capital. and we'll take a look at preparing seafood for market from alaska, glacier seafood incorporated. and at 4:30, watch four documentaries on alaska. the 1936 film, alaska silver millions, the 1949 film, eskimo hunters. alaska centennial, and the 1944 film, alaska highway. watch alaska weekend saturday and sunday july 21 and 22 on cs at cspan.org, or listen with the free radio app. acting veterans affairs secretary testified before the house veterans affairs committee on implements the v.a. accountability and whistle blower protection act, which was signed into law june 2017. members of the committee heard from the national president of the government employees union. this is about 2 1/2 hours. [ina]

good morning, the committee will come to order. welcome, and thank you for joining us today. the full committee exam -- whistle blower protection act of 2017. last year's enactment of this legislation was years of work by members of this committee, and one of the most consequential reforms to the federal service systems in decades. this law was put in place to provide the secretary the tools he or she needs to protect whistle blowers and performing employees accountable. i said time and time again, that the vast majority of va employees are good, hard working men and women who take the va's core mission to heart. before this law, the bad actions of a few tainted the

good names of many for far too long. the drafting of this legislation did not happen in a vacuum. ideas to improve the legislation were deceived from all corners, to include federal employee unions. it was not an ideological -- passed the u.s. senate by a voice vote. the full house by vote of 368- 55, including 23 of the 24 members of this committee, and 137 democrats and was supported by 18 veteran service organizations. i'm proud they were able to come together and craft this important legislation. our role in overseeing the laws implementation is equally important. that's why we are here today. the only way to bring true accountability to va is to create a culture where employees want to come to work and serve veterans. this will only happen when good work is consistently rewarded and when it is clear the department won't tolerate

employees who do not live up to the high standards required of public service. we all remember the stories of poor performance in misconduct this committee uncovered about a few select va employees who refused to or incapable of adhering to these high standards. we found time and time again, that civil service laws make it extremely difficult and time consuming to hold an employee accountable who didn't share va's values, even in instances where the employee in question has broken the law. i think every one of us can agree this is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. today, we are here to discuss how va is moving toward this goal of sustainable accountability and efforts to educate employees and managers about this new authority. also i want to make it clear that while this law made it easier to discipline poor employees, it did not give the va the license to target employees no matter their position or grade or to

retaliate against whistle blowers. the department in this committee continue to rely on whistleblowers to shed the light on waste and abuse. and i hope to learn more about how the implementation -- we can't measure success of this law implementation against a number of disciplinary actions, we can measure failure. if one single man or woman is afraid to come forward to report wrong doing because of fear of retaliation to me, that would be a failure. before i recognize ranking member tacano, i want to touch on the office of accountability and whistleblower. when we were negotiating the law that created this office, there were concerns about creating yet another office at the va that could duplicate efforts of other offices, when we really needed to do is empower managers to make the right decision and hold them

accountable. while the employees should be allotted for their efforts to improve accountability, i am concerned that oawp seeks to expand its role beyond what congress intended. particularly, some of the recommendations that the va submitted to congress as part of its june 30 annual report and the growth of this new office, and i look forward to addressing those concerns today. the goal of this new authority was to provide the secretary a tool in their tool box to discipline poor employees. if we're not careful, they may turn into a new tool box. we must ensure this doesn't happen. i'm certainly no fan of red tape or bureaucracy. i am concerned about the apparent lack of formal written policies or procedures for operations as oawp. formal policies policies and procedures, inspire confidence in their worth and work

product. i also remain concerned about the on going conflict between mr. o'roark and the inspector general over the data base of complaints. hope you have found a way to put this unnecessary distraction behind us. my understanding is, that you have. finally, i want to reiterate this committee will not shy away from our oversight roles to investigate improper usage and implementation of this law. however, the only way to do so is to continue this bipartisan tradition, examine issues with statistics and facts, or partisan agendas. now, yield to ranking member tacano for any opening statements. >> thank you mr. chairman. i thank you for calling this important hearing. when the accountability act passed last summer, i voted for it with a great deal of caution. i was cautiously optimistic that it would do what it set out to do. which was, to provide care by

making -- to improve care, which was to improve care by making it easier to remove bad employees. i understood that the connection between dismissing bad employees and improved care was superficial. but the bill was the best of several legislative attempts to address the v.a.'s significant issues in its management of human resources. i did vote against several of those legislative attempts because i felt that there were just too many bad things in those bills. but i voted for this bill, because i hoped that the va would take the tools we were providing, so that they could not only address bad employees, but also protect good employees. by improving the agency's overall human resources functions and moral. but now that we are more than a

year out, i have real concerns about how the va is using the tools that congress provided in the accountability act. of the 1,096 removals during the first five months of 2018, the majority of those fired were housekeeping aides. this has no doubt contributed to the fact that there are currently over a dozen medical centers with housekeeping vacancies. i have seen firsthand the problems caused by vacancies in housekeeping staff. near my district, and i see how that directly impacts care for veterans. i also find it hard to believe that there are large numbers of housekeeping aides whose performance is so poor, that it cannot be addressed. if that is true, then it stands to reason that there are also management issues behind their poor performance. but of those 1,096 removals, only 15 were supervisors, which

is less than 1.4%. firing rank and file employees does nothing to resolve persistent management issues. instead, it just leads to worse care from unnecessary vacancies. this type of implementation is not the intent of the accountability act. i hope everyone can agree, it's not possible to fire your way to excellence. in fact, this was a view that was shared by the commission on care's findings, which also found that the va's human resources management was under staffed and under resourced. this led to problems with poor hiring practices and poor workplace culture. this further compasser baited the va's difficulties in hiring the best and the brightest and therefore creating a vicious cycle. the accountability act was supposed to be the va's tool to break this vicious cycle.

we have heard in occasions that va's human resources management is in more disarray than ever. a high turnover rate is never a good sign of good management. and good management starts at the top. for months, we have seen a steady stream of reports in the press of a hostile work environment in the va's human resources division, previously led by peter shelby. then, just last week, it was reported that mr. shelby himself was fired. although the va released a statement saying that he left to pursue other opportunities and whether any of those reports are true, the damage to va's hr management has already been done. i am not sure how the va is supposed to improve its human resources management when such stories of its toxic environment are at the top are rampant. finally, it is in the mist of this turmoil that this

administration released a new executive order that limits the amount of official time for employees to no more than 25%. as we all know, official time is not spent on unit activities. let me repeat that. official time is not spent on union activities, because spending time on union activities is illegal. rather, it is time spent by union officials to perform human resources functions and ensure a well functioning work environment for all va employees. with the current turmoil and vacancies in the va's hr division, the human resources function employees on official time perform is more important than ever to ensuring care for veterans is not impacted. for the va to sustain cuts to essential human resources functions from both ends like this, does not inspire

confidence that performance is improving at the agency. the goal of the accountability act was not to undercut the strained va work force. firing cannot replace good management. i hope our discussion today will shed more light on what the va is doing in its implementation to ensure better performance among its employees through better management. i thank the witnesses for being here today and i look forward to their testimony. >> thank you gentleman for yielding. on our first panel, we welcome back peter o'rourke. we spent the weekend in reno, with disabled veterans. i thought we spent a couple hours on panel together, and thought it was time well spent. mr.orourke, and mr. nathan manley of the office of human

resources and administration. mr. orourke, you are recognized. >> ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, i'm pleased to be here with nathan manly for the office of human resource administration, and kirk nicholas, executive director of the office of accountability and whistleblower protection. let me get right to the point. retaliation against employees who identify a legitimate problem or report there may be a violation of law, rule, or regulation is absolutely unacceptable. i will not tolerate it. protecting employees from retaliation is a moral obligation of va leaders, statutory obligation and a priority for this department. we will take action to hold accountable those individuals engaged in a whistle blower retaliation, and that includes disciplinary action. i'm confident that the overwelming majority of our employees are here to do the right thing. our best employees own accountability, because they are here to make a positive difference. congress and va leadership

spent years addressing accountability, and it's why we are talking today. the problems that surfaced at va in 2014 uncovered serious short falls in the way some leaders dealt with employees who made disclosures. those problems led to the establishment of the disciplinary crisis response team in july of that year, and expanded into the office of accountability review. the purpose was to improve transparency, misconduct, and their investigations. those initial efforts shaped a new cultural direction for va. this is why congress passed and the president signed the accountability and whistleblower protection act. the president and congress ensured we had the right processes in place to protect employees who raise concerns and exposed problems or issues and to also hold accountable. the president's executive order and congress' legislative work in 2017 established oawp, creating a new paradigm for accountability and whistleblower protection. so, how can we promote

accountability and improve performance? we must change va's culture from within. that change must be encouraged and sustained by leaders who emgrace accountability and focus on productive workplace that empowers their employees. i own the responsibility of that change that is needed to move va forward, but let me be clear. making changes in an organization the size of va takes time, persistence, and patience. getting the processes, communication, and relationships right will not be easy, but my goal is to ensure we have a better system in place, one that works for all employees. you've tasked the office with developing a system that better supports employees. that task is really threefold. first, protect employees from retaliation, emphasize the need for greater transparency, and promptly investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct. simply put, our policies must be aligned to reflect the open

and transparent way va strives to operate. i've seen from the initial result as evidenced in the reports submitted last month, that this new office is making a difference and will continue to build on this foundation in the coming years. let me highlight a few of our accomplishments in the past year. the office averages 1730 whistle blower disclosures a month, in which staff quickly examined the concerns in an effort to develop the issue raised. from june 23, 2017, to june 1, 2018, the triage staff assessed nearly 2,000 submissions of alleged wrong doing. the advisory and analysis division completed 182 cases, the same office recommended disciplinary or adverse actions in 54 cases, involving 58 unique persons of interest. let me remind you, this is only in the first year. while our work is just beginning, i'm confident those numbers will change as we continue to promote accountability, and change can the culture of va. we are all after at same

