test test test . .

we have done recent updates to our handbook at the prompting of eeoc when they came in to look at our program. although they liked what they

saw, they did give us some suggestions so we are implementing those in our handbook. from a training perspective, we have a 95% training rate completion. >> sorry to interrupt, but is your training strictly online, or is it -- is there an active component by the employees? are they engaged with a trainer in a live interaction? >> the 95% training completion rate is for online training. we've now started an in-person program. >> i think it is much more effective, certainly what we are hearing on capitol hill. we've also tried to make changes. i'm sorry my time is up. but the other thing is knowing that this is from the top down and that there is a policy of no tolerance, so i apologize to the chair and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, thanks to the panel here for being here today because there's always more than

one way to skin a cat. but in this case, the case 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 to the chain, you're going to have variances then in potential for outcomes. because we want to standardize outcomes. if you've done something heinous, should be a pretty severe outcome. if you've done something that could be considered unintentional, but nonetheless was bad behavior, that's met in a different way. it is kind of like the military, the uniform code of military justice.

we do have that kind of flexibility. but in this case, let's talk about standardization. if we had all the directors here, do you think based upon now that you're into it, that we would hear a standardized answer from them as to how they're implementing the act as we envisioned? >> 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'm short with that first answer. this organization has part of its culture a lot of independents from medical center to medical center. those things we pointed out at different times, if you've visited one medical center, you've visited one medical center. that's not a great thing to say in all categories, especially not in this.

so it is going to require more engagement. it has required at times even working with the senior leadership teams to address that lack of seeing things the same way and kind of getting on the same page. >> do we have enough data now, or are we getting close to having enough data that has come out of the different that are maybe more challenged, to say if you can't figure it out yourself, try what someone else is doing? >> it has really been lead by example. we see this mostly on the whistle plo-blower protection s with leaders reintegrating their whistle blowers that have probably been, in their words, thorns in their side for a long time, for a lot of the right reasons. but they just held that back. now they've opened up and allowed those few people to come back in and re-integrate into

the organization and 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 all the others, then showing them or sometimes strongly encouraging them this is the same behavior, same attitude, same way that they should be treating those same type of issues. >> do you think that -- the three of you are sitting here at 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 know they will this afternoon. i speak to the national leadership council of vha and i will pass that along. >> well, somehow in several of the oversight hearings that our subcommittee has had, lack of the sense of urgency that we have sensed, and now it does fall back on to leadership. whether it is ours as a committee here of the whole communicating that with you, or

then 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 group of veterans doesn't get the services that they need, they require for a healthy life, for whatever it happens to be to benefit them. and the reason this was put into place was to hold people accountable, but most importantly, to protect those who saw bad behavior and felt compelled, on behalf of the veterans, to raise their hand and say, hey, this was wrong. so i see my time is about to expire here, but we're here with you. we just need -- we'll give you all the hammers you need, but you need to swing them. thank you and i yield back.

>> thank ymr. o'rourke, the com received many statements for the record from former va employees about their experience after becoming whistle blowers. these experiences included problems with oawp not keeping their disclosures confidential which resulted in severe retaliation. obviously this is very concerning since the very purpose of the creation of oawp was intended to actually centralize the whistle-blower protection in one place to prevent such things from happening anymore. i'm just going to -- i just want to point out two of the statements that happened while you were the head of oawp. the first was from a physician by the name of dale klein who stated that it was difficult to get the opportunity to talk to his oawp case manager and that the case manager had not even planned to interview him in reviewing his case.

he said his case manager was not even aware of an oig finding on his whistle-blower case, and that ultimately oawp did nothing to protect him from being fired. that's one. two, had an engineer by the name of daniel martin who stated oawp notified the senior officials against whom he was doing the whistle blowing about his disclosure. as a result of that, he experienced retaliation that has essentially stripped him of his job except in name only. so these seem to me to be two examples of whistle blower protection actually doing the exact opposite. so what say you about this since you were in charge of that part? >> sure. we'll address dr. klein first. that case pre-dated the establishment of oawp and his 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 had in particular has been reviewed by osc. we didn't even -- we didn't have the chance to investigate it 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's a lot more details to this case that we need to go into -- they were disciplined for retaliation because they did, frankly, screw up. they did not handle that the way they should have. >> so disciplined. were they removed? >> they got the mandatory osc retaliation penalty, a 14-day suspension. >> so that's the problem. the punishment for people who retaliate for whistle blowers isn't strong enough is basically 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 him with retaliation. >> it seems to me that there's always a benefit of the doubt given to the people who retaliate against whistle blowers. you can shake your head -- >> i don't agree with that. >> well, okay, but we've seen example after example of it. >> okay. >> i have limited time. i just want to get to the hotline. what is the status of the hotline? there's still no oversight mechanism on "the hotline"? >> oag hot line? >> the whistle-blower hotline. >> the toll-free number that we maintain? >> yeah. >> there is oversight in the sense of oig looking at the files. >> no. oversight to make sure it is actually being implemented. >> it exists. >> i know it exists, but there doesn't seem to be much information how the there about how people can access it. >> i'll take that as a critique. >> it's not a critique. it is a fact. >> it is communications throughout the organizations.

