i have employees that reach out directly to me via e-mail. i was disappointed to hear that they were told they could not. that will be rectified immediately. i need to be an avenue by which employees can talk about their concerns as well and i'm open to that. i do that on a routine basis. in fact i have a pulse jet called that i do where i will only speak to bargaining unit employees that starts by saying banishment cannot tell you not to talk to me. management can't even look at you funny that if they slip you a note or anything of this is do not tell me something i immediately wanted to send me an e-mail. >> well you are saying something to sound good but the actions unfortunately happened always match the rhetoric. ms. halliday but me ask you in my short remaining time you talk about how vba's process misrepresented the actual workload and its progress toward eliminating the backlog. could you elaborate a little bit more on that please?

>> today we issued a report on the review of the special initiative to process the rating claims pending over two years. as i said in my oral statement vba used to process, a new process they put in place to issue provisional claims. what we found was those provisional claims in spite of not having a final decision were taken out of the backlog. what happened then was vba lost control over some of those claims so that they didn't get worked in a priority basis. we felt that had vba used its interim rating process, it had all the tools it needed to keep the integrity of the data of claim and to process these claims.

they had to try something. they are working hard to try and clear the backlog but we feel it misrepresented the workload. essentially you took out incomplete claims out of the backlog that needed a final rating decision or its. >> thank you its. >> thank you very much and mr. chairman i yield back. >> ms. brown you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. before i begin my questioning i just want to say on this note that was out of the bathroom, i hope no one ever loses their job for a note in the bathroom on a pad and i don't think anyone has any business reading somebody's pad in the bathroom. that's the first thing. now, to ms. hickey i am impressed with the amount of how you have been able to expedite the veterans process not only

for the veterans but for the families and can you explain the process because it seems like part of the problem is that you go to a new system. they have expedited and it seems as if there's a problem with you trying to improve the system. >> congresswoman i know from having change management environments that everybody adjust to change differently and i'm sensitive sensitive to that but i will tell you i don't know any federal agency nor any commercial company that has fundamentally taken a paperbound process in less than 18 months up a system done a billion images nearly and now works 91% of its work in a paperless environment. 1.4 million claims our employees have been on the system. 1.4 million you know what that does for veterans? it means they get answers faster

and better in the system is the justice system. their tools are helpful things in the system to help make that employee better at making that decision more consistently. that's the whole reason we put tools later. i heard the conversations from our employees. the table and i know our employees need help with the workload that's out there, i do. that is why we are building additional functionality all the time into the system to help it be better. what i can tell you is this. you don't do 1.17 million record-breaking one year and 1.3 million breaking the previous record this year and have all measures of equality. i will concede that there may be ways to improve on that even y yet. in that amount of time to not be doing stuff that's better for veterans. >> i have an independent verifier also. >> we do. i hear you loud and clear and i know you don't trust what we are we are saying. i went for the second time to

another third party to ask for independent verification of the way in which we assess our quality. it's a person that doesn't deal with federal agencies at all and has no federal look about them. they do with businesses on the outside and how they look at quality. in addition to that i have directed we are going to go after one certification because i want every veteran in this country and all of you to believe us when we say we are making good decisions. not because of us that because we care so much about those veterans and family members and their survivors and they deserve nothing less from us. >> thank you very much. some of us, with pre-existing conditions and perhaps we all don't have the same goals. i hope that the goal is to make sure that the veterans get the services that they need and that we work together to make sure that happens and not to grandstand.

i cannot sit here and say i think all of you are just trying to hide the numbers. i don't believe that. i think it could be problems with the system but we need to work together to figure out how we can improve the system. i for one was very excited when we launched educational system and then when i turn on the television it was problems with the system but it was problems with the stakeholders. the schools had to verify that the student was in school and they were in rolled and they had to drop the class before they could get additional funding from us. so it's not just the va. it's the va and i keep saying working with stakeholders. >> congresswoman brown we now put $42 billion in advance of 1.2 million veterans and their beneficiaries in 4.7 days using exactly that model which is exactly what we are trying to repeat and doing so with some

level of success on the claim site. it was what was driving more and more of our dependency claims getting done and frankly we just released last week the ability for half of our survivors during the most difficult time if i -- their lives to be automatically paid their burial claim. they don't even have to tell us and they don't even have to claim it. at first notice we paid the claim and it goes straight to them. >> thank you so much for your service, all of you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. mr. bilirakis ewart recognize. >> ms. halliday your mark in your opening statement that the vba has up reported an increase of the backlog of more than 50% since march of 2013. in your opinion do you see any issue with trusting these self-reported achievements by the department and of course the

department has been plagued with inaccuracies and inconsistencies regarding reducing the backlog but i want to get your opinion on this. do you trust those numbers? >> at this point i would say no i can't trust those numbers. i think we have a lot of work ahead of us to address the allegations we have just received. they all seem to focus on data integrity and they need to be looked at very carefully. i don't want to say i trust them. >> thank you. next question again for ms. halliday. during your numerous inspections of the regional offices you have consistently reported the same errors and accuracy and procedures. even after vba has concurred with the previous reports and recommendations. why do you think this happens over and over again? why are we seeing these errors? again it seems like these recommendations are not being

followed. can you comment on that? >> yes. i think that we select medical disabilities to look at that we consider high-risk for processing errors. that is where we want to target our resources. we think that's the most important. what we find in something like traumatic brain injury type claims the policy is very complex. it's very hard to ensure consistency in that application so we continue to see errors with that. general hickey has asked for the oig's help it matches recently. to put a team together so we can show her exactly exactly what it benefits inspectors, the teams that mr. arronte leads are coming across so that she can put the right controls in place. do you want to add anything?

