep in mind the underlying purpose of the whistleblower protection rules is to encourage candid disclosure of information so problems can be quickly identified and corrected. va is fully committed to correcting problems in va programs and to ensuring fair treatment for employees who bring problems to light. secretary mcdonald talks frequently about his vision of sustainable accountability which he describes as a workplace culture in which va leaders provide the guidance and resources employees need to successfully serve veterans. and employees freely and safely inform leaders when challenges hinder their ability to succeed. we need a work environment in which all participants in which front line staff and supervisors to top va officials freely share what they know, whether good news or bad, for the benefit of veterans and as good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

to reach these goals the department has taken several important steps. last summer the secretary reorganized and assigned new leadership to the office of the medical inspector. he also established my office, the office of accountability review or oar, to ensure leader accountability for serious misconduct, including whistleblower retaliation. in addition to its ongoing work, investigating leader misconduct, o.a.r. is also working to improve the department's ability to track whistleblower disclosures and actions taken in response to those disclosures across the entire va system. va has also improved its collaboration with the office of special counsel. last summer va requested and received certification under osc's 2302 c certification program. that certification reflects the department's commitment to educating employees and supervisors about the

whistleblower protection rules. the va has also negotiated with osc and expired process to speed corrective action for employees who are experiencing retaliation. more recently we've asked osc to help us expand that collaborative process to facilitate more efficient accountability actions against supervisors who engage in retaliation. we are also working with osc to create a robust new face-to-face training program to ensure all va supervisors fully understand their roles and responsibilities under the whistleblower protection rules. since secretary mcdonald was confirmed last july, he and other va leaders have made it their practice to meet with whistleblowers as they travel across the va system and to engage with those who have raised their hands and their voices to identify problems and propose solutions. they do that both to acknowledge the critical role whistleblowers play in improving va programs and to model to supervisors throughout the va the engaged, open, and accepting behavior

they expect them to exhibit when subordinates step forward to express concerns. the department deeply appreciates the assistance of this committee and other congressional offices in supporting whistleblowers and identifying problems va needs to address. last month i had the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to provide the department's views on several pending bills including two related to whistleblowers. at that time i acknowledged and i reiterate today that the department still has work to do to ensure that all whistleblower disclosures receive prompt and effective protection and all whistleblowers protected from retaliation. i acknowledged then and i reiterate today that notwithstanding significant efforts on our part va is still working on the full culture change we must achieve to ensure all employees feel safe disclosing problems and that any supervisor who retaliates is held accountable. on behalf of the department i am committed to continue to work

with osc and with this committee to get things right. i am honored that secretary mcdonald and deputy secretary gibson have asked me to assist them in this critical effort. this concludes my testimony. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> miss lerner, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman coffman, ranking member kuster, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the u.s. office of special counsel and our ongoing work with whistleblowers from the department of veterans affairs. last july i spoke to this committee about osc's early efforts to respond to the unprecedented increase in whistleblower cases from the va. since then there has been substantial progress. for example, the osc and the va started an expedited review process for retaliation claims, as has been noted. this process has resulted in relief for many va whistleblowers including landmark settlements on behalf of phoenix va employees.

in total osc has secured relief for over 45 whistleblowers. these settlements are putting courageous public servants back on the job and serving veterans. these settlements are also sending a message to other va employees that if they come forward and report problems, they will be protected from retaliation. in my earlier testimony i also addressed several serious problems with investigations by the va's office of medical inspector, or o.m.i. in response to my concerns and this committee's concerns the va directed a comprehensive review of all aspects of omi's operations, and this review has led to positive change. a recent whistleblower case is demonstrative. the case concerns a whistleblower disclosure from an employee at beckly, west virginia. in response to osc's referral

the medical inspector determined that the beckly facility was trying to save money by substituting medications with older, cheaper drugs. the substitutions were made over the objections of mental health providers. and the decision was driven solely by cost concerns without any legitimate medical basis. this was a clear violation of va policies. omi's investigations found the substituted medications created medical risks to veterans, and it called for review of all patients who were impacted to determine if there was any harm caused as a result of the drug substitution. o.m.i. also recommended that discipline be considered for beckley leadership and others who are responsible. while the facts of this case are very troubling, the o.m.i. is a response and sign of progress from where we were just nine months ago. in an organization the size of the va problems are bound to occur. therefore, it's critical when whistleblowers identify problems they are addressed swiftly and responsibly. a properly functioning o.m.i. is