this has been a top-down communication of getting the word out. we've done all employee mails. the word has gone out. it is the consistency of that and having folks realize there is a new outlet for their disclosure. there's already a hotline at oig. there's already a hotline at oic. there are hotlines. ours is the latest one that got created last june. it will take time before everyone understands exactly -- and which one to use. this is confusing to whistle blowers. >> how do we make it less confusing? why don't you tell us how we can make it less confusing? >> create one. >> okay. that's a great idea. >> then you'll have to take it away from the office of inspector general and the office of special counsel that are governed by other statutes. i don't want to be zblib. glib. i think whistle blowers should have as many outlets they need. we'll work out the complexity on the back end. that requires more -- >> the problem is that if you flood people with -- it's how you get information to people

and how efficiently you do it and how easy you make it for people to actually dial a number. there needs to be obviously more oversight in that field. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for being here, mr. o'rourke. you got a great colonel sitting behind you. i've known the man for a number of years. i am glad to see him working with you. i'm the end user of the va to the t. i get every bit of my health care 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 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 and i hear about it both as we all do. and that's -- in summation what we all want to see, we want to see the care for every end user of the va. just be the best possible care that it can be. it's summed up very simply like that. i think we all agree on that. it is what we want to see. you've said in this hearing several times that you want to see a change in the culture of the va. so i just want to give you a chance to espouse upon that. what would you change in the culture of the va if you had a wand, if you can 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's 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,

what you want to see out of that, sir. >> assume the context of first starting with the context of the office of accountability and whistle-blower protection, i want us to all acknowledge that that's where this starts. it starts with accountability, whether it is a front line employee making a bed, or whether it's 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 know that from observation. you meet veterans that are walking through a hospital that just passed the medical center director and got it speak with him briefly? they know that the leadership there at that local level is engaged. the medical centers that i visit, you can feel the difference when leadership is engaged in that way. the first thing would be is medical center directors, leadership fully engaged with their veterans, fully engaged with their staff. listening to them. raising concerns. raising issues. whether it's funding, whether

it's just alignment of resources. bringing those up and down the chain of command and having that be seamless and transparent. one thing that's frustrating a lot of times is between our administrations, between our 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's between i.t. and vha, whether it is between vha and vba. working problems collaboratively with the veteran's outcome in mind. that has been said before. that's not something new for anybody to hear. but it is truly in the execution of that, from the very building of processes to support that, that's what would change -- i would change immediately if i could. but that involves personalities. that involves people that 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 what i -- i'll keep saying it -- why i think this is -- why i don't think we give ourselves or the congress gives themselves enough credit on this is they put together accountability performance with this whistle blower retaliation, whistle-blower protection piece which, as we even talk about, it is not well defined and we get stories that come in different ways and i'm not discrediting any of them. but really getting to the truth and getting to the facts of those is difficult, and it requires people to be -- to withhold judgment sometimes, then look at all the facts and make determinations there, not just go off on a track. why i think this is so critical is that it gives us the tools as leadership to talk to other leaders and say, here's how you need to hold yourself accountab accountable, hold your people accountable, how you should be performing. and it not just be an empty

discussion. then say i'm coming 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. that is not anything that any of us in this office ever came to lightly. when we go to a medical center director and say your service is now over, sometimes when they've had 15, 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 employees. you see it when you see it at a medical center. i'd love to take those folks and make an example of them across the rest of the va and say this is how everybody should operate. but i've gone over my time. >> thank you, mr. o'rourke. >> mr. chairman, thanks for being here today with us. at the va, serving veterans should always come fires. we have to value whistle blowers who call out bad actors and a toxic culture. that's why a lot of us supported the accountability act which 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, not the bureaucracy. i think we were on board with that. a former secretary shulkin said he didn't think this would be a tool that would lead to mass firings. dan caldwell of concerned veterans of america wrote an article entitled "one accountable government board stands in the way of va accountability." because this bill, senior officials could appeal decisions to the merit protection systems board. now they can't. in that article he writes that board had a history of blocking demotions -- or firings of negligent and bad senior va employees. and the current senate chairman isaacson said he thought the bill would create a culture of accountability at the va. at its passage a lot of democrats signaled concern this would be taken advantage of. ultimately, support of the bill -- i supported the bill because we thought it was the best compromise to hold the va accountable to fix its own

culture. i just want to explore the possibility that -- you've addressed some of the numbers, that we not create a culture of fear as opposed to accountability. a culture of fear that makes the va's employees feel like any small mistake could mean losing their job or prevents whistle blowers from stepping up and having faith in the accountability system. my colleague miss custer rightly observed senior executives are the level at which decisions end up being made, not the lower level folks. i wonder -- i also just refer to one more thing. va put a press release out on april 25, 2018. it is very short. it says, "under va's new leadership which is now firmly aligned with president trump and his priorities, the department's operations have improved in many ways. in a number of cases employees wedded to the status quo and not on board with this administration's policies or pace of change have now departed va." i wonder under what circumstances you think that

disagreeing with the administration is a fireable offense. >> that's never factored into any of the process actions that we've taken at va. >> let me explore. obviously if someone at the senior -- i don't know who these individuals are. i'd appreciate some maybe without identifying who they were kind of what does that mean? people "who were on board." why have they left? were they asked to leave? what's the context for that? >> in he time you start shifting the operation of an organization to start focusing on things like veterans, whether it is electronic health record admission act, those things, folks realize maybe on their own they don't want to be there. i think maybe there is a few cases of folks in senior positions where they advocated for a different approach, and then the organization took another -- went in a different direction and they just felt like that wasn't a place they want to be anymore. that's a personal decision.

>> in these cases, it just dawned on them, i don't match this organization anymore, it is time for me to leave? is that what you're saying? no one was asked to leave? >> no, not in the cases i think you are probably referring to. because those really ended up being -- in fact, 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, too, that if someone's not on board with the policies at the highest senior level that they might be asked to leave. >> i would even go further than that. we respect talking about policies. we were talking about things like the electronic health record, decisions that were made there, both by dr. shulkin, by this committee, or by the congress. and also the mission act. we have some very historic and transformative changes happening at va that are going to change the status quo. i think 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 own personal

political beliefs? we just had an example of this in the fbi where a gentleman was, by all evidence, was doing his job, actually was removed from the case because there was a perception he was biased. how do you parse out when people's personal feelings about the administration might be out of line but they're doing their job okay? are you trying to protect those people? >> when those people -- in the whistle-blower, they get the same protections across the board. misconduct has a very specific definition. it is not political -- >> has nothing to do with a person's political beliefs, individual political beliefs. >> no. >> my time has expired, mr. chairman. thank you. >> mr. arrington, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. o'rourke, let me just drive right in here. how many employees do you have who were hired for specific job

duties, probably outlined in the posting, who are now spending 100% of their time on union activity, or official time? >> almost 500 employees who spend 100% of their time on something other than the job they were hired to do. how do you hold those people accountable? >> i believe the recent executive orders will require all employees to go back on -- 25% is the only allowable time. >> can you hold those employees accountable for doing a job they were hired to do if they're spending 100% of their time on union activity and not the taxpayer funded needed for serving our veterans job that they were hired to do. can you hold them accountable? >> with the implementation -- >> currently can you hold them accountable under the current construct? >> we weren't -- >> the answer is no. it's no. .