ultimate objective. to do what's right for our veterans by providing the high quality care, services, and benefits they have earned and they deserve. we can achieve that shared objective through cultural change and collective responsibility. veterans and the american people expect us to work together on their behalf, we look forward to doing so, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i'll start the questions. you mentioned mr. orourke, that 50 people had discipline, out of 360 plus ,000 employees. >> yes, sir. that's at the senior leader level. >> okay, do you believe that the implementation has been successful? when i say that, per your comment this weekend, about the impact it has on managing this organization. and what are the the three top metrics you use to define

success? >> the initial stand up of the office, the first thing that you try to work through is just the recognition of what the new capability is, what we're trying to do in communicating that across in the case of the senior leadership work force. senior executives, folks in the confidential policymaking position. that is difficult in an organization the size and scope of va. getting out to visit with medical center directors, and teaching them, helping them understand what the purpose of that office is in a context of, we're here to possibly investigate your misconduct or your performance is a tight rope to walk. but i believe we did that successfully by going into nonthreatening environments with them, also with meeting with the unions and groups, training everyone that would take our call to reach out to them, to answer any questions they would have. >> how do you answer? i read some of the

whistleblower in here, who feel like they have been retaliated against. how do you -- i'm not saying what they said is true or not true. i read this last night on several letters submitted for the record. how do you e -- put in an office to do nothing for a year, 16 months, how do you make them whole? >> listening to the whistleblower. what we found quickly, a lot of the folks that came to us initially that had things to say, whether they were legitimate whistleblower complaint was really a matter of defining and making sure they understand what that definition was. regardless of the definition, it was listening to them and making sure their voice was heard and then doing the investigation or going on site to see what they were claiming and having either a discussion with their supervisors or with the leadership of that organization to determine what

was really going on. a lot of times, we found two sides not talking to each other. times we could facilitate that conversation. other times, it had been too long. whether that meant a full blown investigation of the matter or referring that off to osc or oig. >> i think, this will fail if you don't protect the whistleblowers. they have to feel like they can step forward and say something and not be retaliated against. that's a huge deterrent to finding out what's going on in an organization as large as the va. >> absolutely. and getting that word out and changing that cultural peace is going to take some time. because there are places that are more difficult than others. the one thing that you provided in this bill was what's called the 714 hold. that wasn't something that existed before. what that meant was, employees gs15 and below that had inaction, they might feel is

retaliatory, we were able to step in as the office, as the director, and i can tell and stop that action. put a hold on that action, not allowing it to move forward until, it was the office of accountability, or the office of special council could investigate that disclosure for substance, whether it was real or not. during that period of time, that employee could not be affected. whether it was retaliatory or not. >> how do you respond to charges that the law targeting lower level employees, many of whom are veterans. >> i have specifics that i'm going to let mr. manly address specifically. it's in the data. the 218 report that was requirement of the law, as we put through, and as we looked at this. as we look back to 2014 and forward, you don't see a significant difference from year to year, frankly, in any category of unrealistic firings or removals of any category of employee, let alone focusing on

lower level employees, and a few more details on that, too. >> we took a look specifically at custodial workers, and food service workers, and what we're seeing is not a significant change in number of actions that were taken from a percentage perspective, less than 1% increase in the number of terminations at that level of employee. now granted, those three occupations are the highest occupation within the veteran's health organization for terminations. and that's the nature of the work. that compares similarly to the private sector. >> my time has expired. you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. orourke. the va provided the office access to information this morning and that they are entitled. information they are entitled to under the inspector general

act. can i get your commitment today that you will provide and continue to provide to the oig full, complete, and prompt access to oawp records and all other requests made by the oig? >> has been complied with, even before this morning's recent access to a share point site. >> yes. i want to know if you were committed to or continue to provide full, complete, and prompt access to records and all of their requests. i realize you complied with the previous request, and ky know there was a very public spat over that. i want to get your comment today that you will comply with future oig requests. >> >> it's unfortunate that has been so public. this has been his access since day one. >> that's not what played out.

so, i just want to get your commitment that you will comply with future oig requests. >> my commitment has remained the same. provide oig. >> i'm not interested in day one, what you claim to have said. i want to know from this day forward, will you comply with the oig? >> yes. >> thank you. i'm concerned that of the 1,096 removals during the first five months of this year, less than 1.4% were supervisors and that the majority of them were housekeeping aides. and let me just put this in perspective. there's always been a preference requirement for this job category, veteran preference job. a veteran's preference requirement, and also hiring under noncompetitive satisfies for veterans in this job category. in the past, the vast majority, close to 100% of employees at the va in this category have

been disabled veterans. that can vary by facility, but my impression is that in this category, because of these satisfies, the vast majority of these workers tend to be veterans, disabled veterans. would you agree with that assessment? >> no, sir, i wouldn't. not disabled veterans. that's a veteran's preference. that's all veterans. >> it's all veterans. whether disabled veterans and veterans, there tends to be a very veteran job category. the majority of the 1096 employees who were removed, the majority came from the housekeeping category. we're talking veterans here. not 1/3, but in this category, 1/3 of all veterans, 1/3 of all employees tend to be veterans. in this category, nearly 100%. as i mentioned in my opening statement, if there are so many

housekeeping aides with poor performance, there are some management issues there as well. what are you doing to ensure that personnel decisions, are truly addressing care issues and not just unnecessary creating vacancies at lower levels while the real culprits remain on the job. >> i think it's helpful to be clear about the turnover rate at that housekeeper level. regardless whether they are veterans or not, that is, like mr. manley mentioned, that's our highest turnover area, regardless if this is in the va or outside the va. our turnover rates are much lower than the private sector, which is close to 200%. >> you are shifting the focus of our conversation, we're talking about people who have been removed. we aren't talking about turnovers. how is that relevant? >> turnover rate includes removals. >> you are going on to a different talking point. we are talking about removals here.

and that implies to me some management issues. >> even removals, sir, if you go back to 2014, there's not a dramatic difference than there was beforehand, which indicates -- >> we are talking about the first five months, about all these removals. >> if you go back to 2014, you'll see the same amount of removals. >> this gets to this issue of who we're removing and whether or not we're addressing bad management. unskilled management. what we are doing and the personnel function of the va is also in turmoil. >> i don't connect those two. i'm going to stay focused on the removals or the turnover rate. >> anyway, what are you doing to ensure that these crucial positions, i guess my time has run out. i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. mr. kauffman, you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. to the acting secretary, i want to thank you so much for your

responding to a concern that was raised by a whistleblower in denver, colorado, that pulling it to a higher level to make sure that there's no conflict of interest. i want to thank you for being so responsive to that. let me also raise an issue of accountability. it's different than what mr. tacano has raised. i'm concerned that if you can relay this as well to the incoming secretary, that at the senior executive service management level, that we have had individuals in these positions who have had multiple negative reports either by gao

or vaoig that have never been cleaned up. yet, these people are allowed to remain there. so, specifically, we are going to be opening a va hospital in aurora, colorado, this saturday. the individual that was responsible for the last person there in charge of the project from the va standpoint in terms of construction management, that led to a billion dollars in cost overruns. a project that was five years behind schedule, that i led to fight in congress to replace the v.a., construction management team, with the army corps of engineers, without that, i don't think this would have been built. congress never would have had the confidence to fund those cost overruns to complete this hospital and in fact, under her leadership, congress, i mean,

stripped the v.a. of its construction management authority ever to build a hospital again. and yet, this person is still there in charge of va construction facilities management. not only was she still there, your predecessor actually tried to promote her to being in charge of facilities management and in contracting. that i raise the issue about her competence, and she put in charge of construction management. i mean, if we don't clean house, no matter what the new va secretary says or does, i mean, at this level, nothing will change. so that's my concern. do you have a response to that? >> i think the response would be to point out as you

described, it's a very difficult challenge when you are looking at changing the culture of an organization this size, and as intricately designed against this point, as we look at how to restructure and bring things like construction management, other things into better alignment with our priorities, with our goals of serving veterans. that will hopefully lead to better management structure. but really, what the accountability law does in that regard, by adding accountability and putting performance as part of that. that was new. that was innovative at a degree i don't think we give ourselves credit for. that is going to allow us in the future, once we get the accountability side correct, and start adding carefully, the performance side, because that is something we have to be very cog cog any aware of.

>> i think you have around 400, i think in the department of veterans affairs at this ses level who are just below the political appointees who run the day-to-day operations within the programs within the department of veteran's affairs. and, i think, i would hope the new secretary would take a look across the board, and where we've had consistent failure, those people simply have to be removed. the congress of the united states on a bipartisan basis has given the department of veterans affairs the authority to remove managers who are at the top of this bureaucracy. so, i just want to commend you to talk to the new secretary, to move forward with cleaning house. >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman for holding today's meeting. when congress passed the accountability act, it was a recognition that more accountability was needed at the va and you are hearing that from everyone here today. however, accountability doesn't just mean increasing the number of va employees who are pushed out the door. accountability means, as you had noted, creating real change bad behavior is not repeated. management that has enabled bad behavior needs to be held accountability. just as much as low level employees who have not properly been trained. for acting secretary o'roark, our committee has been made aware of a significant number of career employees who have had served under multiple secretaries. these employees have been removed, demoted, or reassigned

or retired after being made aware of adverse actions coming their way. it is concerning, because there are a large number of personal changes, and that brings -- can you tell us how many personnel changes you're aware of for the office of the secretary personnel, including executive secretary, protocall office, centers for women and minority veterans and other included staff in the time between may 30 and july 16. >> if not -- >> i'm making sure i can address two of those. the center for women's veterans. i believe the director resigned last week. now working for national security. it appeared she had moved on to better things. executive secretary, we recognized that we need to make

