screeria -- nigeria. - 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 anly, 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. why is it that you are able to come to the conclusion that whistleblowers have made allegations that were not based on fact, and you can do that pretty expeditiously, it seems to me. and you can't do as expeditious an investigation when it comes to holding a retaliator against a whistleblower accountable. because guess what, the numbers support what i'm saying. you can give whatever explanation you want. but i'm telling you right now, the level of disrespect that you are showing to the veterans, who by the way, if -- and we know allegations are true in terms of treatment, mistreatment of

patients, the lists, the laundry lists of stuff that is going on. everyone knows that it's there. you're telling me you're spending all this time to try to hold someone accountable. forget about what's happening about actually fixing the problem where veterans are not getting the services that they need. that is another disturbing thing to me. that's almost an afterthought to you. so i can't hear an explanation that includes some kind of, with el, and believe me, i'm a lawyer, so i get the whole, there's an ongoing investigation so i can't answer. it's a very convenient way of getting out of answering a question that you don't want to answer. so i know that. and i apologize. my blood is boiling. and this is a disgrace. so please give me a superdelegate -- succinct answer

and then i will end. why it's easier for you to come to the determination that whistleblowers are wrong before you can come to -- in a faster way you can say the retaliators are wrong. and i firing them. >> i understand it has to do with the burden of proof. when we do fire an employee, we are required to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports the action. >> i get the whole burden thing. that's why you should have more people working on that to do it even faster. this system is not going to get fixed. and you can talk about, oh, we changed the culture here. we did this. we set up that. oh, it's all so much better. if retaliators aren't being held accountable, that's the bottom line, and i don't see that. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, miss rice. dr. roe, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess the direction i want to go is with dr. head and mr. tremaine.

when you make an allegation, obviously you're not a team player right there. so what is it to lead me to believe that you're just not an incompetent employee. you're just a troublemaker. you don't want to work with a team. we've all been on the team before. and when you're looking, what's to make me -- because i've seen this happen before. where you -- how do i know dr. head is really a very good doctor? he just might not be very good so we move you out of the clinic and put you in a closet somewhere and essentially move you out of clinical care just to get you out of the way. and it's very hard to protect your reputation if you have two or three or four senior people ahead of you making the allegations. so how do you protect yourself

on that, to follow up on miss rice's statements, how do you do that? how do i know you're not? >> well, my reputation speaks for itself. and my education clinical expertise and track record speaks for itself. i've never -- a lawsuit has never been filed against me. i never had a -- what's called a level three complaint filed against me until after i testified in congress. >> i'm being facetious, doctor. >> i understand. but i think the whole world needs to understand this. i am a team player because i have followed the chain of command. every complaint i made, every allegation of malfeasance, problems with wait times, deletion of consults, suggesting medical staff should review consults for deletion rather than nonmedical expertise, rather than students should be doing the deletions. it's common, though, to as i

said before, what's the first thing they do? they take the whistle blower and isolate them. second, they defame them. third, they push them out. once they have them isolated, defamed, then they go and try to rewrite history. suggesting perhaps something they have done to cause the action against them, and they send out their surrogates. usually not trained professionals, without the institution, to suggest perhaps that person is a bad person. not a good doctor. but you know something, my strength comes from my patients actually. and i often tell them, i get much more out of seeing you than i give you. and i do my best every day of the week to make sure that i give them the best care possible. and the mistake i made initially during this process was allow them to push me out of care. but i'm stronger now only because i've insisted and i fight to see as many veterans as possible. >> i think the problem is when you stick your head up.

>> yeah. >> it's easier to keep your head down. you don't get arrows if you do that. if you speak up and stick your head out, you get a lot of arrows. and people shooting arrows don't seem to have any back coming their way. here you come into a new shop. you're working in there. you see some issues, you point them out, and what happens is, you then become the problem. >> yes, sir. and with 24 and a half years of v.a. experience at eight different facilities and never anything less than an outstanding rating in those 24 years, after arriving in central alabama, really quickly we discovered, and i discovered, and then simultaneously, the assistant director, we started kind of comparing notes a little bit, and we both realized we were team players, and we would have done anything on the team that was going to fix things.