let's get to it. it's no. i hope you change it. i had a law that we passed out of the committee, one of the most disappointing experiences on the committee, because it was a partisan vote. didn't get one of my colleagues to vote to reduce that to 25%. i think that's reasonable. do you know what the legal standard is for administering official time? i'm not going to try to stump you. let me just read it. you can have official time, but it has to be administered in a way that's reasonable, necessary and in the best interests of the public. do you believe somebody spending 100% of their time on union activity or official time is reasonable, necessary or in the best interests of the public? >> i think i'd like to answer that question by saying i am looking forward to getting, especially the 11 psychologists that are on 100% union time back to serving veterans inn ean are

of mental health that's very critical for the va. >> let me ask your colleagues. do you think 100% of the time spent outside the job they were hired to do is reasonable and necessary and in the best interest of the public? this is the law of the land. this is what we're supposed to do as a committee, is to hold people accountable to the laws of the land. is it reasonable? >> i can tell you, i was hired to serve veterans. and when you're not serving veterans, i think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing to get you back to serving veterans. >> it is hard to serve a veteran when you were hired to do a job, then you end up spending 100% of your time on -- i'm telling you, anybody listening to this across this great country is scratching their head 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're hired to do and that that's acceptable. how can that be acceptable? what about you, mr. nichols --

nicholas? do you think it is reasonable? >> no. >> okay. thank you. that's great to get a direct answer. i hope there's no retribution made to you so you need to file a whistle-blower complaint when you get back so you're protected. but i appreciate the honesty and the american people appreciate it. do people have a constitutional right to a job at the va? >> no, sir, not that i'm aware of. >> should the public sector employees be held to a different standard of accountability than those 130 million hard working, god-fearing tax-paying americans who work outside of the federal government? should there be two different standards? >> no, sir. >> do va employees retain their right to sue if they're wrongfully terminated? do they have that right? >> yes, sir. >> so they retain that right. do they have the right to go choose to leave the va and work somewhere else if they don't like the way they're treated and they feel like they were performing, et cetera, et cetera? >> yes, sir.

>> do the 130 million people who are not part of the federal government system and the va, do they have a merit system protection board? and what's their standard of evidence when they're fired? is it substantial evidence or is it preponderance of evidence? which one? when a private sector employee, someone outside the federal government is fired, what's the standard by which the employee has to present their case in order to fire that employee? is it substantial evidence or preponderance of evidence? >> they don't have -- >> they don't have evidence. okay. let me go back to the line of questioning of my colleague. you said in 2014, were there about the same proportionately low wage and veteran employees that were removed then as there are now. >> yes. >> so there's no difference. just percentage wise. there may be more numbers, but as a percentage the same percentage or trend then exists today. >> yes, sir. >> is there a carve-out for

veterans who don'tconsistently ? >> no. >> is there a carve-out for blue eyed people or blonde haired people for those guys if they aren't performing well? >> no, sir. >> mr. grey, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, the va has a very important mission to take care of our veterans who served our country honorably. the job is really a function of person until. 99% of the services are personnel related. personal management, important issue. gao, issues of personal management. morale, retention. you talked about removing employees. my question to you is what have

we done to retain employees? in this committee we've talked about the fact that salaries aren't competitive in many places. so what are we doing -- what do we need to do to make sure that we hold on to those valued employees at the va? >> absolutely. in the context of the accountability and whistle blower protection law, it is that accountability of peace. when employees don't feel safe, when when they want to blow the whistle and can't or don't feel like they can, if they blow the whistle and don't see anything happen. maybe they just talked tlo suo supervisor, saying there is a problem here and don't see a response in that's an accountability issue. before where we could have a culture, well, if i don't do something this time it won't make a difference, an inconsistency in an application of standards, you develop those problems over time. this law at least provided some tools, some more tools, for us to be able to address that. but it is going to be the intent. you are exactly right. it has to be our intent as

leadership, then to make sure we hold each level of management accountable, to then provide those employees at every level -- >> let me ask the question in a different context. we've been talking 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 know what? i'm going to have a great day. i'm going to go help veterans? >> sir, think that's where the job i have is actually fairly easy. serving vns is t serving veterans is the best job you can have. i even told the group of political appointees, you will not have a more righteous job than working at the va. >> we have an issue with turnover. >> we have a complex hr system and a complex system in general, and it is going to require very intentional work on our part, on your part -- >> this is not an issue of gotcha. before you leave, i want to follow up on some of your comments. again, just want to work with you, try to figure out how do we

make it a better place for employees to work. i wanted to make sure you stayed here, because i wanted to follow up with some of your lines of questioning in the two minutes i've got. are there any other employees that should be at the va that you have leapt to other agencies or other organizations that should really be at the va as opposed to be working somewhere else? >> not that i'm aware of. but let me check back to be completely accurate with that question but i don't believe we make a habit ---ive -- >> mr. arrington has got a good point which is, you're supposed to be dedicating 100% of your time working to take care of our vets. i just want to make sure, are there any other employees at the va that are not actually, woulding at the va but maybe other departments that you've lent out or have assigned to? >> like i said, sir, i'm not aware of any. we've actually detailed or brought employees from dod, hhs, from other places to va to help us. the great example is the lady running our ehrm program is from

hhs. highly skilled in this area. we brought the best we could find to lead that project here at the va. >> if you could go back, look at your notes and see if there is other folks out there that are actually not working in the va that should be working at the va. >> absolutely. >> okay. sir, i'm not aware of any. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to yield the rest of my time. go ahmed. ahead. >> you went along with the characterization that official time is union time. you used that 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. >> the law currently prohibits it. righ right? so why did you respond to mr. arrington's question going along with the connation flation unio and official time?