>> the only thing i think i could add is this year when we started our inspections and i'm speaking to reno right now because this is the only office where this occurred is we made a recommendation in the previous inspection of reno involving tbi claims to have a second-level review look at these claims before they are finalized because they are very complex. when we went back this year we found an error rate that was not acceptable and what we found was local management discontinued the practice of a recommendation and the reason we were given his due process claims with a backlog. so with the maaco recommendation and we follow it and it's working why do you stop that? >> i want to know why. >> congressman i absolutely agree with this gentleman. i absolutely agree they should be following that process.

they should not have done a second signature requirement. that is just wrong. i won't give an excuse for it. >> what are you going to do about a? >> i'm going to make sure that they are doing second signature review summary can do that. we will send out additional teams from, services to make sure. i will also double down on the resources to make sure they are doing the second signatures. they are critical, is absolutely right. they are singularly the most complex kind of condition we can do because every experience of veteran has the tbi can be very different so therefore it's not a very clear-cut way to always determine secondary conditions associated with tbi and the like. i don't negate that was a mandate from us to do a second signature. if they are not not doing if they're not doing the right thing. >> i have no more questions. you mentioned in her testimony that employees would not receive a performance award unless they

meet quality standards as well as production standards. we are all aware in previous years every employee received a performance bonus award received them. do you still stand by what you stated in your testimony and do you believe that every single employee eligible to receive performance awards did in fact deserve them? >> congressman since the day i arrived and i had mentioned to this committee before that i came to this job with a deep background in quality management which is why i'm directing it and i know something about how it makes you better and how it validates what you are doing but here's what i say. i've said from the beginning we are production and quality-based organization. there is no war between those two words. i've made serious investments thank you to this committee for the budget to have given us in all kinds of capabilities to improve our quality. >> answer the question please.

did they deserve those performance awards? >> if they successfully navigated their production quality they did but i will say in fy2012 or leader in vba got a performance bonus. >> okay thank you and mr. chairman i yield back. >> mr. turk condo for five minutes. >> ms. halliday tenet thing about the history of the federal policy of performance bonuses and management? can you tell me about it if you do? i just want to know who's always been a part of our system and the federal government and whether something that was instituted? >> to my recollection performance benefits have always been in place to incentivize and reward good behavior and good results. i think for the past few years we really have done a better job federal government wide at

focusing on results. >> mr. bertoni? as far as the use of federal performance? >> i can't speak to the history. i would say it's consistent across the executive agencies that performance bonuses are there and they should be performance-based and they should be results based but certainly when you combine the allure of performance bonuses with metrics that drive in a certain way and drive certain behaviors that is when it gets perverse and that is where executive agencies and otherwise have to be careful about the metrics they put in place and a performance bonus associated with that. >> ms. halliday in the scenario of looking at the vba aside from the scheduling issues we have had in phoenix is there any indication to you that they

performance bonus and the metrics have combined in a similar way for motivation to game the system for financial gain? >> i can't speak to that. >> so nothing is revealed so f far? you say you are targeting in your investigation high-risk disability claims. can you say more about the high-risk disability claims you are looking at? tbi you said? >> during this round of our fy2014 benefits inspections we have selected to look at the management of temporary 100% disability valuations, tbi claims and the smc and ancillary

benefits that bet -- veterans get for the more seriously disabled issues that they face. >> okay. something arose on the previous panel discussion about congressional advocacy when congressional offices colon and it seems to divert attention of the staff and the other parts of the backlog gets maybe less attention. do you find that to be corroborated by the thing you have looked at or mr. bertoni you can comment as well. >> i can't speak to that issue. >> i'm not 100% sure exactly what you are asking that we get a lot of complaints to the oig hotline and we are looking at

those complaints as to whether they are systemic problems are isolated problems with vba. is that what you are asking because i think the congressional offices get many the same calls. >> i was listening to the testimony of the previous panel in one of the complaints was that congressional offices often get attended to and they have to neglect what they were doing on other claims. >> i could speak to that a little bit. i think it's one of many competing workloads and there are a lot of lines of work and activities that have to be done. i know that i get the calls from the public. i push it forward to the various committees so it certainly gets attention from us and i'm sure it gets attention from vba when i get those calls so i'm sure it's the workload that gets

attention among competing workloads and you have to make choices. >> congressman here is what i will say. we have a prioritization for claims and we have some categories of those claims were when you call us about those they will sully get attention but if you are a medal of honor recipient or someone who is ill or injured, someone, did i miss if you? please bear with me but there's a group of listings of people who need our participation and you often call us with often call is that people were in that bucket or if the claim right now today is nine months or older. though we have done 99.9% of all the wonder to your claims we are still working nine-month old clemson and we are going onto the next one but when you call us with a null claim which typically is when you will hear from a veteran and we understand that then we will do it because it's in the priority bucket. if you were to call me for a

claim that was sent in last week but didn't have any of those other priorities on it he would probably get a letter from us that says we will work it when it gets an too the right prior to station. >> thank you. mr. chairman my time has expired. >> thank you. mr. chairman i want to go back to where the chairman began with his legal pad here. i really find this offensive. the reason i find it so offensive is because we have heard over the last six weeks or so and our job as the chairman said his oversight. we have a constitutional obligation to do this. when we see someone wrote this in the staff space, this is their job to get this information to find this astonishing. i truly do. i don't see how anybody could explain and secondly anybody who is still working. i think mr. lamborn asked how

many people have been fired. there would be one if they were under my watch who had rubbed their nose or thought of there knows i should at the veterans affairs committee news, this is our job. you are doing your job and explaining it and when then we have lost and that's one of the things general hickey that i am very concerned about is the loss of trust we have had an rva. i think if you look at any organization in this country a year ago would have held the va up as a shining star in -- a shining city on the hill. i believe believe that we have lost that now. when veteran pilot claimed that they know if it has been moved over to a staff that's not going to look at and i appreciate you coming by. i certainly think you are making a government effort but somewhere it's failing. you heard me say and you were here before about what resources do you need and i certainly have

heard the inspector general's testimony and have read it. what resources do you need if any from this committee to make sure that this backlog is done and those metrics are made? what do you need? >> congressman iysac here a few months back in a budget hearing and i believe i said at the time i need an absolute unequivocal 1 i.t. budget, 100% not a dollar less and now in a world in which we are building a new scheduling system that's even more critical because now there's a happy competing interest there. we have got to have a full i.t. system. >> we have spent, no pun intended a widow's pension on getting all the i.t. money. it's mind-boggling to me. if i hear somebody say money and i've seen the va and dod take a

thousand million dollars, that's a billion and flush it and i have no earthly idea where the money went to build a system that's integrated. i asked the secretary word of the billion-dollar scope? no answer and so i don't know that adding more money and you say in i.t. program if we give you that money and provide that money this very generous congress does that we have provided the resources for the va. is that going to be enough for my going to be sitting here a year from now if i'm fortunate enough to get reelected and am i going to hear the same thing? >> congressman you were talking about i ehr. >> i'm just talking about i.t. money. >> let me tell you what you have given us. let me tell you what you have given us all of you have given us over the last three years in vba. for the first time in our history we have had dollars funding i.t. systems we should've had 20 years ago. 20 years ago we should've had a