some changes at the office of secretary level that required us to move some people. they weren't demoted. they moved to another job. the other moved to another gs15 job. so, we're not on a path to move things randomly. these are all very well planned and designed moves to better make efficiency and affecting this at our level. this is something we are encouraging leadership to do across the board. just as mr. kauffman pointed out. if you've had issues with your performance or your organization's performance, do not hesitate to take action. whether that's from misconduct or that's from restructuring to get better performance to serve veterans. >> can you clarify then, were these for performance issues or saying efficiency? >> this is organization. sorry, it's for organizational efficiency. we're talking about when you have an office that is not

performing the way it needs to, that doesn't always mean that a person was committing misconduct of some sort. this means that we're not getting the performance or efficiency that we need. and sometimes it requires a change in leadership. >> all right, well i'm sure we will be revisiting this in six months. what are we seeing and to be clear about what is it that is not performance? how are you measuring that performance and what are you doing to ensure that there's better performance setting out training, being very transparent about what that is. we are hearing a lot about moral impacts, when you lose a lot of senior people, that happening all at once during a time of enacting sectorship is destabilizing. we have major changes, and to be clearing out that many people is of concern about an ability to actually make change. when you have people who are no longer gong longer going to be

there, that have the constitutional knowledge. >> those two that i just mentioned, neither of them were any action taken. we're not talking about something that would be for cause. >> for our -- are you communicating with the nominee about any of these changes? >> no. >> do you intend to do that? it will be important for him to understand if confirmed about what the reasons are for these changes and what you're attempting to achieve. our oversight role is to do that. and we are not being -- i would like you to follow up with us, what were the reasons of these changes, why were they moved to where they were moved, and we'll have to look with back channel of what we are hearing with perhaps different reasons than you are suggesting here today about the rational for these changes. it's of concern. >> i understand. >> politicizing these high level positions, and that's of

concern. >> if there's any question about whether these are loyalty concerns or other implications about why these people are being replaced, that's of deep concern. there's no place for politics in this agency and people need to be held to performance standards and again, when people have served under multiple secretaries, if it's a performance issue, we should be made aware and so should the incoming nominee be made aware of what those issues are. and we should to do our oversight rule. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. o'rourke, a number of people reached out to me, issue within the va would qualify them as whistleblowers. how has the office of accountability training employees about the correct way to handle the whistleblower disclosure in compliance with the law? what do -- how do you train them? >> so, there's been on going training or awareness providing

posting of signs and those things from oig, the office of special council. there are requirements by statute to post how you -- what is a disclosure and what do you do to submit a disclosure to those two agencies. we had to go educate folks of what we needed. we are required to produce an identifying form, and a toll free number that is completely anonymous. those were done in the first few weeks of the office being developed. those are available to all employees in multiple different ways. we also have the website that we keep updated, that describes very clearly what is a disclosure. but we really understood that what we had to do, as i mentioned early, was listen to employees and let them talk about what their issues are. a lot of times when they feel that they can't talk to their management or supervisors, they need somebody to talk to. a lot of the cases we found

from deep diving to older cases, that was what caused a lot of this to fester and grow and then become much bigger an issue unless we addressed it at the site. so we have done a lot in that area. we trained, i believe, 40,000 -- you have those specific numbers. >> so, we've trained 2,000hr professionals and attorneys on the accountability act, also 4,000 supervisors, and 690 members are train there as well. >> so, then i'll ask this. when somebody does come forward, who is it that actually goes to them? is it someone that has been trained from your office? is it someone that is at the site where they're at? how is that handled? >> if they reach out to us, yo u have to remember, they have multiple channels. they have the congress, they have the office inspector general, they can go down any one of those paths to make their disclosure and they are

equally legitimate. if they come to us, through the form or through the hot line, or toll free number, i don't want to call it a hot line, then part of our triage folks will talk to them, if they reach out to us and if they just submit the form, then we reach out to them to fully develop what their disclosure is and give them a sense of what it is. is what they are claiming retaliation, a disclosure, we hand hold them through that process, because we found that's the most effective to addressing that at the lowest level. >> just shift on my other question here a little bit. prior to the hearing, the committee requested copies of written policies and handbooks and regulations that have been sent out and putting things in place. and what they received, they thought were lacking to say the least. is there intent for a larger, more in-depth written policy to be put together so that when

someone from our offices request, okay, what is your checklist? how are you doing it? and how do we know what you're doing is going to be right, not only for the whistleblower, but right for the agency. >> sure. i'll take the criticism of that early on. we had a bias toward action, to actually start reaching out to folks and working with whistleblowers. we had quite a bit of legacy, whether it was senior leader misconduct cases, or a backlog of whistleblowers that wanted to reach out to us. we did focus more on the operational side. we are now trying to see what we've learned from a process standpoint and start to ratify that. we have work to do on creating regulations around what we do. we do have in-depth process maps, which we're sitting down with the oig at this time to go over. so they can see how we handle disclosures, which is interesting, because we both have a similar mission. but that is more work that we have to do. >> you mentioned earlier in

your testimony, you were talking about the 714 hold, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> exactly how does that work and how does that get implemented? >> when a whistleblower is served in action, basically they are given a proposed adverse action of some sort. if they have previously disclosed to the office of special council, the office inspector general. that one is more complicated based on the transparency, we then will reach out to that supervisor or that proposing official and say, you will hold this action until you hear from us. >> okay. >> so they cannot move forward with that action, and we work with human resources. >> and my time is expired. >> removal, demotion, extension. >> thank you so much. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman.

i think i certainly agree with some of your opening comments in terms of change in culture within the va and many have already spoken to that. and i certainly concur with your respective, that changing culture takes time and persistence and patience. it's not easy to change a culture in a very large organization. but we also know that the va is only as good as the employees who work within it. and i am -- i would say too, that the secretary, the proceeding secretaries, you know, changing culture has been one of their top priorities without question. but we continue and i am concerned that we still get negative reporting around the moral within the agency. and that the moral is not very

good. so my first question would be, since the accountability act was instituted, do you think employee moral has increased or decreased since the accountability act has been applied? >> where i visit on trips, i see high moral. i'm not saying that to counter yours. i think best, what we'll know is from our employee survey, which i'll let mr. manley speak to, when we'll have those results, and we'll share them with you all. >> certainly. so as you know, we conducted all employee survey every year. that goes out to every employee across the va and gives them the opportunity to tell us how the moral is, how things are going in their organization. this year's survey closed on

june 25. our commitment is to have those results ready to go mid august. we'll have those results ready to go. i'm on the hook to come back and brief this committee on those results and what we found as a result of the survey. >> the previous moral survey, what were the results of that? >> so, the partnership for public service, va was down the list of places to work. so we'll be comparing this year's results to those previous results to see how we've done. >> thank you. mr. o'rourke, who will be leading the va's personnel department, now that we have the vacancy? >> right now, officially, the principle secretary is leading that office. >> and what is your assessment of the current leadership there and what is your plan to ensure

that the office remains fully functional and able to meet the needs of the agency despite these recent departures. >> absolutely. i think a point to that is, i don't think any office across the federal government is dependent on one person. very important at leadership, but i have full confidence in the leadership team there today. i'll be working with them on what our expectations are going forward. but their role is very complex. as you know, we have hr function throughout the veteran of health administration and the veteran's benefit administration. these are massive organizations across the united states, territories, foreign countries. they have a huge challenge. and we'll be working with them to make sure they have everything they need to continue the progress that we've already made. so, we look forward to that. >> well, from my perspective, the hr department has been a weak spot across the va. if they are not working efficiently and filling

vacancies, then other departments are not operating at full capacity and performance and so it's a constant issue that we have debated and discussed many, many times here in the committee. and so being able to actually fill these i vacancies is really important. i do see it as the weakest link in the system and really, we need to be focused on it very much so. so it just goes to, again, my question around your plan and what your personal involvement will be, to make sure that this department is operating as effectively as possible. >> along with my own personal involvement, asked the chief of staff to be personally involved in this as well. we are taking this leadership

involvement at a very serious level. >> my time is up, and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, thank you for coming here to review the va accountability and whistleblower act. there have been articles regarding physicians who were whistleblowers, and they experienced, they reported this. allegations of isolation limiting access to the computers, bullying, intimidation, and actual threats against their medical licenses. so false claims to the medical boards that would impair their license. there was a case of a va physician who reported over prescribing inappropriate use of opioids. and, after reporting those problems, she had her practice privileges suspended and had false allegations made to her medical board. these are chilling things for

your physicians to hear, both the ones you employ, and the perspective ones you might employ. how does the va protect these whistleblowers? >> first, we take every one of those claims very seriously. when those claims are made to the office, they are immediately addressed through the triage process to develop those further. i can tell you in most of my experience with those cases, there's a lot more to the story. so, we try to find all the story elements that we can and then make a determination very quickly, whether to refer that to the office of medical inspector, if there's something more serious. >> so, i see a number in the data of 319 complaints in the last year of retaliation against the whistleblowers. do you think that is a correct number? >> i think an organization like the va that hasn't done what it should about defining what retaliation is, both from

an educational standpoint, just, you know, the simple education standpoint, but really digging into that, using examples and having every level of management hold each over accountability for that type of behavior. i have seen incredibly examples and claims of whistleblower retaliation that were absolutely not. >> what can -- if someone does experience legitimate retaliation, what action can the va take against that employee who was retaliating against whistleblower? >> there's two forms that will take. if we, in the department find that, then we will take adverse action against that supervisor, manager, it has to be in those categories. >> giving me a for instance, that sounds like a bad thing to do. >> we removed. >> fired. >> we've removed individuals for that, usually after the

second type of requirement. the office of special council there mandatory sentence, if you want to call it, i believe it's 14 days or more suspension. in the first instance of whistle blower retaliation. >> is it important to protect the anonymity of these whistle blowers, so their identity is not -- >> absolutely. >> that's a key concern on the front end. if somebody does come to your office with the legitimate complaint about prescription or something, that they don't -- this is not then public knowledge that they made that complaint. less did they experience these kind of retaliations. >> it's the single highest reason given for retaliation, is that they were a whistleblower. there's other claims of retaliation that have to deal with other types of activity. that's been the single highest. >> protecting the witness, if you will. >> yes. >> witness protection program. gosh, what are we doing? let me change with a minute left here. the gao report last year, when