>> they are commonly referred to as the same thing. >> but are they the same thing. >> i'm sure there is different legal definitions. >> are they the same thing? they are not the same thing. we've gotten lazy in our language. they are not the same thing. that's the opportunism that's being exploited by mr. arrington by going after union time when -- 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 -- >> is that correct? >> i want to get psychologists back to work. >> is that correct? just a simple answer. >> they're not the same thing. but at the end of the day, they are the same thing. >> that's fine. i can accept your answer. thank you. it is not the same thing. >> gentlemen's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute of time to my colleague, mr. arrington. >> i think it is the same thing. i think we are trying to parse words up here. i think if you laid it out -- 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 lobby congress. that's 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's union activity. i'm not saying there shouldn't be unions. i'm not saying you can't spent 100% of your time if you are tir hired to be a physician to provide health services to a veteran, 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's acceptable. don't think it is reasonable, necessary or in the best interest of the public. i'm just trying to follow the law. i yield back to my colleague, mr. higgins. >> thank you. mr. chairman, in the interest of bipartisanship, perhaps we could consider as a committee a

roundtable to discuss this issue. it's passionate. 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, man, 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 manner has touched my spirit, 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 congress -- >> but, is there a clear understanding within the culture that you described, if you could change one thing or if you could identify one thing that reflects

this era of the va, is that it is an era of accountability. but i'm going to talk about, is there consequence to accountability? just generally speaking, sir, i'm asking you, sir, as man, as an american, is it recognized in the va that we have to reform this thing? >> i think there is a growing number of people in the va that recognize that. >> for the record, i'd like you to answer, are mspb judges provides deference to va's decisions and not mitigating penalties? >> yes. >> are arbitrators following the act's timelines, and are they giving deference to the penalty decision? >> not consistently. >> and what could be done -- or perhaps you could provide in writing for the committee what could be done -- what could we do as a body to help you enforce within the executive the arbitrators following the act's

timeline. let me ask you, sir, are you familiar with confidential informants that are used across the country in law enforcement? >> yes, sir. >> and the key word there is "confidential." you know what happens to a confidential informant if the detectives or the department reveals their identity? >> yes. >> yeah. we pretty much find them in a ditch somewhere. so whistle blowers to me are the equivalent of confidential informants. and i reflect a concern of my colleagues on both side of the aisle regarding the protection of whistle blowers' identities. how can there be any complaints of retaliation if we're effectively protecting the identity of whistle blowers? >> that's -- what you bring up is a great point. w with retaliation cases, the identity of the whistle-blower is no longer protected. >> exactly. there would be no retaliation if there is no identity exposed. so i think we should have great concern amongst the executives

and amongst this body regarding the crucial import to protection of whistle blowers' 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 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 a job or are they placed on paid administrative leave? >> depending on their functional area, local decision is made on whether to remove them from that. >> do you have the power to place them on unpaid administrative leave? >> i believe that's been severely restricted and it was abused in the past so we've had new rules around that. >> perhaps you need that power. mr. chairman, my time has expired. i yield back. >> mr. lamb, you are recognized.

>> mr. o'rourke, couple of questions about the union time/official timeline of discussion. that time, whatever you want to call it, that is governed by the collective bargaining agreement. correct? >> yes. >> okay. and that collective bargaining agreement is struck between the members of afg and the members of va. >> yes. >> that's something those members were free to contract with 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 in that is that this is a contract we've had rolled over for how many years now? seven? >> seven years. >> no one held a gun to your head. right? it is a freely -- >> no. to be very clear, we did negotiate away management rights that we were not supposed to do. >> sure. but the contract stands, and it is transparent and open to the

public. >> yes. >> being >> okay. you were in the military as well. correct? >> yes. >> in the military, officers are frequently held accountable for actions of their subordinates. right? >> yes. >> yeah. and you're 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 their actions, even foe if it is not the officer's direct fault. they have the responsibility for people underneath them. >> yes. >> that promotes a pretty good culture in the military. right? >> for the most part, yes. >> do you draw on your experiences in the military in leading the va? >> i try to be cognizant that i'm in a civilian agency, but yes. >> is there overlap between the kind of culture you would like to promote in the va and what you experienced in the military? >> given our -- yes. >> one thing i saw in the marine

corps is that when you create that kind of culture, you have leaders affirmatively go out and take responsibility for the people below them, even when no one tells them to. and the people below them see that and they want to succeed for the person who's leading them because they don't want the person who's leading them to get fired if they think they're doing a good job. when you talk about creation of a culture, that's what ends up happening day to day. are you familiar with that? >> yes. >> okay. so, if we just look at 2018 under the operation of this law, there have been about 15 managers fired overall? >> i think that's about right. >> it's fair to say, whatever the number is, there have been hundreds of housekeepers, food service workers, nursing assistants fired in that same time. >> i think that's where our military analogy starts to break down a little bit because we are talking about high turnover hourly waged -- >> right. i'm just talking about people who have been fired. there have been hundreds of people in those three categories. >> also need to understand we are talking about highly desperate numbers -- we have 400

sess. >> that comparison of absolute numbers is accurate. >> i think we need to look at percentages. if you look at senior leader removals as a percentage and the change -- >> you're say iing -- exactly. statement, we have a lot of vacancies if those lower level positions. right? and in pittsburgh, for example, near where my district is, we've seen 46 adverse action against low-level employees since the law was implemented. and there are 300 vacancies among similar positions. so i want to ask you, if you are one of the people who are left who has not been fired, let's say you are a food service worker or housekeeper. you have a he seep 46 of your colleagues receive adverse actions in the past year. there are 300 of your potential colleagues who are missing because there are vacancies. you would agree, that increases the workload for you. right? you probably have more of a