key to doing so. finally, since last year the va became the first cabinet-level department to complete osc's whistleblower certification program. in addition to fulfilling the basic certification requirements the va is working with osc to conduct additional trainings for managers, supervisors, and lawyers at the regional level. the commitment we are seeing from va leadership to correct and eliminate retaliation has not consistently filtered down to the regional facilities. so additional training for regional employees may help address this issue. i want to close by flagging one additional and ongoing area of concern. often where a whistleblower comes forward with an issue of real importance the va's investigation focuses on the whistleblower instead of their disclosure. there are two main problems with this approach. first, by focusing on the whistleblower, the health and safety issue that was raised may not receive the attention that it deserves.

second, instead of creating a welcoming environment, it could chill future whistleblowing if employees believe that by reporting problems their own actions will come under intense scrutiny. the va's focus should be on solving systemic problems and holding accountable those who are responsible, not on going after whistleblowers. we look forward to working with the va and the committee to further address this important issue. in conclusion we very much appreciate the committee's ongoing attention to the issues we've raised. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, miss lerner. dr. head, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. coffman, miss kuster, and other members for inviting me again to a very important meeting. since my last testimony july of 2014 when i returned back to west l.a. va hospital in my position as associate director

my leadership, my direct leader was essentially resigned. i basically was assigned to a chief of staff outside los angeles, to long beach hospital, who i'd never met and still have never met. i started to notice my patients were being reassigned mid-therapy to other surgeons. when i questioned this, senior leadership at my hospital, essentially the chief of staff said "if you don't like it you're a whistleblower, take it to congress. there's nothing they can do to me." i reported this statement to congress and also the office of special counsel. following that i was presented i was prevented from going in the operating room when i had a

patient under anesthesia. i was told my credentials to go in the operating room had been revoked. when i questioned that an hour later they were told oops, we made a mistake. it's okay, dr. head. unfortunately, veterans and other hospital officials have overheard that conversation. i've since been removed from my office in the chief of staff suite, transferred to the fourth floor. the cleaning crew told me they believe it used to be a nursing storage unit. there's a hole in the floor. the computer monitor was cracked, non-functional, along with some of the other equipment in the room. a group of the janitors got together and said this is a shame, let's get together and clean this office for dr. head. when this was reported to chief of staff a piece of plastic was placed over the hole in the floor. the janitorial service said it was a trip hazard and i shouldn't go to that office. so effectively, i've been functioning without a real office since i testified to

congress. there have been investigators there have been investigators that came out to there have been investigators that came out to the hospital but others reported it seemed to be an investigation more into me than my actual complaints. when donald bider was questioned about this turns out the va submitted court records saying the reason why i was removed from the chain of command was because i testified in congress. there's a sworn affidavit submitted by donald bider that said i questioned her authority and that's why i was transferred out of the chief of staff offices because i questioned her authority in congress. i don't remember actually mentioning donna bider's name personally during my original testimony. through all of this, i have always placed the veterans ahead of me, essentially.

and today i think we should focus on the veterans. because of the way i was brought up i will always take a stand for this population's extremely vulnerable at this time. you remember i made reference to the e-mail in november of 2012 that's part of the packet that i submitted where i questioned the irregularities of the consults. i also noticed that there was a number of patients at the review of the number of colon cancers that were entering the system but later appearing with advanced cancer. i did this as a team player, asking for a briefing to all of the chief of staff. i was rebuffed. i want to go on the record to be more specific. one, i witnessed the systematic deletion of 179 consults. two, the systematic deletion of

these consults' review, most of them were done by non-medical staff. three, i witnessed the direct batch deletion, the order given by my immediate supervisor, of 40,000 consults. the number of deletions, three to four times what happened in phoenix. the other thing i want to go on record -- and i realize this will probably result in me losing my job, but i think the veterans deserve better. $25,000 was given to our va. where is it? it was reported as being given for informatics. i'm sorry if i've run out of time. >> could you review that number with us again? >> i'm sorry. $25 million. was appropriated over a two-year period to our hospital to improve access for veterans.