it came to official time, this time when employees were working, doing union duties on the va payroll, they found that is supposed to be reported. we are supposed to know how much that time is, they go through a process, but we find that un reliable. you have faith in that? is that system going to give us real data? >> yes, sir, we're going to start fully recording everybody's time, that will put about 472 employees back to work. 11 of those being psychologists and 62 being physicians. >> yeah. >> so this will actually be able to help us manage, not just giving folks credit for the official time they need to use, but also putting folks. >> when will that system be rolled out? >> i'm sorry? >> we are on the hook this

month for deployment. . . . . mr. chairman, and thank you mr. rourke for coming to new hampshire to manchester and i appreciate that our meeting and our conversation, i was left hopeful at the time but unfortunately my staff is yet to receive the final ports from either the office of medical inspector or the office of accountability and whistleblower protection. just this past spring the va informed us that these reports were in their final stages. can you give me an update on the status of those reports about the manchester va and a timeline for their release? >> i can't right now but i will get that to you immediately after this meeting. >> if you could read i no people in new hampshire are

anxious to hear about the investigation of the various personnel and the protections, the reason i supported this legislation was to give protections to a whistleblower but apparently something is holding up the final reports. it is important for us to get to the bottom of this. i also want to take into account the situation in bedford massachusetts va medical center next to my home district, which has been the center of at least high -- three high profile issues surrounding patient safety, employee safety and gross fraud by employees. my colleagues and myself from new hampshire felt that the accountability act that we are discussing today would have expedited effective and appropriate action. but it is my understanding that at least one of these employees central to the case is still on

the job. she was accused of fraud and waste, why was she not fired for shifting nearly $200,000 to her brother, and do you no the status of that case and what her current employment situation is? >> i want to be careful because i believe that is still an active investigation but i am familiar with it. do you have an update on where we are at? >> we have taken multiple disclosures and we actually spent two visits to be on the ground taking interviews, interviewing potential whistleblowers for various other employees but i no that was also an ig investigation as well so we tried to make sure we didn't cross into the criminal side. i believe the fact that you are mentioning -- the facts you are mentioning are on the criminal side but i think there was a some resolution with the individuals relative. >> if you get back to my office on that as well, the other is

that again in bedford a whistleblower recently had their allegations substantiated why the special counsel regarding asbestos contamination and subsequent patient and employee concerns about exposure, can you tell us the status of that investigation? >> i will follow up with you, it sounds like something that would go to the office of the medical inspector. >> essentially let me just switch gears here, my time is limited. i have been disappointed by assistant sec. shelby's response, we had a hearing in late june and this is in regard to the march 2018 merit systems protection board study showing that the va has the highest rate of sexual harassment across all federal agencies. his response was dismissive at best and i would like to hear directly from you, do you accept the findings of this study, what are you doing about this issue works what role is the office of the whistleblower

protection involved in that? and what is the timeline for actions at the va to address these allegations? >> first, don't accept that kind of response, it is a serious issue. to reiterate that, at the office of accountability and whistleblower protection are standing policy was any claims, i don't care where they came from, any claims of any kind of sexual harassment or retaliation regarding that or anything required a 48 hour response from our office to have investigators on the ground on site to start those investigations. we had no tolerance for any kind of delay on that. but i'm going to turn it over to mr. manley to provide statistics on the training and some other parts of that program. >> so over the past couple of months we've been looking at what we need to do to make that a more robust program.

is there additional training that we need to do so employees are aware of what their avenues are for reporting? we have a strong policy, we have done recent updates to our handbook at the prompting of eeoc when they came to look at our program although they liked what they saw, they did give us digestions. -- suggestions. we have a 95% training completion rate. >> is your training strictly online or is there an active component by the employees, are they engaged with the trainer in a live interaction? >> the 95% training completion rate is for online training, we have begun a trainer program for in person. >> i think that is much more effective, that is what we have learned on capitol hill, we also tried to make changes and i think the other thing is that knowing that this is from the top down and there is a policy

of no tolerance. i apologize to the chair and i healed back. >> general. bartman you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. terrell -- german. and thank you to the panel for being here. there is always more than one way to skin a cat. but in this case the cat is still the cat. in this case bad behavior is bad behavior. it can vary from embezzling money to poor patient care to you name it. the amount of different categories. but the reporting system in this case needs to be standardized. because if we don't have a standardized way of reporting all the way up the chain, you are going to have variances in potential for outcomes. we want to standardize outcomes. if you've done something heinous, it should be a pretty

severe outcome. if you've done something that could be considered unintentional but nonetheless was bad behavior, that should be met a different way. it's kind of like in the military with the uniform code of military justice. we do have that flexibility. in this case let's talk about standardization. if we visited, if we had all the visiting directors here, do you think based upon your intuition, that we would hear a standardized answer from them as to how they are implementing the act as we envision? >> no. >> okay. is there an effort or a hope that we could get it to an 80% commonality? >> yes sir, and that's why i was short with the first answer. this organization has as part of its culture, a lot of independence, from division to

division and medical center to medical center. we have pointed those things out many times, if you have visited one medical center, you have just visited one medical center. that is not a great thing to say. we require more engagement, it is required at times even working with senior leadership times to address that lack of seeing things the same way and getting on the same page. >> to be have enough data now or are we getting close to having enough data that has come out of the different visits to say wow, these guys have their act together and this is an example that for those other who might be more challenged to say okay if you can't figure out yourself, try what x is doing. >> it has been a lead by example. we have several, and we see this mostly on the whistleblower protection side, with visiting directors taking a lead with reintegrating their whistleblowers that have been

probably in their words, thorns and their sides for a long time for all the right reasons. but they've kind of held that back. they've opened up and allow those few people to reintegrate into their organization to provide the value that they can. so we've had a few that have shown what can be done. it is getting the word out to the others and showing them or sometimes strongly encouraging them that this is the same behavior, the same attitude, the same way that they should be treating those same types of issues. >> you think that the three of you sitting here today at the table being held accountable by us, if we had all the directors sitting at the table instead of you all, do you think they would feel the temperature in the seat like you potentially do? >> i no they will this afternoon. i speak to the national council today and i will pass that along. >> somehow in several of the oversight hearing, that our

subcommittee has had, the lack of the sense of urgency that we have sensed, it is, and now it does fall back onto leadership. whether it is ours as a committee here as a whole, communicating that with you, or than you as the leadership communicating it down your chain of command. because unfortunately in the end, in the end it all boils down to the same outcome and that is a veteran or a group of veterans doesn't get the services that they need. the services they require for a healthy life or whatever it happens to be to benefit them. the reason this was put into place was to hold people accountable but most importantly to protect those who saw bad behavior and don't feel compelled to speak on behalf of the veterans, to

raise their hand and say this is wrong. i see my time is about to expire here but we are here with you. we just need, we will give you all the hammers you need but you need to swing them. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. o'rourke we received many statements for the record from former va employees about their experience after becoming whistleblowers. these experiences included problems with l awp not keeping their disclosures confidential. which resulted in severe retaliation. obviously this is very concerning sense the very purpose of the creation of oh awp was to centralize the whistleblower protection in one place to prevent such things from happening anymore. i'm just going to, i want to point out two of the statements that happened while you were the ahead of oawp.

first was from -- who said it was difficult to get the opportunity to talk to his oawp case manager and that the case manager had not even plan to interview him and reviewing his case. he said his case manager was not aware of a finding in his case and that ultimately oawp did nothing to protect him from being fired. that is number one. number two, we had an engineer by the name of daniel martin, he notified senior officials, about his disclosure, as a result of that, he experienced retaliation that has essentially stripped him of his job except in name only. these seem to me to be two examples of whistleblower protections actually doing the exact opposite. so what are you doing about

this since you are in charge of that department? >> we will direct dr. klein first. this case was much down the road before any of us got involved in that so his identity of his own accord was already proliferated everywhere. his case in particular has been reviewed by osc, we didn't even have a chance to investigate because it wasn't even in our hands but i believe that case resolved with him being removed and the office of special counsel supporting that decision. the people that had initially been found with doing some retaliation to him initially, there is a lot more details in this case that we need to go into. they were disciplined for retaliation because they did likely screw up, they didn't handle that the way they should have. >> they were disciplined? were they removed? >> they got the mandatory osc retaliation penalty of 14 days

of suspension. >> so that is the problem, the punishment for people who retaliate against whistleblowers isn't strong enough, basically that's what you're saying. >> that's the mandatory. to be honest in that case there were several other mitigating factors. it was almost a technicality to charge them with retaliation. >> it seems to me that there is always the benefit of the doubt given to the people retaliating against whistleblowers. >> i don't agree with that. >> but we've seen examples. so i just want to get to the hotline. what is the status of the hotline. there is still no oversight mechanism on the hotline? >> the oag hotline? >> the whistleblower hotline. >> the toll-free number that we maintain? >> yes. >> there is oversight in the sense of oag looking at the files? >> no, oversight to make sure it is being implemented to help

people no, there doesn't seem to be much information about how to access it. >> i will take that as a critique. it is been an effort that we -- >> no, it's affect. >> this has been a top attempt of communication to get the word out, the word has gone out, it is the consistency of that and having folks realize there is a new outlet for their disclosure, there is already a hotline at oag, there is a hotline at osc, there are multiple ways for disclosures to be made. ours is the latest one that got created last june. it's going to take it time before everyone understands exactly and really which one to use. it is confusing to whistleblowers. >> so how do we make it less confusing? want to tell us how we can make it less confusing? >> create one. it has to be taken away from the office of the special counsel. >> there is your oversight.