but i promise you, we're not going to be on the tem that disrespects or harms veterans. i'm a veteran myself. air force, come from a family of veterans. i have my son here who would most likely be an in the air force. i would rather he go to university of boulder but if he wants to serve, i'll support him 100%. when he gets out, i want to make sure he walks into a v.a. any v.a. in the nation. the minute he crosses the threshold, he should be treated with respect and dignity. period, bottom line. it shouldn't be a matter of which team are you going to be on. there's only one team. that's the right team. we both realized the wrong team was in place, and we tried our best to help that team, to reenergize that team, but as it turned out, that team didn't want to be helped. they team wanted to protect themselves and not help us. >> well, i thank the three of you for being here and speaking

out. i think it will help other people, mr. chairman, around the country, to have the courage to stick their head up and letting things that go by that could potentially harm veterans. i yield back. >> thank you, dr. roe. mr. waltz, i don't see recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. and thank you all for being here. the v.a. can achieve its mission of providing the highest quality to veterans if we have a culture of fear or a culture where the practitioners aren't able to do what they do. feels like since i have been here i know i'm somewhat biased. the issue of culture is never far from us. and we've talked about it. it's difficult. we're out in toma a week or so ago on a field hearing on this very issue of over prescription of opiates, and a whistleblower, if you will, christopher kirkpatrick is one of the people who brought this to our attention. he was backed up by this.

and christopher is not a dad. we have another whistle blower out there, a veteran, was looked into with the clear warm of -- example of trying to is discredit them, is which is so despicable on so many levels. the very stigmas we're trying to overcome is being used against the people who are talking about it. so this is a cancer. and i know the attempts to try, and i'm grateful that we start to bring it to light, but in so many of these cases, the difficult issue to overcome, and i think miss rice was hitting on this, the preponderance of the evidence. we understand that you have to make a case and you can't just accuse people and you have things that make sense. they are there to protect. which i'll come back to. thank goodness for providing democracy in the workplace, but with that being said, this issue

seems to me, and i know this runs deeper than all of you at the table. i just looked up in the webster's dictionary, looked up whistleblower. you know what the synonyms are? betray betrayer, fake narc, rat. does that say something about a culture that runs deep? that's why what you two are doing becomes more important to ensure us that the integrity is there. and i'm going to hit on this. i went through the list. i'm grateful it appears that we're starting to get justice. but that's one piece of this. the accountability piece you talked about, the thing that troubles me most in the nine cases you listed. it appears only charles johnson at the columbia va actually led to changes in how business was done in a hydration practice that was wrong. my concern on this, and this is three-fold. justice for the whistleblower, accountability for the

perpetrator, and improved quality of care to stop that, because really, when you adjudicated these things, all you gave them back is what they should have had in the first place. you don't get a pat on the back for doing the right thing. that's what it appears that we're asking for. we paid them back the money, because you fired them incorrectly in the first place. i don't know, maybe we're is talking to wrong people for implementation of these changes. but are we seeing true change, in your mind, or are we just going through the motions and paying people back pay that they should have never been taking anyway? and by the way, it's not the v.a. who settles, it's the taxpayer who settles when we do this wrong. >> absolutely. we are seeing changes. not as quickly, and not as profoundly as we should, we'll get there. we are seeing changes. the office of the medical inspector in particular, when they go out to investigate a disclosure that comes to us through miss lerner's office, if it's a disclosure with patient

care, their recommendations include, not just -- if there's a whistleblower who is named, not just protection for that individual, but substantive change around whatever the problem is that was disclosed. and the department has an obligation to provide the information about what it's going to do and provide updates, in terms of progress, toward correction of the problem. so absolutely, that is fundamental, that's really what the homeowner process is about. >> just to add a couple of things. i think culture change requires many elements. this is not a problem that just developed overnight. it's been around a long time. it's not going to get solved overnight. here's the things we see that make a difference. number one, you have to have a message from the top. the leadership has to be very strong. some things like secretary mcdonald did visiting with

whistleblower when he visits facilities meeting with them sends a great message. >> this troubles me though, if i can could interrupt you. was secretary shinseki -- >> i think a lot of the problem under secretary shinseki's term was that the office of medical inspector was doing nothing when they found a problem. so when there was a disclosure, what the office of medical inspector would do is say, yeah, it's an isolated innocent, but it's not really problem. there's no harm to patient care. >> and that's different now? >> that's very different now. after our report almost a year ago, the office of medical inspector was changed around. the person who was heading it left. we are seeing a change, as i mentioned in my testimony, of the types of investigations that they're doing, including disciplinary action. >> my time is up. when we come back around, i would like to have the other three address that. i think this is fundamental if it has made a significant

difference. that's an important piece. i yield back. >> you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing. i wish it were not in necessary. i wish we had seen the time of changes -- we wouldn't be here if we were comfortable with what happened. i want to follow up on one thing just mentioned. miss lerner mentioned the travel by secretary and other top v.a. leaders. and this would be a question for miss flanz. visiting with whistleblowers, has the current secretary visited the l.a. facility where dr. head works? >> yes, he has. >> did he meet with dr. head at that time? >> i honestly don't know. dr. head would know. >> okay. mr. head. >> yes. i was prevented from meeting with the secretary. i was told that my i.d. badge -- that there was a problem with my badge. i went to human resources. >> say that again? something wrong with your badge?