paperless i.t. system like the rest of the world went to and we didn't. we were still two years ago touching 5000 tons of paper. that's 10 and prior state buildings. that's that's tantamount everest. two empire state buildings with little rubber fingertips on our fingers. you have given us the resources to scan a billion of our veterans most precious document in two and electronic system so they are not laying around in boxes. >> i understand. my time is limited and its about up. i want to go back to the inspector general and say i want to make sure we get this for the record. how does it claim that gets moved from way back here that is supposed to the current, how does that happen? how does the record go from the time it's back here long-term

claim and it gets moved to a stack that is current? how does that happen? >> walk us through that fairly quickly quickly. >> there are several ways. we can talk about how they do the claim that let's talk about the provisional claim that was just issued and it should be fresh. when they did the provisional ratings that provisional rating had an m. products of the end product to make it easy was it 110. 110 control this provisional rating. under their special initiative on the issue that provisional rating to the veteran that 110 was gone so that claim came out of the inventory. so they moved it to put it under an end product 400 to control blood and product four hundreds are not reported in the inventory that you hear from a

monday morning workload reports so now that claim technically doesn't exist in the inventory. when the veteran submits new evidence to support the contentions in that claim now vba will create a new and product and process that claim in one day. so it was an old claim pending over two years and they moved it to an end product that does not reported in the immaturity so that claim technically doesn't exist. when it comes to announce a new claim and it's claim and its one-day claim and it's one day older two days old and they work it in two or three days. colemack ..

>> you say we are right on the mark and our checks and balances are sound. entities are a polar opposites, then you are right, i lack the trust in what is being put forward. with the department to reconcile some of these issues to try to get to a place where there is stronger

-- between the two of you? >> we do. all the time. sometimes we reverse our position and sometimes they reversed there's. -- theirs. there have been a few times when i have non-concurred. we value their input. i understand that we are putting you in a bind. that is why i am going to go get an independent review. >> i understand. thank you. agree?iday, do you >> she is giving you a big picture perspective from their view on all the initiatives they have worked. what i have given you is a close inspection of certain

initiatives that i do not feel have achieved what they were expected to achieve. have you had conversations back and forth on the specific initiatives that you have made public? >> we have monthly meetings with vba leadership. i bring my teams in. we talk about the issues. national audits, issues the weekend talk about. there are some things we may not touch on. normally we have a good discussions. recently i feel that general hickey tried to say i want the information early so that she can take corrective action. i think if you look and was done after today's. my team even though they only found 30 instances loma of

manipulation of the date of the ge case claim, at that point we knew we had a problem. instead of waiting until we completed all of the work, did all the samples of all of the mail bins and everything else, i've engaged the general immediately so that corrective action could be taken. i do think that there is responsiveness that is better today than it was a couple of years ago easily. >> thank you. and when have you, with the new acting secretary, but specifically the acting secretary, they have talked a lot about this. he believes we have to build back the truck to of the trust one veteran at the time. what directives has he given you what have you done in terms of, you know, very short term

directives to your department and/or changes did you have made in the short term? we talked a lot about short-term issues and longer-term issues. i'm interested in what you have done differently in the short term. >> thank you, congressman. i will tell you three things. the acting secretary has directed that we put our best and brightest minds together to figure out if there are any other vulnerabilities in the ways in which people can do what grounds. you will use a different language around that, but we are doing that in putting that together so that we can look at it. we've already asked a small group of people to do brainstorming to see if we have places we need better, stronger control. secondly, i have directed 100 percent facility, and we've been through in the government gsa cars for making sure we had the full 9 yards for every piece of mail, document, anything that

might be out there. it has been directed and is a rapid response requirement they must do. >> my time is up. i yield back. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank-you, chairman. one a couple of questions for you just to point out to my colleagues again, when we're talking initiatives and workloads, i think the conclusion of linda halliday oral statement says a lot to that. them -- when we look at the hundred 25 no claim pending initiative, what plans are exempt from that? >> the focus is on the entire rating bundle. the rating bundle are the ones that were described in prescribed in the fiscal year 2000 well below when i was here and.

was the result of measuring and reporting 350 different metrics and it was driving you nuts and driving veterans nuts as well. there was a big effort back in fyi 2000 where they bundled them together, which is what you hear the term rating bundle and non rating bundle. they put like things together. effort even back in 2005 before this former secretary was here was put on the table and focused on rating bundle. that's what i tell you. generally these are clams and require the rating adjudicated decision. >> i get asked this all the time. how many plans they deal with. don't categorize. no category. how many claims? >> congressman, i will ask you

the question. are you talking about the education claims? >> everything that you hold. i get asked that question all the time. >> i can get you that number, but when we do 5 million education plans dispersing $42 billion that is work we are doing. when we are doing loan guarantee which we are doing record high levels and rates. >> i raise a question because we sit here and talk about how none of these metrics add up. i think the ig degrees and some of it, but we will look at the fully developed planned statistic posted on the viejo administration report website. as of 7-12-14. a fully developed claim to go under and 48 days to complete. now, we sit here and start

imagining the massive workload that we have, are we ever going to get their when it is taking beyond a hundred and 25 to the spin of a fully developed plan. >> congressman under my watch a have done some deeper dive analysis. i tell you, as a simple description how we will. we have done more than 300,000 claims in backlog in alaska who. we don't have that many left in backlog this year high. we are at 2,702,000 cahuenga. that's less than 300,000. if we did 300,000 last year, the men and women working hard, i think we can get their next year and we're not just bringing the backlog down. we're bringing the inventory down. when you think about flow mechanics, when you bring inventory down the cycle faster.