>> i think people need to have as many outlets as they need for disclosure. we will work out the details on the backend. >> the problem is how you get the information to people and how efficiently you do it and how easy you make it for people to actually dial in number. there needs to be obviously some more oversight in that field. thank you mr. chairman i yelled back. >> mr. matthew are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. o'rourke you got a great kernel sitting behind you, i'm glad to see him working with you. i am the end-user of the va to the tea. i get every bit of my healthcare through the va. i hold weekly office hours in the va for any veteran that wants to talk about any issue, va related. or otherwise. i'm walking the halls there frequently. i see them. i see my fellow veterans

constantly. i see the smiles on them, and i see their truly heartfelt gratitude when they get the care that they were seeking at the va. and i also see their frustration when their care was lacking in timeliness or appropriateness. i hear about it as we all do and that in some asian is what we all want to see, we want to see the care for every end-user at the va just be the best possible care that it can be. summed up very simply like that. i think we all agree on that. now you have said in this hearing several times that you want to see a change in the culture at the va. i just want to give you a chance to espouse upon that. what would you change in the culture at the va if you had a wand and you could build it up brick by brick from the beginning? what would change in the culture of the va for you? what would be your tolerance

for any negligence whatsoever, big or small? what would you change about that, that is my only question for you. i give you the next three minutes and 20 seconds to espouse upon how you would change the culture of the va and what you want to see out of that sir. >> so in the context, first starting in the context in the austin office of account ability and was a lower protection i want us to acknowledge that that is where this starts. it starts with accountability, whether it is a frontline employee, making a bet or whether it is a medical center director that has multiple issues going on during the day but needs to find where he or she should put their priorities. we note that from observation and veterans that are walking to the hospital, that just past the medical center director and got to speak with him briefly, they note that the leadership there that local level is engaged. the medical centers that i have visited, you can feel the difference when leadership is

engaged in that way. the first thing would be medical center directors, leadership fully engaged with their veterans, fully engaged with their staff, listening to them, raising concerns, raising issues whether it is funding, whether it is just alignment of resources, bringing those up and down the chain of command and having that be seamless and transparent. one of the things that is frustrating is that between our administrations and staff offices we have a lot of times where we don't work together on problems, we try to work on them either individually or we just try to not think about them too much. breaking down those barriers between, whether it is between it and vha, or vha and vba, working problems collaboratively with the veterans outcome in mind, that has been said before, that is not something new from anybody to hear but it is truly in the execution, building the processes to support that, that is what would change, i would change

that immediately if i could. but that involves personalities, people have been doing things their whole careers, getting them to move away from those well-established, well- developed opinions and processes is difficult. it takes time. but when you have a law like this, that links together, and i keep saying this, we talked about it over the weekend, why i think, i don't think we give ourselves our congress gives themselves enough credit on this is they put together accountability, performance with this whistleblower retaliation and protection piece , as we talk about it, it is not well-defined and we get stories that come in different ways. and i am not discrediting any of them but really getting to the truth and getting the facts is difficult. it wires people to be, to withhold judgment sometimes and look at all the facts. why i think this is so critical

is it gives us the tools as leadership to talk to other leaders and say here is how you need to hold yourself accountable, hold your people accountable, how you should be performing. and it not just be an empty discussion and then say i'm going to come back in six months if you haven't done these things, i'm going to remove you. i'm going to end your federal service, which is a huge thing. it is not anything that any of us in this office came too lightly. when we go to a medical center director and say your service is now over, sometimes they have 15 or 20 years of service. that is a monumental thing to do but it is what is going to motivate them to get better. it is going to motivate them to be more accountable to their employee. so you see it when you see it, i would love to take those folks and make an example of them across the va and say this is how everybody should operate. >> thank you mr. o'rourke, thank you mr. chairman i yelled back. >> mr. peters you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thank you for being as mr. o'rourke. with the va serving veterans should always come first. we have to value whistleblowers and call out bad actors in toxic culture. it is a big stretch for a lot of us to give the va the tools to make sure that everyone from the secretary all the way down to someone in the cafeteria is serving the veteran. i think we are on board with that. our former secretary said he did not think this would be a tool that would lead to mass firings. dan caldwell of concerned veterans of america wrote a title -- wrote an article titled -- now they can't. that article he writes at the board had a history of blocking the motions of firings of negligent and bad senior va employees. and the current senate chairman

isaacson said he thought the bill would create a culture of account ability at the va. at its passage a lot of democrats were concerned that this would be taken advantage of ultimately they supported the bill. i supported the bill because he thought it was the best compromise to hold the va accountable to fix its own culture. i just want to ask for the possibility, and you addressed some of the numbers, that we not create a culture of fear as opposed to accountability. a culture of fear that makes va employees feel like any small mistake could mean losing their job or it prevents whistleblowers from stepping up and having faith in the accountability system. my colleague ms. custer rightly observed last year that senior executives are at the level at which the decisions are being made, not the lower-level folks. i also want to refer to one more thing, the va put out a press release on april 21, 2018 and it says under va's new leadership which is now firmly in line with president. trump and his priorities, the

departments operations have been proved in many ways. in a number of cases employees who were not on board with his administration's policies are pace of change, have now departed va. under what circumstances do you think that disagreeing with the administration is a fireable offense? >> if it has ever factored into any of the actions we have taken at the va. >> obviously if someone at the senior, i don't know who these individuals are. i appreciate without identifying who they were, what did that mean? people who weren't on board? why have they left? where they asked to leave or what is the context of that? >> anytime you start shifting the operation of an organization and start focusing on things like veterans, folks realize may be on their own that they don't want to be there. i think there are a few cases

we could look at of folks in senior positions where they advocated for a different approach and then the organization went in a different direction and they felt like that wasn't a place they wanted to be anymore. it is a personal decision. >> so in these cases really it just dawned on them that i don't match this organization anymore, it's time for me to leave? no one was asked to leave? >> no, not in the cases that i think you are referring to. those really end up being in some cases we found that there really wasn't an alignment at all with where the va was going. so i'm surprised they stayed as long as they did. >> i understand, to that if someone is not in line with the policies at the high senior level that it might be good to ask them to leave. >> i would go further and say we are not talking about policy, we are talking about the electronic health record, decisions that were made there by dr. silken in this committee or by congress. and also the mission act.

we have some very historic and transformative changes happening at the va and they are going to change the status quo. when that really became the reality for the organization folks had to sit back and take stock of that and see what they wanted to do. >> how are you assuring that people aren't disciplined or fired for their personal political beliefs? as an example of this in the fbi, where a gentleman by all evidence was doing his job but was removed from the case because there was a perception he was biased. how do you parse that when people's personal feelings about the administration might be out of line but they are doing their job okay. are you trying to protect those people? >> when those people in that scenario, absolutely, they get the same reduction as whistleblowers across the board. in misconduct cases, misconduct is not, it has a very specific definition, political has nothing to do with it.

>> it has nothing to do with the person's individual beliefs? >> no. >> mr. o'rourke let me just dive right in here. how many employees do you have who are hired for specific job duties properly outlined in the posting who are now spending 100% of their time on union activity or an unofficial time hide up on official time? >> -- on official time. >> 500. >> how do you hold those people accountable? >> i believe the new orders will require people to be -- >> can you hold people accountable to do a job they are hired to do when they are spending hundred percent of their time on union activity? not the taxpayer-funded needed

for serving our veterans job that they were hired to do. can you hold them accountable? >> -- >> if the answer is no, then it is no. we had a law that passed through the committee and one of the most disappointing experiences on the committee because it was a partisan vote. i didn't get one of my colleagues to vote to reduce that to 25%. i think that is reasonable. do you what the legal standard is for administering official time? i'm not going to try to stop you. let me just read it. you can have official time but it has to be administered in a way that is reasonable, necessary and in the best interest of the public. do you believe somebody spending hundred percent of their time on union activity or official time is reasonable, necessary or in the best interest of the public?

>> i think i would like to answer that question by saying i am looking forward to getting, especially the 11 psychologist that are on 100% union time, back to serving veterans. >> let me ask your colleagues, do you think hundred percent of time spent outside of the job they were hired to do is reasonable, necessary and in the best interest of the public? >> this is the law of the land. it is what we are supposed to do as a committee is hold people accountable to the laws of the land. is it reasonable? >> i can tell you i was hard to serve veterans and when you are not serving veterans you need to take a hard look at what you're doing to get you back to serving veterans. >> it is hard to serve a veteran when you are hard to do a job and then you end up spending a represent of your time, i'm telling you, anybody listening to this across this great country is scratching their heads about how in the world we can create a culture of accountability when you have

policies in place where somebody can spend 100% of their time on something other than what they are hard to do. and that is acceptable. how can that be acceptable? what about you mr. nichols? mr. nicholas? do you think it is reasonable? >> no. >> thank you, it's great to get a direct answer. i hope there is no retribution, maybe you can follow whistleblower can point when you get back so you are protected because i worry for you now but i appreciate the honesty and the american people appreciate it. do the americans, do people have a constitutional right to a job at the va? >> no sir, not that i'm aware. >> should public-sector employees be held to a different sect height of different standard than those -- different standard than those hired by the federal government? >> no sir. >> do va employees retain the

right to sue if they are fired? >> yes her. >> do they have the right to go choose to leave the va and go somewhere else if they don't like it? >> yes her. >> -- yes sir. >> is there a merit system protection board and what is the standard of evidence when they are fired, is it substantial evidence or preponderance of the evidence? what is the standard of evidence that they have to present? >> they don't have evidence. >> let me go back to the line of questioning of my colleague, he said in 2014 where they are about the same proportionately low-wage and veteran employees that were removed as there are

now, so there is no difference. it is just percentagewise. maybe more numbers but as a percentage, the same percentage are existing today. is there -- is there a carveout for low-wage people or high wage people are blonde haired people or blue-eyed people that aren't performing well, is there a carveout for those guys because i would like to no it, that is a loophole we need to fix. >> no sir. >> mr. craig you're recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, gentlemen, the va has a very important mission to take care of our veterans and the job is really one a function of personnel. 99% of the services are personnel related.

personal management is an important issue. the disabled american veterans said there is an issue of personnel management. morel retention, we talked about removing employees. my question is what have we done to retain employees? in this committee we talked about the fact that salaries are not competitive in many places. so what are we doing, what do we need to do to make sure that we hold onto those valued employees at the va? >> absolutely. in the context of the accountability and whistleblower protection law, it is that accountability piece. when employees don't feel safe, when they want to blow the whistle but they can't or don't feel like they can, if they blow the whistle and don't see anything happen, maybe they just talk to their supervisor and say here there is a problem here and they don't see a response, that is an accountability issue. before when we could have a culture of, if i don't do something this time it's not going to make any difference,

and an inconsistency of an application of standards, you develop those problems over time. this law at least provided some tools, more tools for us to be able to address that. but it is going to be the intent, you're exactly right. it has to be our intent as leadership to make sure that we hold each level of management accountable. to then provide those employees at every level >> let me ask the question in a different context. even talk about removing employees. flip it around. retaining employees. what are we doing to make their life at the va something that people wake up and say you what, i'm going to have a great day and go help veterans. >> i think that is where the job i have is actually fairly easy. serving veterans is the best job you can have. i even told the group of political appointees when we first got here, you will not have a more righteous job and working at the va because you get to serve veterans. >> what do we have an issue with turnover?