>> i was told you have to have an updated cord on your badge, that mine had expired, and that i would not be allowed to see the secretary, and so -- >> did that expire when you were before the congressional committee, by any chance? >> there's a possibility it could have expired. >> i appreciate it. i want to go back to miss flanz. >> i was instructed to get that taken care of. i went to human resources. when i was in human resources trying to resolve the issue, which was resolved they instructed me a block was placed on my i.d., and they had a problem with the block. and i was called saying you can meet with the secretary now. dr. norman has said that it is not necessary to have the updated card. the problem is, the secretary had just finished his presentation. >> very troubling. miss flanz, any response to that? i mean, you made that claim that

-- i mean, this is very public whistleblower, dr. head put his reputation on the line, and i think a very courageous move, very public. was he not searched out to say let's solve this problem? >> i was not consulted. if i had been, i sure would have wanted to try to intervene, the secretary does make a point to model the behavior he wants to see in all supervisors. i'm very sorry dr. head was not able to meet with him, because i know that conversation would have been of use to both of them. >> you made the statement that he would like to meet with whistleblowers, any others that he skip that had you know of? how many times has he met with whistleblowers? >> it's my understanding he seeks them out every time he goes to a v.a. facility. >> except for dr. head's situation, i guess. >> this is the first that i'm hearing that dr. head was unable to meet with him. >> i would appreciate that when you make statements for the record.

we lacked a lot of certainty this is a certain statement that we are really working hard on that. if i understand correctly, no supervisors have been fired for retaliation against the whistleblowers? >> that is not correct. >> so how many have been fired? >> the ones that i know of, fall within the jurisdiction of my office, which only looks at senior managers. so i can't speak to the folks below that level. we have been involved in recommendations termination for three individuals, whose charges included whistleblower retaliation. so they have been terminated? >> yes. >> second question will follow up on the issue of whistleblower medical records, and may we have the names of those who were terminated? >> not in this public forum, but i would be happy to provide them. >> follow up then on whistleblower medical records. you made a reference to that later in your wherein testimony

that perhaps supervisors or others have accessed illegally medical records of whistleblowers in order to discredit them. can you describe that? that's shocking and astonishing that would be occurring in the v.a. >> i mean, we've raised -- sorry. we've raised some of these concerns directly with the v.a. and with the i.g. what we're seeing is a pattern of not just accessing medical records, but investigations opened after someone comes the forward for things like hipaa violations. and it's really problematic from a lot of perspectives. one is that obviously the disclosure isn't being looked at, but it has a very chilling effect on other whistleblowers. >> but it's by the va

retaliating against the whistleblowers. >> well, it's both. it's all of those things. >> my question is about medical records of whistleblowers being accessed. so that actually has occurred? do you have any idea roughly how many times? >> i don't know the number. i can find out for you. i know we have cases that involve access -- improper access to the whistleblowers' medical records. obviously because a lot of people work at the v.a., get their care at the v.a., and so their medical records are there. >> government agencies exempt from hipaa, is that correct? >> there's a range of penalties, and in each case, we have to look to see whether, in fact, the individual who accessed the record had a business reason to do so.

i am also deeply troubled by this. we do see it far more often than you would expect. i don't know whether that is because so many of our employees are veterans who received their care at v.a. facilities. it's a deeply troubling phenomenon. >> i would say my idea for penalty for that would be immediate dismissal. >> thank you. miss roby, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> first, thank you to the chairman for the invitation to join you today. many of you know i don't sit on your committee, but i do sit on the appropriations sub committee, and mr. tremaine is my constituent, and i'm very glad to have you here today. first two huge understatements. first to say the people coming forward shows that there are issues that still need some attention as well as this saying that we hear over and over again that you can't change a culture