i believe we will. we have the data says we can. >> we will go to kristen ruell. manipulating where it was a backlog in what was not. and this is the dilemma we erin. >> i hear you, congressman. i heard ms. roe was well. i heard her back when she first brought up the issue. i responded quickly. i will tell you it -- i told her, but shame on us are not telling her better. we change processes because of what she originally told me in an e-mail. fundamentally we're moving pension into an advanced scanning operation. two of the pension management centers have already done that. the last one was scheduled to do it in early fall. she has made a huge impact by raising that issue of that

concern. i have processes -- i have adjusted processes as a result. >> one big process, and i think we all agree. we talk about this in the committee. we talk about stakeholder input. your stakeholders are the people on that panel before you. that really needs to be addressed. >> congressman, i will tell you what i do today. i will also tell you i have a high degree of respect for mr. ron robinson to the point where i was one of the people when i first showed up that he started e-mailing. i started asking questions about what was going on where people were not feeling care for, not feeling compassion and not being treated very well to the point i got on an airplane, flew down there, sat with him for a complete day from 7:00 a.m.

until late in the afternoon and had the director at that time sitting there with him. i was going back and forth and conversation. as a result of that the director was put on a management plan the required him to take certain action to improve what was going on. when it did not improve -- and i still heard from mr. robinson, i changed leaders. it is now led by a bronze star winner who led the team up and down the road to baghdad, and i will tell you, i have been back. the employees in the town hall stood up and said to me multiple , thank you for bringing this new leader to us. i think i have reacted write command appreciate what mr. robinson did.

>> thank the chairman. he'll back. >> you're recognized for five of its. >> think you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and coming to talk to me. and know your taking a personal interest. i very much appreciate that. it seems like every time an example is offer for the way things and not working is the reno office. what did it could management and there. i take this opportunity to make the pitch to move the office to las vegas where most of the veterans are. at the very least we get new management you put that manager and a loss vegas office. it will be easier to recruit somebody to come and take the job. so please keep that in mind. having said that, i would just

ask, the believe that the whole problem of the discovered claims is limited to a particular office in the philadelphia or wherever that might be. we have seen through numerous hearings and some times when a problem crops up in one regional office it turns out pretty soon that it is happening other places. to you have any indication that is the case? checking into places like reno. >> we have allegations of the same conditions occurring and some of the others. the issue here is now the general hickey has brought wrote the fast letter as that information gets out the

corrective action from a national perspective is in place we're still going to look at the allegations we have just received in the past month there so. really run them down to the ground. we want to make sure that integrity is put back into the system. >> one of the problems -- guard like to say one other thing. they did not report the transactions that fell into the staff letter to headquarters. it made it even more challenging to identify how many transactions there were. my team is still up there looking.

>> if you don't have whistleblowers are you still going to go places where there might be a potential? >> let me tell you the minute we knew we had an issue in philadelphia we immediately get a deep dive analysis. we immediately sent the list to the ig the set in the data analysis we think there are some -- are what some of there doing something wrong because we don't know yet, but we found data. before did it back. * for complete run up. we provided that. i would like to ask mr. murphy is he has second to respond. >> we did an analysis against the percentage of found claims that were in the inventory verses the total inventories of

the overcompensated for reno as opposed to say beach, florida. we came out, anything that came too far off the average was the top five regional offices. thus the data we forwarded. in order that we not be looked at as going back in changing data, we pulled all of those claims and the details on those claims first. then we went out to the regional offices and so now let's go look it these claims. i can go back in and recreate what was there when the flag when out. >> can you keep us posted? >> yes. >> i just want to say one thing about why we did decline. it was a pro veteran position to take. let me explain. fifteen years ago you may have come to us and said your leg hurt and file a claim and granted you.

somewhere in the riding he mentioned your ankle hurt. fifteen years ago who ever raided that plan did not notice or did not do anything about your ankle. and you come back. your knee is worse. we are starting to work your claim. the sitting there going through the claim and suddenly see this, for 15 years ago. their are now in a position of, oh, my gosh, have to go do this. i will suddenly have a 16- year-old claim. i wanted to remove the disincentives from our system to grab the ankle and give that veteran the effective date of the way back when the first mentioned it rather than have any disincentive in the system to do it and ignoring it. that is targeted that process. >> even though the data, when the benefits were issued they go back to the original. >> all the way back to when the

first mentioned that their ankle hurt. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hickey, you mentioned you did an independent review, a study. >> i have one years ago. i am repeating in right now. >> who is that? >> i cannot tell you. -- we require them because they had experience in doing this. >> you don't know the name? >> i don't. >> did they give your report? >> they have not yet. they have given me interim. >> an independent review. they're want to do better.

we had an independent review. this one, they have given me independent comments. >> ago really have the independent evaluation. i'm curious. the earlier you implied that the male was destroyed. that was the impression i got some seemed to say it was placed in a box. and it seemed like a different story. i have a question of what like to go into. in 2009 the inspector general audit uncovered improper shredding of mail. several regional offices. the va concurred with several recommendations back then. here we are again five years

later. i guess i have a question and it relates to many of the reports that i follow up. no one seems to be responsible for following through with the reports. i can never get the name of the individual who is responsible for complying. someone responsible for making that happen. i can never get that happening or find that person in. did that occur in 2009? awarded to stop doing -- awarded to stop dealing with this? wire we still dealing with this? cards congressman, in 2008 before there was even a record management officer there is now as a result of that 2008 effort coffee in every single office an office manager who has a responsibility.

you have to react a loss of. >> i can't answer that question. he talks to you pretty ticket under your interest. to solve this problem. the problem is, secretary, that you have 20,000 people working for you every one of them with the problem come to you? this problem of -- that this rule spoke of, a supervisor who has been firing people and is still there after apparently providing retribution to people who have been trying to improve the system, you need have a system where those people are removed and you need to make it stick because not everyone can reach you.

you need have management that can manage 20,000 people in an effective manner. >> their race by an employee, trusted chain of command. it raises the issue and we for it over. i will give you an example. the baltimore regional office male situation was raised by the chain of command. the ig was called by the chain of command and invited the ig into go of the cecils going on. we had that happen all the time. there are places. i am sensitive to the comments i heard. we have to have an environment where our employees -- >> how were you going to do that ? is not working now. >> congressman, it works in some

places. does not work well, we will address the situation. >> i'm out of time. in none of us have any belief that unless something radically changes with the whole system that there will be changed. hmm out of time. >> many of my constituents in arizona veterans service organization believe that the focus on ending the backlog has incentivized va plan processes to provide an 0 percent disability ratings were low ratings in an attempt to quickly complete claims and reduce claims. files from several veterans in my district and files that the disabled veterans of america gave my office suggests that some of these claims were improperly given a lower rating based on the evidence submitted a decline.