>> i would say we've got a complex hr system and a complex system in general and it is going to require a very intentional work on our part in your part. >> jodi before you leave them going to follow up on your comments, i want to work with you and figure out how we make it a better place for employees to work. i wanted to follow up with some of your lines of questioning in the two minutes i've got. jodi. are there any employees that should be at the va that you have left to other agencies or organizations that would rather be at the va working that somewhere else? >> not that i'm aware of, i don't believe we make a habit -- >> he's got a good point which is you're supposed to be dedicating 100% of your time working taking care of vets. i just want to make sure are there any other employees at the va that are not actually working at the va but at other departments that you've lent out or assigned to. >> i am not aware of any.

we have actually detailed or brought employees from dod and hhs to the va to help us. a great example is the lady running our hrm program, she is from hhs. highly qualified and skilled in this area. we brought the best we could find to leave that project. >> i would like it if you could go back and look at your notes and see if there are other folks out there that are actually not working in the va that should be working in the va. >> absolutely. >> i'm not aware of any. >> i would yield the rest of my time. >> you went along with the characterization that official time is union time, you actually used the term yourself. is it true that official time can be used to conduct union business? does not the law prohibit that from happening? >> i believe the law does prohibit it. >> so why did you refer, why is

your response to mr. arrington's question going along with the conflation of using union time and official time and saying they are the same thing? are they the same thing? >> they are commonly referred to as the same thing. >> but are they the same thing? >> i'm sure that there are different legal definitions -- back are they the same thing? they are not the same thing. we have gotten lazy in our language. that is the opportunism that is being exploited by mr. arrington by going after union time, after official time. official time is not union time, it is not time to conduct union business. is that correct? >> sir i want to get my psychologists back to work. >> is that correct? >> they are not the same thing. but at the end of the day they are the same thing. >> they are not the same thing. >> your time is expired. >> mr. chairman i would like to

yield a minute of my time to mr. arrington. >> thank you mr. higgins. i think it is the same thing. i think we are trying to parse words up here, i think if you laid it out, and i wish i had it in front of me, i hope somebody can get it and just read through it. you can have somebody on quote official time which is i believe time spent on union activity, actually robbing congress. that is one of the issues or activities that have been applied and determined acceptable. they go to union conferences, there are all sorts of things that i would say it is union activity. i am not saying there shouldn't be unions. i'm saying you can't spend 100% of your time if you are hired to be a physician to take care and provide help services to a veteran, and then end up spending 100% of your time lobbying congress for your union, being at conferences for your union. i just don't think that is acceptable. i don't think it is reasonable,

necessary or in the best interest of the public. i yield back to my colleague mr. hicks. >> thank you. mr. chairman, and the interest of our partisanship perhaps we could consider as a committee around the table to discuss this issue, we all care about the same thing. mr. o'rourke, thank you for being here. do you generally recognize sir that this is an era of reform in the va? that the va has been a mess for decades? it didn't get that way under one administration or one executive or one va committee? and this committee in a very bipartisan matter has touched my spirit, has embraced the spirit to reform -- has embraced the challenge to reform the va. but does the va get it that this is an era of reform? >> i don't think any

organization self reforms. it is going to be what the leadership of this group -- >> is there a clear understanding within the culture that you described, if you could change one thing or if you can identify one thing that reflects this era, of the va as an era of accountability. but i'm going to talk about is their consequence to accountability? i'm just asking you sir generally speaking as a man, as an american, is it recognized within the va that we have to reform this in? >> i think there is a growing number of people in the va that recognize this. >> for the record, i would like you to answer, are msp be judges providing differences and not mitigating penalties? >> yes. >> are arbitrators following the timelines and are they giving difference to the penalty decision? he might not consistently. >> what could be done, that you

could provide in writing for the committee, what could be done as a body to help you enforce within the executive the arbitrators following the actual timeline. are you familiar with confidential informants used across the country in law enforcement? >> you sir. >> the key word there is confidential. do you no what happens to a confidential informant if the detectives of the department reveals their identity? >> yes. >> we pretty much find them in a ditch somewhere. so whistleblowers to me are the equivalent of confidential informants. i reflected concern to my colleagues on both side of the aisle regarding the protection of whistleblowers identities. how can there be any complaints of retaliation if we are effectively protecting the identity of whistleblowers? >> what you bring up is a great point because with retaliatory or retaliation cases the

identity of the whistleblower is no longer protected. >> exactly. >> that gets to the earlier point, >> there is no identity exposed so i think we should have great concern amongst the executive and amongst the body regarding the crucial import, the protection of whistleblowers identities. because they are in effect confidential informants and no more will come forward, we will dampen this reform effort if we don't place a great deal of emphasis on the protection of these identities. i would just like to say that in cases that have been brought up by my colleagues, regarding someone that's been accused of egregious behavior, are they allowed to continue on the job or are they placed on unpaid administrative leave? >> depending on their functional area, a local decision is made. >> do you have the power to paste them high to place them on

leave ? >> it is severely restricted. >> mr. lamb you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you strattera. -- thank you mr. chairman. >> the time that is governed by the collective bargaining agreement? >> yes. >> and that collective bargaining agreement is struck between the members of afge and the va? >> correct. >> that is something those members were free to contract on their own with the va? >> yes. >> and decide how they want that time to be used as part of the contract? >> yes. one fact and that is that it is a contract we have had for how many years now? seven? >> seven years.

>> so it is a freely bargained contract? >> to be very clear we did negotiate a way management rights that we were not supposed to do. >> but the contract stands. >> yes. >> you were in the military as well, right mr. o'rourke? >> yes. >> in the military officers are frequently held accountable for the actions of their subordinates, right? >> yes. >> you are familiar with the phrase officers eat last? >> yes. >> part of the military culture is that people at the top are supposed to look out for the people below them and take accountability for the actions even if it's not the officer's direct fault. they have responsibility for the people underneath them. >> yes. >> that promotes a pretty good culture in the military right? >> yes. for the most part. >> do you draw from your military experiences in your leading of the va? >> yes.

>> is there overlap between the kind of culture you want to promote in the given our -- yes. >> one thing i saw in the re- marine corps, when you create that kind of culture you have leaders go out and take responsibility for the people below them even when no one tells them to. the people below them see that and they want to succeed for the person who is leading them because they don't want that person to get fired and think they are doing a good job. when you talk about creation of a culture that is what ends up happening day today. are you familiar with that? >> yes. be back if we just look at 2018 -- >> if we just look at 2018 there've been about 15 managers fired overall? >> yes. >> is fair to say that whatever the number is there have been hundreds of housekeepers, food service workers, nursing assistants fired in that same time? >> i think that is where our

military analogy starts to break down a little bit because we're talking about high turnover hourly wage. >> there are hundreds of people in that category. >> but we are also talking about highly desperate numbers. we have 400 scs is, we have -- >> but that is an accurate number? >> but we need to look at percentages. the removal as a percentage, >> at the same time we have a lot of vacancies in the lower level positions right? and in pittsburgh for example near my district, we have seen 46 adverse actions against low- level employees since the law was up limited and there are 300 vacancies among similar positions. i want to ask you, if you are one of the people, so you are a food service worker or

housekeeper, you've seen 46 of your colleagues receive adverse actions in the past year. there are 300 potential colleagues missing because of vacancies. you would agree that increases the workload for you, right? you probably have more of a workload if you would had. >> i believe we need to put this in context because i believe there is probably the same number fired the year before and the year before that. >> but there are people missing from the lower levels in the va? >> these are not easy places to hire into and with the veterans preference, that makes it even more difficult sometimes. >> from the housekeepers perspective they've seen 46 colleagues punished and 300 missing. very few if any managers have been dismissed in that time. do you think that they feel like they are part of a culture where officers eat last today? >> i don't believe that is going to be the best way to

describe that since we are talking about >> i don't think so either. mr. chairman i heal the balance of my time. >> mr. sec., thank you all for being here today, i appreciate that and being no further questions the first panel is dismissed. i would like to invite our second panel to the witness table. thank you for your service.

joining us on the second panel this morning as mr. j david cox, the national president of the american federation of government employees. mr. cox you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today. the accountability act has turned out to be the most counterproductive va law ever enacted. it has done more harm to the dedicated workforce, a third of whom are veterans themselves. here is what so-called accountability looks like under the new law. although the va has tried to hide the fact by denying information request from congress and afge, the published data tells a terrible story of the 1096 va employees fired and the first five months of 2018, only 15 were supervisors and that doesn't mean they were just scs or's.