>> thank you. dr. hooker. i'm sorry. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on continued whistleblower retaliation within va. my written statement outlines the types and extent of reprisal against federal employees that continues unabated. retaliation against whistleblowers is destructive and costly to our nation in so many ways and too convenient a weapon to be used without any fear of its consequences. when whistleblowers sound an alarm, it's for the safety and well-being of the veterans we serve. veterans and whistleblowers are inextricably linked. harm to one is harm to the other. my written statement speaks of va as a house divided, with power and resources for the va itself gained at the expense of care provision to the veterans we serve.

for example, i had the honor of meeting an 88-year-old world war ii veteran several weeks ago. he arrived in an electric wheelchair as he was unable to walk due to injuries many years prior that were not related to military service. same for the loss of use of his left arm and hand, as well as the loss of use of his right shoulder. he was unable to see out of his right eye due to glaucoma causing near blindness. he related he was living in a room at the ymca in downtown wilmington, delaware. that being all he could afford on $500 a month social security and $500 a month non-service-connected pension. he was sent to the y after a stay at our medical facility as an answer to homelessness. years ago he could have called our facility's extended care section his home. but due to yearly mandates progressively reducing the percentage of beds in the facility's community living center earmarked for extended care in favor of more rapid turnover and hence more

billables and collections, this 88-year-old world war ii veteran was sent to live at the ymca. because he's not service connected va feels no obligation to provide long-term care to him. whose community is the community living center, and what type of living is being provided? true to this 88-year-old world war ii veteran's generation, he believed that a bed in our community living center must be needed for someone in worse shape than he. this from a man with no effective use of his legs, no effective use of his arms, and almost no sight. what do we look at when we evaluate success? are efficiency and expediency the only measures of a productive day? what is the most important thing? there's a spirit that enters the body at birth and a spirit that leaves the body at death. our nation was founded on spirit. the spirit of liberty and justice for all. our veterans defend our nation with their body, their mind, and their spirit.

when they come to the va for care of the their body and mind, must they have their spirit crushed? and when health care providers advocate for veterans' needs, must they suffer abuse? whistleblowers are passionate people who care about veterans and the true mission of va. va for veterans, not va for itself. thank you for the honor of representing them. >> thank you, dr. hooker. mr. tremaine, you now have five minutes. >> thank you, chairman coffman, committee members, and our representative robie. i'm here with you today to testify about the unacceptable, vicious, and retaliation against sheila use and myself at the health care center where the director james dalton became the first senior executive service member in history fired for neglect of duty. the chief of staff also under investigation was on paid leave for six months and quietly retired in december 2014. with disingenuous claims of

improvement, there remains an atmosphere of exclusion and retaliation against those who did not support dalton or subsequently the dangerously inexperienced leadership and ineffectual management of mr. robin jackson, the deputy network director over dalton during his tenure and who was immediately planted as interim director by charles sepich, the visiting director. dr. mousse and i were two seasoned and experienced yet idealistic newcomers to the leadership team in march of 2014. although we both identified scheduling manipulations, illegal hiring practices, continued use of paper wait lists, severely delayed consults, critical levels of understaffing, fraud, and a complete breakdown of human resources and the business office directly to dalton we quickly concluded he won support our efforts to hold staff accountable. in june of 2014 we were forwarded an e-mail send to talton in april of 2013 alerting him to critical scheduling manipulations from a staff position. since talton was publicly