as the claims backlog numbers continue to decrease we have seen an increase of a number of appeals pay 18 percent. my question, what is the bba doing to ensure claims are properly adjudicated the very first time? what mechanisms are in place to prevent examiners from rushing through clans and improperly awarding lowered his ability ratings, in other words, can you describe your quality assurance process? [inaudible] >> for all of the ba to discuss. are will tell you, we have significantly ramp up our efforts in this area as indicative and a think even the gao commented that there has been extra effort. we have now the following, quality review team specialists the output in -- took 600 people

off the line doing planes. that's how much i've out you this. 650 people and could have improved our backlog numbers faster. we have to do them better. they are now quality review team specialists. they, like their star counterparts, must take and pass the skills certification tests to hold that position. that is not an absolutely easy test. they are in the regional offices doing two things. they're doing something new for us called in process review. it is basically, i'm going to check areas where we typically make mistakes and look at them on a higher level frequency. i'm going to come to you as an employee and not saying garcia. i will come and say let me show you what you did. we got out of that culture and into healthy culture.

250,000 of those nationwide every year. the second thing we did was of five employee people at the end of the month to see what the overall individual quality is. the next thing was a fundamental change of our challenge system. i think this committee for the resources to do that. we pull everyone in. is just like basic training. you go through an intense program. the next thing -- and thank you. we have recently and are right now. we have what we call spark training. we have identified through volunteerism or people challenged on either their production of quality or bills, running them through a program that specializes in helping them with problems. a special monthly compensation.

it's hard to do. we built tools to help, but we are retraining out there with the people who have been challenged. any number of other things, and if there is time will let mr. murphy had. if not, i'm happy to come over and lay out every piece of what we do. >> i have about a minute left. the first panel suggested using specialized case managers to review claims might speed up the process. your thought? >> that is exactly what we are doing. we did it in record-breaking time. we get into a completely new organizational model. we have the express lane, one or two medical conditions not arrest for nearly complex, special operations lane said, complex claims that require high german level of ability and experience and the core lane

which is sort of the same thing we do over and over again with lots of medical conditions, but not in the special operations category. that is what we do well in terms of segmentation. i did hear and listen closely to the idea that some employees feel like they cannot pick up the phone and call a veteran and get a piece of information they need. after watching right now and hear me say that only can they but they should. i would love for them to engage in a conversation. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first on an issue, a couple of hearings ago, and reference to the security, the va database. we tend to have a lot of hearings but not as much follow-through. in the assessment on whether the va has secured their database?

>> are you talking about our federal information security act compliance? >> before this committee the database of 20 million veterans and their families had significant potential to be hacked. of course we had a whistle blower that the va denied. they're is a pattern here, and i want to follow upon that. >> when we did our current review this year for 2013 information security was still low last standing material weakness. there are still problems. there are still many security vulnerabilities that need to be corrected. 0in t within va has put together a crisp initiative to try and work some of these vulnerabilities.

they improved last year, but our contractor still said that there were problems. there was not a formal process in place to really make sure that we did not have the threepeat findings from the year before. in the current audit is in progress for this year. >> i look forward to seeing that we had a lot of testimony, concerning testimony about hacking. the va denied that it occurred. finally admitted and said we're going to fix it. what i heard from you is not for certain. we think it's not quite fixed yet. it is not fixed yet. we hear from -- we will fix this. of one to ask that question. outside his room he brought a listing of your current disability : backlog. does that include every disability claim with those that

make the performance reports? >> they include all of the ones that were decided as part of the rating bundle ag confirmed. >> what does it not include? >> it does not include non-operating work. that is not included in there. >> disability claims. >> they are not. once you get a disability claim decision you have the honor charity to go apply for other kinds of benefits. >> we heard that this data may have been manipulated. that may be inaccurate. do you still stand by this claim even though it does not include all of your performance data. he lost his job because he revealed that. >> congressman, it includes everything in the rating bundle. i can provide you a list.

44 percent more worked. i left after as well. we're doing far more work than we have over the years. >> can you make a claim on accuracy? remind me how you determine independently? >> we do it for different ways, as was described. we do a claim based, issue based. >> is that independently verify? >> -- our process has been independently verify. >> i directed it. i'm sorry than i've said it a couple of times. >> you said you were looking to receive certification. >> there's a long way between certification and achieving that . you know the difference. i know the difference.

you have not achieved. >> i just made the decision last week. i want to build confidence. >> that is the only way that this committee is going to gain trust. if you independently verify data every bit of data, none of this is independently verify and my wrong on that? who has independently verify the claims data? coor's congressman, that is what i am going to do because i want you to have confidence. >> so there is no different just for the record, independent verification of these members, claims work numbers outside for or is that all internal? >> i'm not going to say it is all internal. i will ticket for the record and find out if there are people outside that have already done it. have another group on contract right now.

>> thank you. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much for being with this tonight i wanted to get back to the focus on veterans and in particular the issue about the fully developed claims. this is something we have heard a lot about. i, for one, not the we could have a great deal more confidence in this. we have heard testimony this evening from our initial panel that this has not been a particularly successful process and want to see if we can start getting comments from all three parties as to whether you feel that the fully developed claim process is helpful to getting the veterans the decision that

they need. >> we were in on this early. 2011. fully developed claims were key to the transformation plan. the issue we had, moving more crimes and serving more veterans my issue and concern is that when i look at the numbers there were banking on doing a lot more and using that to break the backlog. at that time there were at 4%. the projection was 20%. they're making some pretty large assumptions. an effort to break the back court. at that time i did not think there would get there. i don't know where they are, but if they don't that's a significant amount of claims

that will be processed to reply. >> thank you. >> we are at 40% today. county service officers, really driving home. we are at 40%, well ahead of where we expected to be. i'm extremely appreciative of how seriously all of our veterans service organizations across the nation are doing. they're down faster. we have been clearing out old ones. we are working them. they are part of the prioritization bundle. that is how you get an early claim don we're basically doing knows, working them back from old to new.