virtually all of them were disabled vets, nursing assistants, food service workers and medical support assistance. these groups make up 51% of all removals. the va has refused to provide information on veteran status, gender or race of those fired. probably to hide the disproportionate effect of this harsh law on the most vulnerable individuals. even though we don't have complete data the disproportionate impact on the va's lowest paid in veteran workforce is undeniable. all of our current openings for housekeeping aids are for preference eligible veterans and virtually all payless then $35,000 annually. nursing assistant positions start at around $30,000 and food service national postings list hourly wages as low as $11 an hour. these are the jobs of the people being fired under the new accountability law.

this destructive law was enacted despite warnings from experts that mismanagement, not the union, and not job protections for front-line employees, was undermining the va's capability to deliver services to veterans. healthcare experts repeatedly presented evidence that the va healthcare system outperforms the private sector. before anyone points to the phoenix scandal as justification for this law please recall that statements by phoenix va patient schedulers confirm that the wait list gaming was caused by severe shortages of providers and distorted management incentive systems. not the union, contracts, and not incompetent or heartless workers who couldn't be fired. gaming the scheduling system has been a product ever since post-9/11 veterans started returning home with complex medical needs over 15 years ago. we've been telling congress

that chronic short staffing was causing waitlist manipulation and severe access problems at va medical centers. we've also been asking for additional staff to reduce the claims backlog at vba. yet thanks to the accountability law, for essential claims processing positions, veteran service representatives, claims examiner and claims assistant were among the largest groups of fired employees in 2018. destroying federal employee due process and union rights continue to be the vehicles of choice for those intent on destroying the civil service and starving the va into further privatization. in the accountability law the lower standard of evidence in particular has lent fuel to the firing of employees along with preventing msv b administrative judges from imposing a lesser penalty when the evidence doesn't support removal. before the accountability law, va routinely offered employees a chance to improve their

performance before firing them. now the agency is using its new authority not to shorten it but to go straight to firing. finally the act was supposed to improve protections for whistleblowers but as we warned, it has had the opposite effect. it is easier than ever to fire a whistleblower and you can see the examples of how this has occurred in my written statement. i want to conclude by pointing out that while the va has not yet moved to evict all union representatives from their offices at the social security administration did last week. no conversation about federal labor-management relations should occur without addressing this. president. trump is attempting to ruthlessly bust our union which hide up with his executive orders. -- with his executive orders. i asked that this committee act to stop the va from behaving in the same horrendous manner as the ssa. this committee has an

obligation to the democracy with which hide up for which veterans risk their lives. -- for which veterans risk their lives. thank you mr. chairman i will be glad to take questions from anyone. >> thank you mr. cox. for the record when i came to the congress in 2009, the va had about 250,000 employees and were spending about 97 1/2 billion dollars on benefits, cemeteries and healthcare. the president is asking this budget be $192.5 billion. i am not sure what the number is but 360 or 370,000 members at the va, larger than you the united dates navy. so we have added 100 and something thousand employees in the last nine years. and double the budget. that looks to me like the va is managing its assets. and i don't disagree with you,

i think management is a huge part of the equation. we are not doing something right. we are not getting the bang for our buck if we are doing that. basically, what evidence do you have that the accountability law is being used improperly when i am looking at gs one through six, oa wp, 61% of the dismissals, so the percentage actually in 0 to 6, have gone down. not up. >> mr. chairman i think if you look at the fact that 15 management employees, and i heard the acting sec. refer to only 400 and something scs or's, there are tens of thousands of managers throughout the rank and file of the va from housekeeping aids the revisor's new services were -- food service supervisors,

15 is grossly disproportionate. the phoenix scandal was all caused by top management in that va, and we all no it was not from the front-line employees who were blowing the whistle who our union had to represent because management was trying to fire them. i would also like to add many of these veterans are returning and continue to return and we are not making just a 50 year commitment, we are making a 60, possible 70 your commitment to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans and the number of staff is going up but there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans whose lives have changed, not suffered with a broke leg, i have learned about veterans suffering every day of their life. >> i wasn't asking you to filibuster my time, this congress, this committee has provided resources to the va. there is no question about that. we have over double the amount

of money, and the other part, the discretionary part of our budget until we voted for the omnibus budget had remained flat. we took money from other agencies and funded the va. i think it is disingenuous to say that we are not providing or to imply that this committee and this congress is not providing restasis -- resources for the va. i don't disagree with you on management, i think that is part of the problem. let me ask you a second question. do you think there are fireable offenses at the va? do you think there are reasons you should be terminated? >> yes sir and i said that every time i've come before your committee or any other committee. there is wrongdoing that should be fired. >> thank you. and if the law is being done properly, what would you do to change this law if it is not being done as it was written and as intended?

as i said on a voice vote from the united states senate. >> i would change the law to go back to the proper penalty, the ability of msv b judges to mitigate penalties, because due process and having the checks and balances is the way we avoid having a solidified federal workforce. now when we basically have employees who can be fired at will, we have somewhat of a politicized federal workforce and there was a reason why we have msv be and other entities for the federal >> you would recommend going back to what we had, which clearly wasn't working. i'm not saying this is working perfectly yet but what we had was not working either. in your written statement you said the law has -- employees with extensive training in employees who have been fired under the accent authorities without a fair chance to prove their performance hide up to

improve their performance. even if i accept this, why would these great employees need a chance to a improve their performance? >> many of our veterans that are hired are hired with service-connected disabilities, one of the ptsd and many of us no that have a background, i'm a nurse and you are a doctor, we understand the illness of ptsd. working with those employees and also with their behavior, sometimes we have to disk a -- de-escalate and i will come in some other agencies that have realized that and try to put in accommodating situations for people with ptsd. and we understand that sometimes you are in a wheelchair and have a visible disability but there are many disabilities veterans have that we need to certainly try to work with. >> my time has expired. >> thank you. mr. cox? mr. works said that one of the

things that they have done to ensure smooth implementation and protection of whistleblowers is listening. including listening to employee unions. do you feel that you are being included or your members have been included in productive conversations with va about the implantation of the law? >> no sir we haven't and i would point out that with this office of accountability and whistleblower protection, we are not aware of any training or any mechanism that the va has done to try to trane rank and file employees. i believe i heard mr. o'rourke say that they had trained managers, we are not aware of any training, at one time we had requested the telephone number, we publicized for our membership to allow them to at least have it and after that the va put up a number.

historically i transferred with bonuses and various things and i know the committee has investigated that and you could not deny those facts.>> the picture that my colleagues from pennsylvania presents about these vacancies at these low level jobs or

entry-level areas and housekeeping is vacancies but the idea that 40 or 50 people are dismissed in one year has to have an impact on morale. go ahead, sir.>> it does have an impact on morale and particularly when people believe that they are fired without due process. when people have their due process rights they are offered opportunities to improve. they don't improve and i will agree with the chairman, some people fire themselves but the burden shifts on them but people need to be given in -- an opportunity and they need to be properly instructed expect he talked about the training. after you heard of that receiving training on their

whistleblower right? >> no, sir, we haven't.>> i heard mr. o'rourke quietly say as he was concluding his testimony, he was complaining about the veterans preference that that is the reason why there is these vacancies at places like the facility. i heard similar complaints made about them and the inability to hire sufficient housekeeping staff. let's be clear, the haskett -- housekeeping staff is not on's dish unskilled. it is on -- a very important role to keep everything moving. is that a fair sense that the preference is getting in the way of hire sufficient staff? >> sir, i believe veterans who have served this country lawyerly and put it all on the line so i have the freedom of

speech and everyone in this room has and we have the greatest checks and balances in the government, they deserve those jobs and i will always take veterans preference.>> restricting the use of official time, his official time, could it be used to help some of the veterans who are employed in these positions, the ones with ptsd and and housekeeping roles, is that an appropriate use of official time? >> yes, it is.>> is that what official time is used for? >> yes, sir, it is.>> i did not have time to get into the negotiated collective bargaining agreement which provided for official time. >> thank you. >> inc. you mr. chairman and thank you

for joining us today on the spinal. i want to check a few numbers. the numbers in the va. >> we represent a quarter of 1 million. i cannot give you the exact number. >> if we take the union dues at the lowest level per month, $18 and multiply that, that is 4,000,366 thousand dollars per month that they make. that is $52 million per year. my question to you is why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for office space where employees for the union that clearly has the means to support all of those things on its own? >> sir, i am not sure your computing those numbers. if you check the national budget it is $80 million and

that is coming from all of the government agencies. you can check online. but i would also say i believe -- >> $18 a month? >> it would vary all over the country.>> that is the lowest.>> no, sir. we have 1000 locals and some of them may be less than $10 a pay period. in answer to your question, in 1978, congress passed a civil service reform act.>> the time here -- >> there was 500, almost 500 employees at the va who are 100 % not doing the jobs were hired to do. these are highly skilled positions. psychologists and physicians who were hired to be psychologists and physicians and are in error -- never seeing patient -- patients.

does that make sense to you? >> i am not talking about official. let's talk about using their official time and the taxpayers are paying their salaries and they are not working for the taxpayers. they are working for the union.>> that is where we disagree. in 1978 congress gave the right of official time and it will be up to congress to pass a different law.>> the legal standard for what constitutes official time as and i am sure you are familiar with this, reasonable, necessary and in the best this is -- interest of the public? is at the best interest of the public? it is difficult to recruit. we have shortages. put them to work doing union duties.>> i yield to the wisdom of congress in 1978 when they

passed the law.>> the wisdom of congress. do you think the americans at home washing -- watching this here are reacting that we have hundreds of highly paid specialists are not doing any work.>> they are doing work because congress passed a law that said official time was reasonable and necessary.>> let me tell you how the people are responding. i think they are shocked and dismayed. i think they are angry. i think they demand we actually fix the problem like this. i don't think i can go home and walk the streets and say this is okay. don't worry about it we are paying them much more than you will ever make to do something that is not serving the va were veterans. some statistics concerning the

budget and they side of -- size of the workforce. shocking numbers. nine years we have doubled the budget . we added 100,000 employees to the role and in the same nine years i promise i don't think the va care has improved by any significant amount. probably the opposite. i am disappointed. i would echo the comments of my colleague about reform. i think the va is in need of reform and i think we are here to do that. i am committed to do that. missed and chairman.>> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here today. your voice is important to this discussion obviously but many discussions we have here in the committee. i wanted to ask you and your testimony, you talked about the

disproportionate impact on lower level employees and the percentage of adverse actions has remained roughly constant before and after the accountability act. do you agree with that data? do you agree with that description see -- discrepancy? >> tens of thousands of management officials throughout the va and you are telling me only 15 out of 1096 were managers that had discipline problems or performance problems . 85 rank and file people where the problems?