claiming no prior knowledge of any scheduling manipulations, we became seriously concerned about his integrity. and on june 11th raised those concerns directly to robin jackson and charles sepich. we also informed him we have been contacted by representative martha robie on june 10th regarding her face-to-face meeting with talton. immediately after our june 11th disclosures to sepich and jackson, severe retaliation escalated exponentially. we later learned it was because sepich and talton had communicated every word of our conversation to talton that very same day. june 24th i sent an emergent e-mail plea to sepich informing him of continued violent outbursts and management -- mismanagement by talton. the very next morning i was forced off the montgomery va campus by order of robin jackson. i was devastated to realize that i had been betrayed. i was constructively removed from my leadership responsibilities and prevented from acting in any leadership capacity by talton and subsequently by jackson in humiliating all-employee

e-mails. although sepich had promised me he would immediately begin a fact finding to help us in fact four days earlier he had already chartered a fact finding to investigate fabricated allegations by talton and jackson against us. that fact finding was chaired by a subordinate of sepich. as a result sepich and jackson requested an a.i.v. from vaco without any specific changes. the aib was conducted by o.a.r. the week of october 27th with results due on january 19th, 2015. instead they requested additional on-site testimony citing a new allegation put forth by a union president who was not selected for a promotion thus extending the investigation. one of the a.i.b. members a sitting director was also a former subordinate and friend of charles sepich. incredulously during my first year i had been under the weight of investigations for 305 out of 365 days without a single charge and beginning within my first 45 days of work. it's difficult to describe the

level of disrespect, harassment and retaliation we endured from talton, sepich and jackson as he removed hospital services from my authority, initiated major reorganize nye reorganize nye zagss and realignments adversely impacting my position and without my knowledge. my direct reports bypassed me reporting directly to him at his request. i was excluded from key information a.m. resources blocked from critical reports on major program assessments and important site reviews. in fact, when i asked for the complete administrative assessment done by jackson himself, a month before he arrived he told me if you want to see it request it through a freedom of information act. an amazing failure of leadership, sepich and jackson actually detailed dr. muse out of the state for 90 days in the middle of this crisis. i speak with you today with a heavy heart disgusted by the continued cover-ups and a discrediting campaign through open-ended investigation and the attempted destruction of my career by the va that i've always loved serving and being a part of. so many va employees are closely monitoring this issue and hoping

va leadership at all levels will demonstrate a commitment to true excellence and transparency by creating an environment free from whistleblower reprisal and retaliation. if the retaliatory actions from cavis and visen against a dedicated veteran executive and a brilliant careerwoman executive both of whom have committed their lives to serving veterans is tolerated in the least it will certainly have a chilling effect on any others stepping forward to protect the organization we all love serving veterans through. i have feared the loss of my job and career and we both fear a further loss of our personal and professional reputations. but mr. muse sat and i sat in disbelief a year ago and agreed at that moment in time that we didn't have a choice because it was more important to protect our veterans than protecting either one of our own careers. we respectfully request you that immediately address the overt whistleblower retaliation that has become rampant in our va. again, thank you for your

commitment to our veterans and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank the panel so much for your testimony today. particularly to the whistleblowers. as a combat veteran, my heart is out to you. i think you're fighting for our nation's veterans today who have made tremendous sacrifices in defense of this country. and i would like to ask the whistleblowers a question first, all three of you. and that is, to your knowledge, has there been any disciplinary action taken to those that have intentionally created the kind of hostile workplace that you've testified today in terms of retaliation against you? start with mr. tremaine. >> chairman, there has been none. >> dr. hooker. >> none. >> dr. head. >> none. >> okay. question. miss lerner, if you look at the number of cases from the va that

have gone before the osc, compared to other agencies of the federal government, they seem substantially higher. i think a simple comparison would be to the department of defense i relieve that has doubled the number of civil service employees and yet there are more cases last year i think that came forward from the department of veterans affairs than the department of defense. can you explain just the nature of the volume of cases coming from the va? >> we do get more retaliation cases and disclosures from the va than any other federal agency, any other department in the government, and the numbers are increasing. just for comparison, as you said, the complaints we get that the va are higher than the d.o.d., which has double the