>> we also thought it was a good idea. we will be looking at this year's protocol, doing some testing to see if this is hitting the market or if it could be improved. >> thank you. i think it will be helpful. they definitely want to be a part of the solution and help the veterans. i think the you can appreciate this is a bipartisan effort in this committee which is rare. we are all veterans focused and want to get these responses as quickly as we can. the next question is with regard to communication with the veteran during the process of the claim pending. what effect is your experience difficult to communicate with veterans because of the pressure

on the employee's the word-processing claims and their performance metrics did not feel that they necessarily have time and it seems to me a false positive. if you don't have time you will get the answers you need to process the claims. again, if you would comment. >> i definitely feel communications directly with the veteran would help to make sure that your very clear on what evidence and what conditions are present so that you can process the claim quickly. >> thank you. >> i think part of what i would say is we do that with by working when the sos. we highly encourage our veterans to work with our veterans service organization. we know this is complex.

we know it's tough. we do it every day. we feel strongly and train to that, teach it. please use of veterans service officer to help navigate the system, one that is connected for many, many years. >> observe the cut you off. i am being respectful to the chair at this late hour. >> thank you very much. >> as a gulf war veteran have a question for you. after a report recommended using the term gulf war illness in the pushed back favoring the va current terminology chronic malta said the bonus. it was subsequently reported that it the department has dodged references to gulf war

illness and research into the condition because officials fear a threat of new disability benefits to mucklands and costly payouts, complicating your goal to eliminate the backlog of benefits claims by the end of 2015. this is confirmed by your dec. cod 13 testimony before the senate veterans' affairs committee where he stated and ' every time we get a new theme you are right. i am telling you, i will get to 2015 to 125 days except if i have a large perpetration of something like will we experienced in the agent orange and learn a. 260,000 claims in our inventory overnight in october 2010 will close. in response to i know him the

chronicle to listen to know this technology was deferred because there could be experience from veterans from multiple conflicts including the current complex. however, note the 38 cf are section 317, the va regulation governing compensation for disability to ton diagnosed and medically and explained chronic multi symptom ellis states that it pertains to a persian gulf veterans who exhibits objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability. further to my note than 308cfra section 32 regulation governing persons of four provides that the persian gulf war extends

from august to 1992, a future date to be describing that legally there is no difference of presumptive eligibility for veterans of the current complex. given the va regulation. can you further explain your comments, refusal to adopt the phrase go for elvis. >> i'm really had a conversation my conversation, i have concern that we do not disenfranchise of the veterans from other areas that may experience similar medical conditions for. they just did not know what it was. do we not think that they do? do not think that they were exposed to some of the other

things? they may not be experiencing the conditions. my comment was to say other veterans from other areas might be as well. is it fair to categorize that under one era of a veteran rather than under the conditions themselves that might apply to any veteran from any era. that did not want to disenfranchise any other veteran >> 2013 hearing before the senate, veterans affairs committee, the national academy testified that in order to achieve the 2015 goal everything will have to go exactly according to plan. he also noted that the department lacked any surge capacity. in other words, va could not accommodate the addition of new prison to benefits based upon the statements, the viejo 2015

goals restricting the department's ability to adequately assess veterans benefits needs. >> congressman, absolutely not. if i had iom come to me tomorrow and say it was a highly connected issue, and frankly they don't come to me. if there was a presumptive that should be declared all bets are off. if that is a new presumptive, that is a new presumptive. that's hurting veterans. before the i'm here taking caref veterans. no, absolutely not i would never try to prevent that from happening. that is just absolutely not in my dna. >> i yield back. >> you're recognized for five minutes.

>> i want to thank you for the progress in making across the board and, specifically at the waco regional office in texas which serves the veterans i represent. we have seen wait times for first-time service connected disability claims, 470 moving much closer to our ultimate goal of one to five. the lace, starting tonight progress. everyone else's concern that is progress in numbers could be verified by independent third-party suits can confirm that this progress is real. from everything that we are led to believe things are moving in the right direction and a pretty good clip. before i leave, lot of serious

allegations raised in the previous panel. can you provide answers to those that come back to this committee? >> yes, i can. >> thank you. >> one of the things he said in your opening comments that struck me was that some of the success may be compromised by data integrity issues. anything that the secretary has said tonight that alleviates those concerns the raise in your opening statement? >> now. >> one of the numbers that you cited in your opening statement was -- and that did not catch the full statement. 32 percent were inaccurate. that was simply within a certain category. i wanted to better understand

that and the discrepancy against the 90% accuracy rating. >> under our review of the special initiative to process rating claims pending over two years we pulled the sample of 240 rating decisions that included both final rating and provisional rating and found that 77 of those ratings have inaccuracies. that is where the 32% is coming from. it was focused on just this initiative. in the general did agree to go back and review all of the provisionals. many of those were helpful in. >> and also we have heard in el paso that perhaps a consequence -- focus on first-time service connected disability claims is

our rise in appeals. the secretary has told us that the rate of appeals has not changed over the last and a 20 years. you know, we have heard anecdotally again at our town hall meetings, veterans whose appeals so when they sign and have not been such you can see, they looked at one of them. you know, veterans stood up at my town hall and said it's been two years since anyone touched this claim. that is anecdote. that is also how i started to understand we had a problem. anything you can tell me that would either confirm we have a problem or has the secretary states, natural given the number of first-time claims that we are processing and are coming through at the same rate. processing them at pace.

>> our numbers -- well, we had a key point of concern, the increased appeals. the workload has continued to grow at an alarming rate. we had 220,600 approximately as of september. 2011. as of june 30th 2014 we see 268,000. just shy of that, about an 18% increase. we see that they -- their is a significant increase of 25% on the notices of this agreement waiting for appellate review. i think that is significant. it is growing over time. >> ten seconds. i don't know if you can -- >> review the backlogs. we did visit several locations. there was concern in anecdotal statements among staff that the

focus on the backlog, the front end focus to divert staff away from that back and and was one of the causes. >> okay. thank you. >> you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he talked about independent reviews. those are key in any business that you have. the question comes in, what do you do with the information you get? and you talk about getting certification. obviously it would be -- but there is also from that, 9,004 makes recommendations on improving what you're doing. i guess the question i have his gun either method, independent review, what do we do with the information? how do we go ahead and institute

improvement that makes us better ? >> congressman, i will tell you that at the heart and core of what i bring to the table -- and they're is a negative thought. and dna that talks about process improvement. i don't sit on anything. we don't relax. we continue to look for ways to get veterans to apply what we have gained. mr. murphy's organization gathers data consistently on the number of errors we make and will we make, different than with the ig looks at in terms of the way they look for errors. we taken immediately turn a trend line on a particular air. we turn that into training immediately. return that in the conversations with our quality review team and in fact tell them to start looking harder at those issues and making improvements.