workload than you would have -- >> i think we need to put this in context. there's probably the same number fired the year before and year before that. >> the state of affairs today, there are people missing at the lower levels from the va in places like -- >> these are not easy places to hire in to and with the veterans preference which we hold to makes it even more difficult to fill those positions sometimes. >> from a housekeeper's vantage point, they have a he seen 46 of their colleagues punished in the last year. they see 300 of them missing. their work is additional every single day. and very few, if any, managers have been dismissed in that time. do you think that they feel like they're part of a culture where officers eat last today? >> i don't believe that's going to be the best way to describe that since we're talking about -- >> i don't think so either. mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. >> i thank the va fgentleman fo yielding. being no further, first panel's

dismissed. i i would like to invite our second panel to the witness table. thank you for your service. >> joining us on our second panel this morning, mr. j. david cox, national president of the american federation of government employees. mr. cox, you are now 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 demoralized and harmed its dedicated workforce, one-third of whom are veterans themselves. here's what so-called accountability looks like under the new law. although the va has tried to hide the facts by denying information requests from congress and afge, its own published data tell a terrible story of the 1,096 va employees fired in the first five months of 2018, only 15 were supervisors, and that doesn't mean they're just s eches. housekeepers, the largest number fired. followed by nurses, food services and medical support assistan assistance.

they make up 51% of all removals. the va has refused to provide information on veteran status, gender or race of those fired. hiding the disproportionate effect of this harsh law on the most vulnerable individuals. even though we don't have complete data, the disproportionate impact on va's workforce is undeniable. all current opening for housekeeping aids are for preference eligible veterans and virtually all pay less than $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. health care experts repeatedly presented evidence that the va health care 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 waitlist gaming was caused by severe shortages of providers and disported management incentive systems, not tunion contract 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 have been telling congress that chronic short staffing was causing wait list manipulation and severe access problems at va medical centers. we have also been asking for additional staff to reduce the claims backlog at the va. yet, thanks to the accountability law, four

essential claims processing positions, veterans service representative, rating specialist, claims examiner, and claims assistants, 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 mspb 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 tips but to go straight to firing. finally, the act was supposed to improve protections for whistle blowers, but as we warned, it has had the opposite effect.

it's easier than ever to fire a whistle-blower and you can see 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 as 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 with his executive orders. while many members of congress have spoken out against these lawless and severe decrees, i ask that this committee act to stop the va from behaving in the same horrendous manner as ssa. this committee has an obligation to the democracy for which veterans risk their lives to prevent the executive branch from breaking the law and destroying federal unions. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be glad to take any questions from anyone. >> thank you, mr. cox. and just for the record, when i

came to the congress in 2009, va had about 250,000 employees and we were spending $97.5 billion on benefits, cemeteries and health care. the president's ask in this budget is $192.5 billion. and there are now -- i'm not sure what the number is, but $33 360,000 or 370,000 members at the va. it's larger than the united states navy. we've added 100,000-something employees in the last nine years, and doubled the budget. that looks to me like the va's managing its assets. i don't disagree with you. i think management is a huge part of this equation. we're not doing something right. we're not getting the bang for our buck if we're doing that. how do you -- and basically, what evidence do you have that the accountability law is being used improperly when i'm looking

at gs 0 through 6, 61.2% of the dismissals were there. now it is 58.6%. so the the percentage actually 1 to 6 have gone down not up. ? >> mr. chairman, i think if you would look at the fact that the 15 management employees, and i heard the acting secretary refer there's only 400-some scsrs, there are tens of thousands throughout the rank in file from the housekeeping aid, supervisors, and 15 is a grossry disproportionate. the phoenix scandal was all caused by top management in the v.a., in that by management incentives, which we all know it was not from the front line employees who were blowing the whistle who argue and then had to represent because that

management was trying to fire them. and also, i would like to add that many of the veterans are returning and continue to return. and we are not making just a 50-year commitment, we're making a 60, possibly 70-year commitment to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans. and the number of staff is going up, but they are hundreds and hundreds of veterans whose lives have changed. i have suffered from a broke leg for a little while, and i have learned that veterans are suffering every day of their life. >> i am going to filibuster my time, but basically this wrong, this bipartisan committee had provided resources to the v.a. there's no question -- >> we are thankful for what you have done. >> as i said, we have over doubled the amount of money. where the remainder and the other part of the discretionary part of our budget here until we voted for the omnibus budget in march of this year had remained flat. so we took money from other agencies and funded the v.a.

i think it is disingenuous to say we are not providing or implied that this committee and this congress is not providing resources for the v.a. and i don't disagree with you, mr. cox, and management. i think that is part of our problem. let me ask you a second question, do think there are fireable offenses at the v.a.? do you think there are reasons you should be terminated? >> yes, sir. and i have said that every time i come before your committee or any other committee in any government agency. there's wrongdoings that should be fired. >> thank you. and if the law is being done properly, what would you do to change this law if it's not being done as it was written and intended as i said on the voice vote from the united states senate? >> i would change the law that the proper penalties, the ability of mspb judges to mitigate penalties, because due process and having those checks

and balances is the way we avoid having a politicized federal workforce. and 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 mspb and other entities for the federal -- >> so you would recommend going back to what we were, what we had, which clearly wasn't working. and i'm not saying this is working perfectly yet, but what we had was not working either. in your written statement, you said that it depends on those in the v.a. with the services of employees who have extensive training and experience without a fair chance to improve their performance. if i accept their premise, why is it such great employees with extensive training experience that needs time to improve their performance? >> number one m of our veteran preference of veterans that are hired, they are hired with service connected disabilities.