number of employees. so -- you know, we know that people come forward when they, you know, feel that they have to to protect the life of a veteran or the health and safety. and so the fact that people are coming forward is a very positive sign. all the numbers are bad, and they're increasing, and that has to stop. i personally am encouraged that more people are coming forward because, a, we need to know the problems exist. we can't fix them until we do. i'm encouraged people feel confident they will get some relief when they come to our agency and they will get some results. the number one reason whistleblowers come forward is they feel an obligation. the number one reason they don't come forward is because they feel they're not going to get any results. nothing will happen if they come forward. it's a double-edged sword. on the one hand we're not happy the numbers are increasing, and our staff is completely overwhelmed by the work. on the other hand, we're glad

that they feel comfortable and confident coming to us and so that's a positive thing. >> miss flanz? >> i would certainly echo what ms. lerner has said. we are encouraged to know that people feel comfortable raising disclosures, whether it's to members of this committee, members of congress -- >> ms. flanz. i don't know if they feel comfortable. i think they are willing to take a risk. >> i would agree with that. i also want to thank the whistleblowers who have come forward today to provide their stories. it is an act of courage and it is something that we in the department need to learn to celebrate because disclosures about problems give us an opportunity to fix those problems. if we don't know about them, don't learn about them, then we are not able to improve service. to ms. lerner's point, we do need to understand what it is that is driving these numbers, continuing to drive these numbers, and to be careful not to assume either bad or good

things about the numbers. the fact that people are coming forward with their concerns is an indicator we continue to have some issues that require attention. but again, the fact that they are bringing them forward means we have the opportunity to identify those problems and move forward with solutions. >> miss flanz can you comment to me about -- can you give me some idea -- so we just had testimony from the witnesses here that are whistleblowers that no disciplinary action has been taken against those who have retaliated against them. can you give me any data in terms of actions that the va's taken in temsrms of disciplining those who have retaliated against our whistleblowers? >> absolutely. i cannot speak to the cases of the individuals at the table here as i understand it from my colleagues at the office of special counsel, their issues remain pending. so i'm not going to speak to --

>> how many pending cases can you -- >> we currently have in my office 80 ongoing investigations, of which 15 involve, among other things, whistleblower retaliation. we also keep a data base of employee disciplinary actions taken across the department. until the late summer of last year we did not have any particular database that showed discipline across the va. we began to collect that data. among the things that go into that database are general descriptions of the charges that are used to support the discipline. one of the charges is something having to do with prohibited personnel practice. that's a generic term that includes whistleblower retaliation, among other things. another charge is retaliation. the information that i have is

that in the approximately one year we've been collecting information, we have 22 actions in our data base that include charges related to prohibited personnel practices or retaliation. it's not a large enough number. i will say that right now. we have more work to do to ensure that the individuals who have retaliated against whistleblowers, as ms. lerner and her staff bring cases to us to provide corrective remedies to the employees who've been subjected to retaliation, we need to be able to move -- >> i'm running over my time. i just want to say this seems like such a typical hearing when you're giving us a lot of great news. we have three individuals here who have testified not just -- who have testified before that no disciplinary action is taken against those who have retaliated against them and that situation remains unchanged. ranking member kuster? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to address my remarks to ms. flanz and ms. lerner. but i do want to thank the whistleblowers for bringing your individual cases and encourage you to work with our good colleagues. i know representative robie is on the case for you, mr. tremaine. and encourage you to work with the office of special counsel as well to make sure you get the protection you deserve we don't have any other tragedies. >> absolutely. the office of special counsel has been a lifeline working with page kennedy and nadia piunta throughout this ordeal for the last year made a huge difference. i don't think there's any question they're totally understaffed. but the opportunities i had to speak with them made a huge difference in my ordeal. >> good. and i hope your situation will get resolved. and it sounds like we've got 45

settlements of va whistleblower cases which hopefully did bring some relief to those people. and i know there have been reinstatements with back pay and such. and it's important to send that signal to others. one of the issues that i wanted to get at is this issue of va culture because it seems to me the idea it's gone to the osc is sort of a recognition that this issue has blown up to a place where it wasn't resolved at a lower level. and i want to make sure that we have a collaborative workplace throughout the agency. i did note of the chart that we received of the top agencies providing casework, it is true that the va is higher than the d.o.d. what's interesting for me, and i don't know if they can get this on the camera but the va and the