that seems disproportionate. as i go back to phoenix, let's talk about that. the horrible incentives that are in there and we can talk about that but you have all been there many times.>> as an organization, do you collect data on employee morale? >> a survey or such? >> more of it is antidotal from the locals. we believe morale is very, very low because there is a real fear of people using -- losing their rights to representation. there is a great, great fear and all federal agencies how the politicize civil-service workforce and i think that should scare everyone of us to death.>> does the va reach out to you? they testified this morning that they have a survey out now and expect results 45 days from now in terms of

trying to measure morale within the va? does the va reach out to you and say, can you help us make sure the employees are filling this out? this data is important. to they reach out to you and ask for assistance to try to get accurate data? >> since secretary mcdonald has left i have not heard a word from the va.>> thank you. it is fair to say and the survey they talked about the result of the previous survey that is public information and it is not very good and in this survey they are not reaching out to you in anyway.>> i have not heard anything from them.>> in your testimony, you talk about the whistleblower hotline that is not being made public. have you heard reports from employees that it is difficult for them to find the hotline

information? >> yes, ma'am, we have. we requested that information and shared it with the membership. that is out they became aware. after we did that the va came out. i would say that the union contract is the best thing in the world to protect whistleblowers and then we've got a special cancer -- counselor. they have done a great job creating a separate entity. on both sides of this room, there is not a soul that once more bureaucracy and afg does not want more protection. >> have you requested the va make this whistleblower number public information? >> yes, we have expect i have not heard a response.

>> you also testified that the va has stopped used -- using performance appeasement -- improvement plans. have you seen this at every level and level? >> yes. whether it is mid-level, lower- level? >> i am aware of the rank and file employees but not aware of what they do with management.>> i have a few seconds left. i know that one of the issues that they struggled with is getting data from the va as to how the accountability act is being implemented but additional data have they requested that is not available? >> i would have to look to my folks because we have requested many things and have gotten very little or no data. we want to know the veterans preference. we obviously want to know gender. we want to know grievances.

veterans preference gender, ethnicity if they have it, age and all of those things showing patterns of treating one person different than others.>> you are not sure that is being collected? >> we know it is being collected they collect lots of data.>> thank you.>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for appearing before the committee today. i don't know if i have ever witnessed a more passionate union employee.>> i am a register -- registered nurse that cared for veterans.>> and a dedicated space -- spokesman. we are here to service veterans and americans should not be prounion or antiunion. we should be pro-american and

pro-veteran. on that side of your table you have made repeated testimony regarding the numbers of the a employees that have been let go. obviously there is a process by which the employee is fired like anywhere else. supervisors, according to your testimony, sir, and i sq respectfully, that number reflects a disparity in your opinion as compared to housekeeping, nursing assistance, registered nurses, medical support assistance which are the largest numbers but go. would you agree that is been your testimony? >> it seems like a small number and proportion to the fact that there is thousands, tens of thousands expect it is it your testimony that it seems like it

or it is? >> i don't have all the information and all the things to rely -- >> you are an intelligent gentleman you are making clear and courageous statements. do you think that not enough supervisors have been fired? >> that would be up to the wisdom of the committee.>> in my opinion i think the va needs to make the data available and maybe they would take my personal feelings.>> members of your union? >> they are not represented by our union.>> it seems to me that you have a general consensus that the existing law that was enacted, the goal of the accountability law was to bring swifter action to va employees regardless of seniority or position and make sure that the judges did not

circumvent the managers decisions. it seems to me you are stating that the managers that are in place are abusing the existing law making it nonfunctional and that more managers should be fired, more supervisors should be fired. is that your statement? >> i think that is how you are interpreting it.>> do you believe more supervisors should get fired? >> any employee who is not doing their due diligence should be held accountable.>> should there be a consequence to that accountability? >> yes, sir, there should.>> does that include being fired? >> yes, sir.>> the employees that have been fired, have they all not in their hiring process , their training, their certifications, have they been documented? whatever their

position in the va, have they not received extensive training and certification for their job? >> we would certainly hope so but i would look at the records. >> it is a matter of law that the qualifying individuals fill the positions.>> the lack of a current improvement program, what could possibly be presented to an american man or woman that is highly qualified and certified for a position within the va? whatever the position is because veterans and americans are doing -- done with the past performance of the va. we demand reform. we are committed to making it happen. or possibly could an employee of the va having be highly trained and certified regardless of position, why if

they are found to be negligent in their duties, why would they not be fired? what could they possibly learn from a three week performance improvement program that they did not learn in six months or years of certification and training prior to being hired? >> sir, i think part of the issue is the va constantly changes the standards trying to crank the machine up. it may not be a realistic machine to do that type of work.>> may i submit that every american man and woman in this hearing today, we bring our standards to work. there is no such thing as medial labor in my life pick there is only menial when and -- man and woman pick it is impossible for a man or woman of standards to perform a menial task because there is no such thing pick there is only menial man and woman. in your testimony, you have

repeated the mantra that the current law is not working. may i suggest that management of the current law is what we need to address.>> could you explain in a little more detail some of the examples of how and why people are being fired in such large numbers since the implementation of this act. based on the information of your testimony it is not so simple as an employee being found negligent in the care of a particular veteran. there is often other reasons? suspect that is correct. the benefits change continuously. to speed up the process and the claims faster. >> in fact, there was several

examples detailed in your testimony where people have been fired after making whistleblower complaints, right? >> yes, sir. that happened in phoenix and other places the union had to come to the rescue.>> you are a registered nurse at the va.>> 23 years. during that time did you have experienced seeing other nurses or other employees in any job going through a performance improvement program? >> yes or and many of them successfully completed it. a high number completed it because there was additional training and understanding the va is a complex statement but the best healthcare anyone can get in this country. thank god that veterans are getting it.>> when you hear about a situation like ours in pittsburgh where 46 lower-level

employees have suffered adverse actions in the last year and we have 300 vacancies, from your time at the va, do you think that increases the day to day burden on the employees left? >> it certainly does and it jeopardizes the veterans if the housekeeping and people think of it as a menial task but they are responsible for the cleaning and sanitizing for infection control and it is the most important job.>> are you in touch with the lower-level members? it is not the right term but people feeling and the nursing assistant, food workers, cleaners, are you in touch with them? >> sram.>> how are they reacting to the last six months and the large number of people being fired in a small number.>> there is a fear. there is a lot of fear and a feeling that it

will continue until morale improves and everything is all better and i think we all know that that is not the way that you get the best performance. >> do you think that helps them do their job? >> i think it creates fear and when you have fear in an organization you never get the best performance.>> do you think it helps to their job any better for there to be fewer employees around on a -- fewer employees on top of the vacancies? >> no, sir. there needs to be sufficient employees to get the proper work is done. at the end of the day, without that being accomplished, the veteran suffers.>> thank you. >> thank you for being here with us until the end. thank you once again for being here. no further questions.

all members have five legislative dates. closing comments.>> i am pleased to see that there is many to share the concerns of the minority. adequate whistleblower protection and how the o awp is fulfilling or not fulfilling its role. people on both sides are concerned about the spec i want -- and i want to take note. i asked a question about how well the va is making good on its statement that they are listening to employees. i know that they departed quite swiftly before mr. cox's testimony. that is an indication of how they are listening to union officials and members.

i cannot see that they have statements that are credible. i am troubled by the disappearance of the performance improvement plans among the rank and file employees at the va and the general, i can see how there could be a very credible claim of a culture of fear within this organization. fear that is pervasive. fear that comes from large numbers of your fellow employees being fired without due process, without being able to tell your side of the story. it creates a condition of fear and it depress -- depresses morale and i am troubled about how i am seeing the implementation of this accountability act go forward. let me say there was claims.

the one place of refuge that the secretary took was to say well, we are firing the same number of people. that is not really a great claim to stand on because this law was intended to improve our ability. we are talking about firings and people moved and dismissed. not just turnover and difficult job >> we are talking about the veterans. we are talking about a workforce that has been the most impacted. people who fought for our country. i think you can do better. i am just amazed at the implementation of this law. i hoped it would be better. i am cautiously optimistic. we can get it right but i question

whether that is occurring now. thank you.>> thank you for yielding. i think it was a very good hearing. it is one year. the accountability and whistleblower protection act has a lot of work to be done. making sure the whistleblowers are protected and feel comfortable coming out. i have been an employer for 30 years. you, if you are short of personnel, you don't fire adequately performing employees. you reward them for staying. if i were a manager in pittsburgh and having to get rid of everybody and i was already short, they would have me -- have to do something pretty egregious. the va is having an issue with hiring people like businesses across the country. we have a labor shortage right now.

the va has to be a place people want to work. for the record, we get hung up in numbers and all that but when the discussion was going on, i had a chance to look at the june 1, 2016 to june 22 2017 before the act and after the act and in one through six, the percentage of people terminated, you have to look at the percentage because the number of employees has gone up. it is less. seven through 10 where some of the people need to be terminated and it went up and 11 through 15 percent went up. the only percent that went down and this was reasonable. here are the facts. i appreciate

everyone being here. i think there is a lot of work to be done. this committee is committed to keep an eye on the va. i appreciate everyone's attendance. meeting is adjourned.