one of them ptsd. and many of us know that have a background as i'm a nurse and you're a doctor, we understand the illness of ptsd. and working with those employees. and also that their behavior sometimes we have to deescalate. and i will commend some other government agencies that has realized that. and has tried to put in accommodating situations for those with ptsd. and we understand sometimes if you are in a wheelchair or have a visibility disability, but there are many disabilities veterans have that we need to certainly try to work with. >> my time is expired. >> thank you. mr. cox, mr. o'rourkes said one of the things they are doing to implement the whistleblowers is listening, including listening to employee unions. do you feel that you have been

included or your members have been included in productivity conversations with the v.a. about the implementation of this 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 v.a. has done to try to train rank-in-file employees. i believe i heard mr. o'rourke say that they had trained managers. we are not awe are of any training. we at one time requested the telephone number we published for our membership for them to have it. and after that, i think the v.a. put out the number. >> how much time does a housekeeping aid typically -- the employees for which the veterans preference and nonlet competitive was set aside to benefit, how much time does a housekeeping aid get to improve their performance as compared to, say, a director who is not

implementing the law proper will i? >> currently, the v.a. is saying it would only give 30 days and many times they are not giving 30 days for a housekeeping aid to improve their performance. and historically, and i worked in the v.a. many, many years, i saw bad managers be transferred from one v.a. to another v.a. with gigantic relocations of bonuses and various things. and i know this committee has certainly investigated that. and you couldn't deny those facts. they stand for themselves, sir. >> the picture that my colleague from pennsylvania, mr. lamb, presents about the huge number of vacancies in the low-level jobs, these entry level areas in housekeeping, the vacancies, but then the idea that 40 to 50 people are dismissed in one year has got to have an impact on

morale. go ahead, sir. >> it does have an impact on morale. and particularly, when people believe folks are fired without a due process. when people have their due process rights, they are offered opportunities to improve. they don't improve. and i'll agree with what the chairman said, some people, i believe, fire themselves, the v.a. or no entity fires them, but that burden shifts on them. but people need to be given an opportunity and they need to be properly instructed. many times there are training issues. >> mr. cox, mr. o'rourke talked about the training and whips whistleblower rights. have you heard of any nonmanagement employees receiving training on their whistleblower rights? >> no, sir, we haven't. >> i heard mr. o'rourke sort of say quietly as he was recording his testimony, he was kind of

complaining about the veterans preference that that's the reason why there are these vacancies at places like mr. lamb's facility. and i have heard similar complaints made about the ability to hire sufficient housekeeping staff. and let us be clear, housekeeping staff is not an unskilled position. they need to be trained in biohazards. it's a very important role in keeping the facilities clean and keeping everything moving. is that a fair offense that the veterans preference is getting in the way of hiring sufficient staff? >> sir, i believe that veterans who have served this country loyally and put it all on the line so that i have the freedom of speech and all the rights that everyone in this room has. and we have the greatest checks and balances in our government, they deserve those jobs and i will always say veterans preference aught to prevail.

>> in this executive order, really restricting the use of official time, is official time -- could it be used to help some of the veterans who are employed in these positions, especially the ones with pts and in the housekeeping roles, is that an official use of time? >> yes, sir, it is. >> is that often what official time is used for? >> yes, sir, it is. >> so, you know, i -- i think -- and i didn't get time to get into the negotiated collective bargaining agreement, which provided for official time, but i'll just yield back. thank you. >> thank you. you will be recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. cox, for joining us here on this panel. i want to check a few numbers with you. the number of members you have in the v.a., i have a number of -- is that roughly correct? >> we represent right at a

quarter of a million. i can't give you the exact number. >> okay, pretty close. if we take the union using the lowest level of $18 and multiply that out, that's $4,356,000 per month that the aag makes. that's $52,772,000 per year. my question to you is, why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for office space, for equipment supplies or employees for a union that very clearly has the means to support all of those things on its own? >> well, sir, i'm not sure you're computing those numbers just out of the v.a. and i believe if you check afge's national budget, it's about $80 million. and that is coming from all of our government agencies. and you can check our number online, but i will also say that -- >> do i have the number wrong? it's not $18 a month. >> our dues would vary all over

the country. >> that's the lowest number i could find. >> i don't know, sir. we have over a thousand local, some of them may be less than $10 a pay period. but to answer your question, in 1978, the congress of the united states passed a civil service reform act -- >> we are not going to fi filibuster our time here. there are 500, almost 500 employees at the v.a. who are 100% of the time not doing the job that they were hired to do. these are often highly skilled positions, psychologists and physicians, who are literally hired to be psychologists and physicians and never seeing patients. does that make sense to you? >> sir, the law says that we can't discriminate against anyone who chooses to run and want to act as a union official or be elected or to be a union regardless of the race -- >> let's talk about using their official time. the taxpayers are paying their

salary. you know this, right? they are not working for the taxpayer but working for the union. >> that's where we disagree. we are talking about the wisdom of congress with you in 1978. the congress did pass a different law -- >> the legal standard for what constitutes the official time is, and i'm sure you're familiar with this, it is necessary and in the best interest of the public. is that the best interest of the public to take a psychologist or physician and put them -- difficult to recruit to the v.a., and put them, we have shortages in these positions, and put them to work doing union duties? >> sir, i yield to the wisdom of congress in 1978. they passed the law. and we can't discriminate -- >> you're taking a risk yielding the wisdom of congress. i tell you what. do you think the americans at home, how do you think they are reacting to know we have

hundreds of highly paid specialists in the v.a. not doing a lick of work they were hired to do? >> sir, they are doing work they were hired to do. because congress in its wisdom that passed to say the official time was reasonable and necessary. >> let me tell you how i think the people back in the second judicial district of florida are reacting. i think they are shocked, i think they are dismayed, i think they are angry. and i think they demand that we fix a problem like this. i don't think i could go home and walk the streets and say, oh, this is okay. don't worry about it. these hundreds of people, you know, we're paying them much more than you'll ever make to do something that isn't even serving the v.a. or the veterans. chairman rowe offered statistics considering the ballooning v.a. budget. and the size of its workforce. i think that those speak for themselves. that they're shocking numbers. in nine years we have doubled the budget and added 100,000 employees to the roles. and in the same nine years, i