i also mandated that we start doing more face-to-face. we call the models and regional offices. >> are there instructions in the system that throw you down or prevent you from making improvements in the overall system? >> certainly there are. i made mention of and will tell you, this is even more significant in the appeals process. that is, the appeals process looks. you know this well. the tax code that has been wired together by law over many years. it is hard to acquire it to make any process improvement. and so we struggle with the appeals process and finding definitive, major improvements. when i don't have an issue with law will sometimes find the stakeholder vested interest. as we did on something that should make sense to everyone.

a standard form we should have the application for benefits. we heard from our stakeholders. they had some concerns about that. it is still in rulemaking. i can't talk about it. i am hoping we will have early this fall a solution that makes a difference to both. >> you talk about blockades. you talk about trust. congress is a body that does not have the highest approval rating itself. not just within the agency the you're working with, but i would like to discuss your vision of oversight on the part of congress, zero ig, gao. are there -- everyone has a role are we actually accomplishing something? at the end of are we getting

something done and making changes? >> i would tell you that 200,000 veterans this year alone will get answers to claims and higher-quality rate than they've ever gone before. i think you'll have made a difference. thank your staff when they come and visit us, they put me on a little warning. when the ig tells me certain problems we look to see how we can apply solutions. >> do you feel you have access going in the other direction as well? you mentioned you are sometimes bound by law. see you feel you have access to come back to us and say and congress enact changes so we can make this better? here is where i am bound. >> i understand what you're saying. i will tell you, will often times before i take one step to come to you find out what my

stakeholders might think of my taking that direction. oftentimes when i will come to you it's because my stakeholders have concerns about changing the law. they are my partners. >> i understand that. >> and i don't want to bring you something for which they have little to no support in the know you well enough to know you won't do anything if we don't have the veterans service organization. >> i hope you feel free to have a dialogue. >> i do. >> you are recognized. >> thank you for coming here tonight. i feel like our reached an age where i say things like we go way back. i appreciate the work we have done, the quality of work you have done consistently has improved the quality of care for veterans. you have earned the gratitude of this nation with what you've done in uniform in the work you're trying to do. you knew when he took this job it was a hard time. it would have been easier to have retired.

you also know, like i do, we are part of organizations or we get judged on the organization over individual merit. if you think you have a tough job, we have one to. that's why i bring it up and i want to make note, this to me is more than just a note. this is a tangible example of the cultural problems. this in that disrespect shown to my this was to ignore the people of the eighth district of pennsylvania. this attitude, they were doing exactly what i said, go out and investigate so we can get data. i can tell you, imagine if you are a congressional staffer, imagine how intimidating it is to be an employee he tries to say. europe these folks come forward. it's just heartbreaking.

i know this troubles you. i know deeply in a one to ask this question. you come from a successful career as a general officer. as the air force work better than that va? >> congressman, every organization, every large organization klum klum has people who are all in who do absolutely everything right. every organization has people that don't call. you watch things that happen. you're watching things that happen occasionally in my current position. i love them both because of the missions they do and because of a great people who participate in them day in and day out working their tails off to make a difference.

>> and maybe you can chime in. this is not unusual in a large organization for the disconnect between the 40,000-foot strategic vision and the granular level of someone doing the work. somewhat of a disconnect, but i would make the case that the lack of a national strategy and a clear mission up and down is causing this. do you see the disconnect? >> we do see some disconnect. i think you have to have very clear policy guidance. i think some of the fast letter guidance that has gone out has really hit the core values of some of the staff. that is why we are getting all of the allegations we are getting today. i think you have to be clear on your policy. you have to understand what the intended consequences are in the unintended consequences. you have to deal with both.

i would -- i personally went up in philadelphia to take a look at the issues up there. when i met with the deputy undersecretary for benefits they recognized a misapplication of guidance to his a risk. .. and she didn't know that. that seems to me to be almost

why that would happen and mammals have judiciously asked if she get a bonus for making those changes because the issue is you have employees trying to improve the system and they are such a disconnect there that those things never connected. >> yeah congressman everything we are doing today was an employee initiative. it was an employee setting up the work. do it according to these ways. >> it's amazing how to compress as they felt and this is my last question. if that panel an anomaly or do you think that's a fair representation? >> congressman i would refrain it does to me that would feel like if i made a comment like that would feel like i was being disingenuous about the real feelings that they have and i won't do that to my employees. >> i'm out there not to say that i would say that's fairly typical. just so you know from my perspective that they expressed concerns were fairly typical of

what i hear out there whether they have spoken about whistleblowing or inviting in conversation. i yield back. >> mr. jolly for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. general hickey thank you for your service and incredible career and i appreciate your clear dedication to your comments tonight. i have a soft spot for the kc-135 so i thank you for your career with that as well. tonight you find yourself representing the va. we can have as many oversight hearings as the day is long. at the end of the day short of major legislative changes its up to the to address the issues. did the legislative affairs office review your testimony tonight? >> yes they did congressman and they do all the time. >> in your testimony you say you appreciate the president's involvement in improving the claims process. what is the president than to show leadership lately on that

issue? >> so congressman, the budgets start nba. the budgets come to you while through the omb process and through approval in those processes that exist there so from that perspective absolutely. i will also tell you that the whole effort on fully developed frames was an effort to bring focus to that. everyday i get up and i have to make decisions i need to have good leadership in front of me. >> i appreciate that and i'm saying this constructively. it's not a gotcha question. we are begging for leadership. everybody's begging for leadership in having a political establishment is too late to identify crisis and too quick to declare result and i'm afraid the present is wednesday that which is why why i asked. he also mentioned in her oral

testimony that you would appreciate the support for legislative solutions by this body. your answer to mr. was a fully funded i.t. budget. would that be the number one priority or are there that thinks we should consider as the congress is responsible for doing our job as well? >> congressman one of the things i would tell you first of all yes it's a holy funded i.t. budget and not just one year but all years fully funded but we are in a world that requires really finches -- efficiency and effectiveness in the thing second thing i would say and i think the chairman for this. the chairman put together roundtable that brought us altogether to have discussions about appeals. in that he brought forth the bso's and the board of veterans appeals and other stakeholders to the table so i thank you chairman for that effort. i will tell you that's what is resulted in that is frankly the disabled veteran leadership sat down with me and said listen if you are having a hard time