overnight. well, it's been a year. it's been almost a year since mr. tremaine and i had our first conversation. so we're tired of hearing you can't change this culture overnight. it hasn't been overnight. it's been a year. so here we are. and i was traveling up here today, and i was thinking about us being in this room together today and how significant that is. and i just want to thank you for being willing to tell me the truth, when no one else was, for you and dr. neis to step forward, to reveal the horrible circumstances in montgomery and tuskegee it just says a lot about who you are. and i thanked you many times for this, but i want to thank the opportunity today publicly to thank mr. tremaine and the other

whistleblowers who are here, who i don't know, but i appreciate your courage as well. thanks to mr. tremaine, we uncovered layers of scandal at the central alabama v.a. thousands of missing x-rays. manipulated medical records. the v.a. employee who took a recovering veteran to a crack house, and only took a year and a half, even though the administration knew that this had happened, it took a year and a half for the individual to be fired. this is the culture that we're talking about, and here, a year later, we're taking a step backwards when the a.p. article you saw at the end of last week showed that the two hospitals that mr. tremaine worked at were number one and two for the worst in the country. because there's a new scam now. it's let's schedule the appointment within the time frame required. we'll cancel it 30 minutes

before the appointment and reschedule it so on the books once again it looks like the v.a. is doing what they're supposed to do. and by the way, if they come in, i learned this last week and you probably already know this. if a mental health patient comes in and asks to be seen as a walk-in they only get reimbursed for half the traveling expenses. this is the kind of stuff we're hearing directly from veterans. and i have to tell you, nothing has improved. we have taken steps backwards. so mr. tremaine, thank you for being here. and to that point i want to ask you, because i've asked nicely for a year and all apologies to those who raised me, but i'm a little over being nice at this point. how often, mr. tremaine in the

last six months, did a professional staff member from the secretary of the v.a.'s office here in washington sit in your regularly scheduled staff meetings? >> zero. right, zero. so senator shelby from alabama and myself sent a letter when all of this information was revealed that had we wanted washington v.a. to come down and directly oversee what was happening at central alabama v.a. over the last six months has there been any presence from the national v.a. in central alabama, direct link to the secretary's office here in washington to oversee what's happening in the last six months? okay. and so in your view, has the secretary and other top leadership here in washington shown a direct sustained interest in investment in correcting the problems? so would you say that washington followed through with its

promise to directly oversee the overall, or was the work staffed out to mr. sepich and mr. jackson, who by the way, mr. sepich was the visiting director, and mr. jackson is now the acting director after mr. talton was removed. >> yes, he was placed there by mr. sepich. he was the deputy network director. and when mr. talton was fired, robin jackson came in as the director. i think i pointed out he was woefully. >> and i'm a visitor here, so i have to be careful not to violate your rules of five minutes. but if i can just point out one other thing, mrs. flanz was in the room with me when i asked mr. sepich to be included in the same investigation that mr. tremaine was subject to intense interrogation. mr. sepich was the boss of the

first senior administrator fired for mismanagement under the law this congress passed last august. mr. sepich quietly retired one week ago. thank you for letting me be here, chairman, and ranking member. thank you to mr. tremaine and dr. head and i just can't tell you how much i appreciate your encouragement and your willingness to help us get this right. >> thank you. and i think your passion speaks for itself. and i think when i mentioned being on the right team, there's no question that our representative has been an advocate for veterans that we haven't seen the likes of. so thank you so much for that, ma'am. >> thank you very much. just a brief follow-up among the lines of representative rice, and i want to ask miss lerner, this is sort of procedural, but i think it will get at an important point.

you talked about the office of medical inspector now doing a more proactive or interactive follow-up to the recommendations, and you mentioned including disciplinary action, and that seems to be what's hanging in the room over this hearing. our disappointment that it sounds as though it's a more rigorous investigation of the whistleblowers, than of those that have been standing behind retaliation. and to me, and i think this is what representative rice is getting at. if you want to actually change culture, you've got to change the view, not just the first step that will take care of the whistleblowers and treat them fairly, but that something will actually happen to those that retaliated against. and i'm an attorney as well. i understand the burden of proof and all of that. but can you follow up with this role?