promise you, i don't think that the v.a. care has improved by any significant amount, probably just the opposite. so i'm disappointed. i echo the comments of my colleague about reform. i think the v.a. is in need of reform. and i think we are here to do that. and i've committed to do that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. cox, for being here today. certainly, your voice is important to this discussion, obviously, but to many discussions we have here in the committee. i wanted to ask you in your testimony, you also talked about the disproportionate impact on lower level employees and the percentage of adverse actions impacting general level employees versus supervisors as remained the v.a.'s testimony

saying that those two have remained roughly constant before and after the accountability act. can you -- do you agree with that data? do you agree with that discrepancy? >> i disagree in the fact that 15 supervisors when there are tens of thousands of management officials throughout the v.a. and you're telling me only 15 out of a 1,096 were managers that had discipline problems or performance problems, but yet 1,085 or 80 some rank-in-file people were the problems. that seems very disproportion e disproportionate. does that go back to phoenix? let's talk about that. it was the sesrs, it is horrible incentives in there that we are talking about in the v.a., but

you have all been there many times. >> do you as an organization collect any data on a employee morale? do you do a survey of such? >> we -- more of it is anecdotal from our locals, but we believe morale is very, very low. because there's a real fear of people losing their union rights, losing their rights to representation, there's a great, great fear in all federal agencies that politicize civil service workforce. and i think that should scare every one of us to death. >> does the v.a. 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 v.a. does the v.a. reach out to you and say, can you help us to make sure that the employees are filling this out, this data's

important? do you -- do they reach out to you and ask for your assistance to try, in essence, to get really accurate data? >> since secretary mcdonnell and secretary shulkin -- >> in this survey, they talk about the results in the previous survey. and in this particular survey, their not reaching out to you in any way for your assistance? >> i have not heard anything from them, ma'am. >> you also in your testimony talking about the whistleblower hotline that's not being made public. and have you heard reports from employees that is difficult for them to find the hotline information? >> yes, ma'am, we have. again, that we requested that information, shared it with our membership, and that is how they became aware after we did that, the v.a. came out, and i would

say that the union contract is the best thing in the world to protect whistleblowers. and then we've got offices of special council and the i.g., those have done a good job, this creating a separate entity that becomes somewhat of the fox gard garden. i think on both sides of this room that there's not a soul that wants more bureaucracy and afge doesn't want more bureaucracy in the protection, are the standing in the way of whistleblowers coming forward. >> has -- have you requested that the v.a. make this whistleblower number a public information? >> yes, we have. >> in the v.a.'s response was? >> i haven't heard a response from them. >> you also testified that the v.a. has essentially stopped using performance improvement plans. have you seen this across the v.a.? >> yes, ma'am, i have. >> at every level?

>> every facility, yes, ma'am. >> and sort of at every level, whether it's, you know, mid-level, lower level? >> i am aware of the rank-in-file employees. i am not aware of what they do with management voice. >> i know that one of the issues that they struggled with in the v.a. act is being implemented. >> i would have to look to some of my folks because we have requested many things and have gotten very little, almost no data, we want to know, veterans preference. we obviously want to know gender. we want to know grievances that reveal fraud waste and abuse. and the veterans preference in gender, age, all those types of things that would show patterns of treating one person

differently than others. >> but you are not sure that the data is being collected? >> we know it's been collected. >> you doe? >> i'm sure it's being collected. the v.a. collects lots of data. >> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> you recognize this for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cox, thank you for appearing before this committee today. i don't know if i have ever witnessed a more passionate union employee. >> i'm a passionate registered nurse that cared for veterans for 23 years and loved every second of it, sir. >> and a dedicated union spokesman, there's nothing wrong with that. we should all recognize that we are here to recognize americans. we should pro-americans and pro-veteran on both sides of the aisle and on that side of your table. and you have made repeated testimony regarding the numbers of the v.a. employees that have been let go.

obviously, to process by which the v.a. employee is fired, like anywhere else, but supervisors, according to your testimony, sir, and i ask you respectfully, i said, that number reflects a disparity in your opinion as compared to housekeeping aids, nursing assistants, register nurses, food service workers and medical service workers, a large number have been let go. would you agree that supervisors are being let go at a disparaged number? >> it seems like a small number in proportion to the fact that there are thousands, tens of thousands -- >> is it your testimony that it just seems like it or that it is? >> sir, because i don't have all the v.a.s information and all the things i have to rely upon -- >> certainly you're an intelligent gentlemen, sir. we're making clear and courageous statements here today.

do you think that not enough supervisors have been fired? >> i would say that that would be up to the wisdom of this committee to request that data. >> let me ask your opinion. >> in my opinion, i think that the v.a. needs to make that data available. and maybe they would dispel my personal feelings or what i would view of them -- >> are these represented by your union? >> no, they are not represented by our union. >> okay. it seems to me that your general consensus is that the existing law that was enacted, the goal of the accountability law was to bring swifter action to v.a. employees regardless of seniority or lack of seniority or position. and to make sure that the judges didn't circumvent the manager's decisions. so it seems to me that you're stating that the managers that are in place are abusing the existing law and making it non-functional. and that more managers should be fired, more supervisors should

be fired. is that not your statement? is that not your opinion? >> i think that's how you are trying to interpret it, sir. >> reinterpret it then, please. do you believe more supervisors should be fired or not? >> i think any employee who is not doing their due diligence should be held accountable. >> thank you. and if held accountable, should it be a consequence to that accountability? >> yes, there should, with a due process. >> should that include sometimes being fired? >> yes, with the due process with the political workforce. >> so those v.a. employees that have been fired, have they all not in their hiring process, their training and certifications, been clarified and documented to the hiring process? whatever their position is within the v.a., have they not received extensive training and certification for their particular job? >> we would certainly hope so, but i would go back and look at the -- i would go back and look

at the directed phoenix. >> it is by matter of law. so the lack of a current performance improvement program, what could possibly be presented to an american man or woman that is highly qualified and certified for a position within the v.a., whatever that position is, because veterans and americans are done with the past performance of the v.a., we demand reform. this committee is committed to making it happen. so what possibly could an employee of the v.a. having been highly trained and certified regardless of position, why if their family be negligent in their duties, why would they not be fired? what could they possibly learn from a two or three-week performance improvement program that they didn't learn in six months or years of certification and training prior to being

hired? >> well, sir, i think part of the issue is the v.a. constantly changes its performance standards, particularly in vba. they have machine to do that type of work. >> may i submit to you, sir, that every american man and woman this this area is -- there's no such thing as medial labor. there's only medial men and women. they are performing a medial task because there's no such thing. there's only medial men and women. there are current laws that management --