d.o.d. are right at the top and then it drops dramatically down for any other agency in the cabinet. and i'm curious about sort of the hierarchical nature and structure of those organizations and whether it is a greater challenge to change the environment. but i'm also curious, and this is to ms. flanz, what steps are being taken to foster a more collaborative workplace? and in the interest of time i'll just combine this with my follow-up question. we hear about steps that are taken here in d.c. for improvement but how are these -- what are the specific steps that are being taken to improve va culture and ensure accountability font front line at the visens, step by step with the people that can protect the lives of these whistleblowers and protect the quality of service to all veterans? >> i want to speak to both of those questions. i think i heard two of them.

one, with respect to improving the culture at the front line across the va system. the veterans health administration has an office called the national center for organization development. and that office is looking at an issue of psychological safety and how psychological safety can be improved in va workplaces. psychological safety is a larger term of which i think protecting whistleblowers is very definitely a component. the head of the national center for organization development speaks in terms of four cornerstones of the just culture that is required to ensure that patient care is provided in an environment in which people feel safe and the workplace is as we want it to be. those four cornerstones are transparency, accountability, psychological safety, and risk taking and innovation. those four things need to be in

balance. to the extent that transparency perhaps is stressed above all other things, you may get people feeling less safe and/or less willing to engage in risk-taking and innovation. similarly, if accountability is overly stressed, you may sacrifice some of the other issues. so the experts are focusing on tools for employees and supervisors across the va system to improve psychological safety within the framework of those four cornerstones. with respect to accountability for whistleblower retaliation, we are working on a number of things. first we need to capture the attention and understanding of medical center directors, regional office directors, and regional counsel right there at the facility level. ms. lerner's staff are coming to give a training program to our regional councils, who are coming to town later this month.

we will address them and then we will begin with some new training we're going to roll out to supervisors. supervisors from the facility level and then having them serve as the trainers. we really need to get at two things. we need to make sure that the environment and the workplace is appropriately safe, and we also need to improve understanding on the part of supervisors and attorneys as to what the ramifications are for retaliation. >> thank you very much. how many since that time disciplinary actions have been taken against those that retaliated against whistleblowers, not pending, but

how many cases finalize? >> i apologize the numbers i brought i didn't breakdown by month or year. >> how many cases, you talked only about pending cases, how many cases are finalized where retaliation against whistleblower have been disciplined. >> i am aware of three. the numbers for the facility level are in the database. i would love to provide specifics which i don't have at my fingertips. >> you're here to testify before congress on this issue and you don't have specifics. >> i have the specifics that i have. >> how convenient. dr. bishop? >> thank you mr. chairman. frankly, i am going to agree with the chairman. i am a little frustrated by this

doctor, i think you testified earlier that you're not familiar with his case. >> i am actually quite familiar with it, but given ongoing litigation i'm not free to speak to the specifics of it here. >> are you familiar with all the cases? >> i am. >> are you familiar with all the cases that are in your department? culpability, yes. >> are there 80 active cases? is that the number? >> we have 80 active investigations. of which approximately 15 involve some element of whistleblower. >> so how many cases have you closed? >> my office has been operating since july of 2014. we have closed dozens. i could get you that. >> only three cases of those dozens have there been disciplinary action. is that what you're saying? >> each of our cases results either in a specific finding that the alleged misconduct couldn't be substantiated, or it results in a recommendation around discipline, yes. >> let me ask you a question concerning mrs. lerner's written

testimony. there's all kinds of cases here she's documented. you know, specific cases. are the people -- miss lerner, you don't want to get involved in the person of the person who did -- who retaliated against the whistleblower. you're primarily concerned that the whistleblower is restored. is that correct? >> generally, our intention is on relief for the whistleblower. >> do you then report these issues to her department then so she can act on those? >> sure. yeah. we are working with her in the office of accountability review to expedite their identification of cases where disciplinary action is appropriate. i also just want to mention we know of at least 40 disciplinary actions against employees who were complicit in the wrong doing identified by whistleblowers. so on the disclosure side, where people come to us and make a

disclosure of health and safety problems, it is part of our review of the agent's investigation. we look to see if they've taken disciplinary action. on that side of the equation, we know of at least 40 since about two years ago. that's a little bit encouraging. >> i'm a little disappointed that you're only aware of three cases. in all, three cases of disciplinary action being taken amongst all the cases in the last year. it seems surprising to me. especially in view of the fact that dr. head was here last summer. and it's still under investigation. mr. tre main seems under stress here. let me ask dr. head. dr. head, what have you been doing in the last, you know, since your last testimony here. what actions have you taken? because it seems like you're still having trouble.