maybe we don't have the right witness here in terms of the office of medical inspector. what types of disciplinary action can we ask for any data that may be available as the disciplinary action that has been taken. >> sure. i think there are two different processes here. the office of medical inspector investigates once we get a disclosure that we refer for investigation. that process is separate. and one of the things we look at when we decide whether the report is adequate and before we report to the president and the congress is have they taken appropriate corrective action, where they have found a problem, has someone been disciplined? has relief been provided? and that's not what they do is not really retaliation investigations. where we're seeing the problem with retaliatory investigations is with the i.g. and with the regional council. the problem really is someone comes forward with a disclosure,

then an investigation is often opened up into their behavior. >> right. >> and so about 80% of the time people come to us with a disclosure, they experience retaliation. we can protect them from retaliation if they come forward, but they are really just looking at the underlying disclosure. so who -- then there's a procedure that's missing. because my colleague, mr. walls, talked about you need to deal with protecting the whistleblower. you need to deal with making the long-term changes that have -- for the health and well being of the veterans, but i want to get at the crux of the matter. who is investigating the retaliatory action, and what is the disciplinary procedure for that person? do you follow me? >> sure. >> this is the forest for the trees here. >> when someone makes a disclosure and experience retaliation, they have a number of options. they can go to accountability and review. they can go to the i.g.

they can come to osc. they can come to congress. if they experience retaliation, we can open up an investigation, where we can use the expedited review process to try to get relief very quickly for them, and we have gotten relief quickly -- >> you're still talking about relief to protect them. i want to follow -- keep going on the track. what is the procedure for disciplinary proceeding to set the example? i mean, look, that's half of what criminal justice system is all about. it's part of what an employee justice system is about. to set this example. here we're modeling the behavior of this collaborative approach. over here, we don't want this to happen. sending somebody to an office with a hole in the floor. sending somebody else to an office with no windows. these are things not tolerable. and we're going to demonstrate

that to all the other employees by saying, oh, that person was let go. they didn't uphold a standard of core operative collaborative spirit that we hold dear in our workplace. >> disciplinary action is really key to accountability no question budget it. in terms of changing a culture, you have to hold people accountable. it deters future violations as well. our primary focus is on making the whistleblower whole and putting the whistleblower back. we have 130 employees for the agency and we have to prioritize with we put our efforts. what we do, is where we identify a case where we think disciplinary action is appropriate. where someone has been retaliated against. we work with the office of accountability review and we try to get the agency to take disciplinary action. and we have several cases in the pipeline that will involve disciplinary action.

we are trying to pivot and focus more and more on disciplinary action as an agency. but the first priority has been getting people back to work, when someone has been fired, we want them back to work. when someone has been moved to the basement, we want to get them back, and we have been very successful in doing that. >> well, my time is up. but i think i just want to make the point that the sooner you can get to the disciplinary action for the retaliatory behavior, the shorter the list of cases you're going to be piling through for years on end of examples such as these. so you need to set an example. but thank you, and i apologize for going over. >> you are now recognized for five minutes. >> dr. head, you still don't have an office basically because you were put in this bad office? >> um, it's shameful. and it's kind of -- >> is that true that you still basically -- >> well, i have that office that they would like me to.

>> mr. flanz, why hasn't he gotten his regular office back? >> i don't know. but i will find out. >> i think that's a pretty good question to ask. obviously he's here in good faith, and i would like to get an answer to that question. and dr. head, is the guy, your supervisor, that's the same supervisor you had all right along for this whole ordeal? >> no. on paper it's dr. norman g. he's the chief of staff at long beach. really it's dr. dean norman, who has been responsible. >> that's the same person that's been there all along? >> yes. >> miss flanz, apparently v.a. employees often confidential provide patient information necessary to substantiate allegations of improper care to this sub committee. and this is not a hipaa violation. so why are employees sometimes accused of violation.

>> i think it's a function of confusion on the part of supervisors. v.a. is appropriately very protective of protected patient care information, and not all supervisors are aware of the right of employees to provide that information to this committee and to other oversight bodies. >> miss lerner, what changes have occurred in the office of special counsel since last year's hearing? is there anything that substantially changed in the office? >> well, we have many more cases to investigate in the last year. we've been able to do a little bit of hiring. we have been able to hire someone to work full time on v.a. cases and the expedited review system and hire additional staff to work the cases. i mean, our process works. we've been getting relief for whistleblowers. we are getting people back to work. we are getting them stays of adverse personnel actions. you know, people, you know, i think feel more comfortable and know about us, so we're getting

more cases. >> all right. thank you. >> i want to give you a chance to speak. i don't know you've been heard from enough. tell me what your response is today to the testimony of miss flanz and miss lerner? >> well, i can tell you by illustrating that we had a whistleblower who reported an inappropriate practice of giving medication to help people who have addiction problems. and you're really technically not supposed to continue giving that medication if someone has abnormal urine drug screen. so repetitive positive urine drug screens should be a cause for not giving that medication anymore. we had a clinical nurse specialist who reported that practice going on, and rather than investigate, they investigated that nurse.