>> the gentleman' tims time is expired. >> mr. lamb, i yield back. >> mr. cox, could you explain in 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 in your testimony and plenty of the information we receive, it's not so simple as an employee being found negligent in the care of a particular veteran, right? there are often other reasons that management is using to fire people? >> that is correct, sir. particularly in the v.a. benefits side, they have changed performance standards continuously. and the answer is to speed up process in the claims faster, even though they are very complicated to process. >> right. and, in fact, there are 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 that our union had to come to the rescue.

>> and you, yourself, were a registered nurse at the v.a. for much of your career? >> 23 years, sir. >> and during that time, did you have experience seeing other nurses or other employees in any job going through a performance improvement prament? >> yes, sir. and many of them successfully completed, and i would say a high number of them successfully completed it, because there was additional training, understanding the v.a. is a complex system, but it's still the best health care anyone can get in this country. and thank god that veterans are getting it. >> now, 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 v.a., do you think that increases the day-to-day burden on the employees who are left, the ones who haven't been fired? >> it certainly does. and it also jeopardizes the

veterans, particularly if they are housekeeping aids, while many people of that as a medial task, maybe, they are responsible for the cleaning and sanitizing of a hospital for infection control, that's one of the most important jobs in any medical center. >> are you in touch with some of the lower level v.a. members. people are filling in the r.n., nursing assistant, food workers, cleaners, are you in touch with them on a regular basis? >> yes, sir, i am. >> how are they reacting to seeing in the last six months such a large number of people be fired at their level in such a small number of people be fired at the manager level? >> there is fear that there is a lot of fear, and there's a feeling that floggings will continue until morale improves and everything is all better. and i think we all know that that's not the way that you get the best performance. >> do you think that helps them do their job to take care of the veterans any better?

>> no, i think it creates fear. and when you have fear in an organization, you never get the best performance, sir. >> do you think it helps your job be better with fewer employees around, for there to be 46 fewer employees in pittsburgh on top of the 300 vacancies? >> no, sir. and obviously there needs to be sufficient employees to get the proper work done because at the end of the day without that being accomplished, the veteran suffers. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you, gentlemen, for yielding. thank you for being with us until the end, mr. lamb, for hanging in there. thank you, mr. cox, for being here. and no for thor questions. the second panel is dismissed. i ask that all have revised extended remarks and exstranged material so ordered. mr. connell, any closing arguments? >> just a few.

i am hearing that there is adequate whistleblower protection and howl the oawp is fulfilling or not fulfilling its role. we are -- i think people on both sides of the aisle are greatly concerned about this. i want to take note, a curious note, of the fact they did ask mr. cox a question about how well the v.a. is making good on its professed statement that they are listening to employees. i know this was quite swiftly before mr. cox's testimony. that's an indication of how they are listening to union officials and union members. i cannot see that their statements are very credible. the disappearance of the performance improvement plans

among a rank-in-file employees at the v.a., and the general -- i can see how there could be very credible claims of a culture of fear within this organization. fear that is pervasive. the issues from seeing large numbers of your fellow employees being fired without due process, without being able to tell your side of the story, does create a condition of fear. and does suppress morale. and i am very, very troubled by how i am seeing the implementation of this accountability act go forward. let me just say, the one place of refuge that the acting secretary took was, we are firing about the same number of people. that's not really a great claim

to stand on because this law was improve i improving our availability, and we are not talking about people dismissed or just turnover in difficult jobs. and we are talking about veterans here. we are talking about a workforce that's been the most impacted. these are people who fought for our country. and i think we can do better. and it -- i am just amazed at the implementation of this law. i had hoped it would be better. i am still cautious and optimistic with the right values at the top that we can get it right, but i question whether that is occurring now. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for yielding. just to finish up. i think it was a very good hearing today. it's one year, the accountability and whistleblower protection act, that obviously

is a lot of work to be done to make sure the whistleblowers are protected, feel comfortable in coming out. and to mr. lamb's -- i've been an employer and was for over 30 years in the private medical practice, and if you're short of personnel, you don't fire adequately performing employees. you reward those people to stay there. so i would say if i were a manager at pittsburgh and having to get rid of somebody and i was already short of personnel, they would have to do something pretty egregious to get rid of them. think about that if you are already short of people. i know that the v.a. is having an issue with hiring people just like businesses across the country. i think we have a labor shortage in this country right now. and to compete for quality talent, the v.a.'s got to be a place that people want to work. for the record, if we get all hung up in numbers and all that, while this discussion was going on, i had a chance to look at

the pre-june 1st to june 22nd 2017. and for the whistleblower protection act. and then after the whistleblower protection act. and in the gs 1-6, the percentage of people terminated, you have to look at it as a percent annual, because the number of employees the v.a. has have gone way up. the percentage as mr. cox suggested, some of the people that need to be terminated, it did go up. in the gs 11-15, the percentage went up. the only percentage that went down, i think this is a reasonable thing to look at, the ses entitled 38. so here are the facts right here. and i really appreciate everyone being here. i think there's a lot of work to be done. this committee is in a bipartisan basis to keep an eye on the v.a. and i appreciate everyone's

attendan attendance. having no one else here, the meeting is adjourned.

the senate today will vote on the confirmation of robert wilkie to be president trump's second affairs secretary. mr. wilkie was nominated to replace david shulkin fired in march. watch live coverage of the debate at 3:00 p.m. eastern and theat