>> well, i continue to report each and every retaliatory event. >> has anybody come to you, like from miss flan's department asking questions about what has been going on? >> from the office of special council, they have communicated with us. more recently the investigative unit. >> does the office of accountability review talk to you? >> they have, but it's been disappointing. >> mr. tremaine, i heard you testify earlier you were in contact with miss lerner's department. >> no, other than the aib, after 16 hours of grilling, over two days. i'm sorry. over three days.

>> they were talking to you? >> they weren't talking. they were grilling. >> what do you mean grilling? what were they doing? >> they were investigating. i thought, and i told them i clearly thought it was a sham. and i expressed that to them on multiple occasions during the investigation. i mean, one of the most interesting questions. one of the questions they wanted answered the most dealt with the fact that i identified a vehicle that was driving -- a government vehicle on friday night at 8:30 in the evening after i left the office at 8:30, didn't have taillights on it at all. i stopped the vehicle and notified there weren't any taillights on before the driver got on a darkened highway. and then the next monday i inquired about what the vehicle was doing out at 8:30. we had vehicles destroyed by staff. and we had vehicles used to take staff to crack houses. and i had a concern about why that vehicle was out. the oar -- aib investigation was

more concerned, excuse me, more concerned about why i stopped the vehicle. i was born in ohio. i suspected maybe it was a good samaritan. all three of the members advised me they would have never done anything like that. i thought that was incredulous. then they questioned me why i questioned the employee on monday without a union representative. and i told them, well, i'm still number two in the organization at the time. i felt i had the responsibility to ask what the vehicle was doing out there at 8:30 at night. so that's my -- >> i'm out of time here i guess, mr. chairman. thank you. >> i just wanted to say one thing. i also felt a lot of time these investigations are more about us. they're not necessarily about the facts of what we have complained about. and my experience is very similar to that. >> miss rice, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> i'm going to try to organize

this. i'm at a loss. for words. first of all, i don't understand your attitude, miss flans, the fact that you can sit here and come here with literally no information and you can't answer a question with any specificity is very, very disturbing. what i don't -- so, i don't understand how any -- the two of you, miss flans and miss lerner, can say that there has been progress. when we have miss lerner saying she says people are more comfortable coming forward. at the same time that miss flanz is admitting that there has been literally no accountability on the part of the people retaliating against whistleblowers. can either one of you explain that to me?

>> i would like very much to try. >> great. >> we are committed to ensuring that supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers are held accountable. >> let me stop right there. i just have to interrupt you. it seems to me that, and maybe this is my prosecutorial background. if you want to send a message, that people, wrongdoers are going to be held accountable, you actually have to hold at least one accountable. and if you look at the numbers of complaints, they far outweigh any level of accountability. so please explain that. >> again, i would like to. very much. we have ongoing investigations right now that will provide us with the evidence necessary to hold employees, supervisors accountable. until very recently, we have not had the collaboration with osc that we have now, that allows us

to use the evidence that they have pulled together to give us a jump start so we don't have to start fresh with our investigations. we will, whenever the evidence shows that retaliation has been engaged in -- >> okay. >> we will hold people accountable. >> so let me ask you this. why is it that a determination that a whistleblower was not giving accurate information is a much easier determination to make than retaliation against a whistleblower. you answer that question, because what i'm hearing from the three whistleblowers here is, you guys have no problem saying this whistleblower was wrong. but you have no ability to hold a wrongdoer accountable. explain that. >> with all due respect, that's not really how the process works. >> no, no, no, no. i have to stop you because i have very limited time. this is a very simple question.