moving something forward why do you let us take a leadership with the other bso's and we will move forward. my daddy i said there's no limit to the amount of work you do if you don't care who takes credit and i don't care who takes credit. >> do we need legislative initiatives that this body needs to enact? >> i believe we do and i would like to bpa to take leadership. >> my question is to mr. soto. mr. soto works for the regional offices in my office and he is essentially claim there's an office in my district who has retaliated against him. i'm going to meet with him in the morning and i will get a privacy release. i understand tonight you cannot discuss the circumstances of his case but i think every member and i know i receive them often, received complaints from employees and we try to handle them judiciously. we understand that there are two

sides to every story and i understand that in this situation as well. but i cannot go to his supervisor and expect an impartial answer. so once i receive that privacy release tomorrow i'm going to come to you and to legislative affairs and i'm going to ask for an explanation and i hope that the va is found to be in the right. i will be on us. i don't set up your your hoping the va is thought to be in the wrong. i hope it's in the right. but i need an answer because i can tell you this every member of local 1594 is going to call my office, not the va and they are going to ask what i'm doing in my capacity. i'm sharing that with you on the record tonight simply to let you know how serious it is not that i looks to expect you to have an answer tonight about mr. soto's case but to be telling you that i will be bringing that to you and legislative affairs to you very soon and i need an answer. >> congress and i will provide

it with the documentation you told me to. >> i will continue to come each week. >> i will work to make sure it's timely provided congressman. >> otherwise it will come to mind -- your office which has been very effective so i appreciate your understanding. >> i yield back. >> mr. fitzpatrick for five minutes. >> i want to follow-up on some questions that mr. ticona was asking about performance measures and evaluations and how long it's actually been going on and the federal government. you indicated that the federal government over the last several years have been doing better in providing bonuses pursuant to performance goals and objectives at the beginning of the year and evaluation at the end. you were talking about the va. we talk about federal agencies? >> i'm talking about across federal government. there have been a change to look at performance in terms of

results which is different than in the past. years ago it was just if you had a good attitude, if you're trying hard almost like a report card in school that i really think that the government, the federal government wide at opm has made a strong effort to judge performance on results and it's very important. you could have an outstanding employee in one year and that employee could be a fully satisfactory person the next year they don't produce the results that are defined in their performance plan i think there is than a general improvement in that. >> where is the va going wrong in that? >> i don't have specific information. i know they have problems with their certification of their performance plan. i believe it was last year and a lot of the ratings were actually

reassessed after the first and second level review to make sure that they were tied to results. i think that right now there is a strong feeling that senior executives are getting bonuses for underperforming programs. i think you have to look very carefully at that because in some cases, you are having a senior person come in. i will use general hickey as an example. she took over a tough assignme assignment. you may not be able to turn that assignment immediately into top-performing organization that you can move it forward with each step. i think sometimes you have a leader that actually can produce results but it isn't as

immediate as other people want and you have to recognize that and incentivized it. >> general hickey i want to thank you for your incredible service to our nation but as ms. halliday said you have taken on a tough job at the va. you were here earlier when kristen ruell was giving the testimony by flawed data and duplicate payments within the va and she was was claiming there were duplicate payments and her manager at the regional office for claiming that wasn't the case. would you say now couple of years later that she was more correct than the managers at the philadelphia va office on that question? >> congressman there are duplicate duplicate payments my can tell you we to 10,000 pension claims a month and about 64 of them are duplicate. >> she was calling out a problem that she saw and she deals with these issues every day. she was identifying a problem and she didn't think upper management was concerned about it or understood or was even involved in it.

>> congressman i can play the management at the office did raise the issue to us and did have discussion with the pension business line leadership. i think there has been a conversation but i appreciate the situation she found herself in. >> i appreciate you have indicated to this committee and members of congress that your doors open and you want transparency and you indicated it unacceptable to you that others don't share that same commitment. with respect to this memo that was provided to us midway through the hearing, there has been a lot of talk about the staffers names that are on there and that is very concerning because of our constitutional obligation and oversight that there are two names at the top of the memo with a circle around it. employees of the va both whistleblowers i believe ryan who was here today in the audience and kristen ruell and i

was wondering perhaps perhaps ms. reubens if you can indicate to us why is there named -- they knew nothing about the meaning and they were invited to the meeting. why are the two whistleblowers who are doing as a secretary indicated change processes made a huge impact improve the agen agency. why are these people being singled out? they should be applauded but they are being denigrated and singled out and made an example of. why is there named even on this if you know? >> congressman i would tell you when i got the call that committee staff was on the way. i convey to the folks in the philadelphia regional office a list of things that have had been described to me to make available parking and a room to meet and then claims files. i said i would expect they may want to meet with the ig. >> why is kristen ruell's name on this that? >> in addition to speaking to

the ig that committee staff may want to speak to the whistleblowers. i didn't know who they were and i didn't know they were going to be available that day and suggested we need to make sure if they were requested that we make them available to the committee staff. >> thank you. >> mr. mean for five minutes. >> i'm not sure that i understand that answer. you said you didn't know who they were and get their names were on the top. >> sir the acting director at the time a semior what the employees and wrote down their names to make sure that if they were in the office that day and wanted to be addressed by the committee staff that they be made available. >> you had the philadelphia office in her testimony that there are 96 white boxes of essential return mail and eight small cabinets of military mail some of which were holding claims that had been existing

for as much as three years. were there in fact 96 white boxes and eight small cabinets with that kind of male? >> sir i was disappointed to the director's position in philadelphia. my understanding from the airport is one that was initially raised the undersecretary asked the pension fiduciary director to send staff up there and i would need to review the final report. >> this was raised in february of 2012. >> yes sir. >> it's now 2014. >> yes sir and there is a report. >> where are those boxes and what happened to those boxes? >> my understanding is that those were boxes of mail that needed to be scanned into the system that those claims have been processed and i believe that was the finding from the fiduciary service. >> that is not what was explain.

what it said was they were important pieces of mail potentially. do you know how many there were? >> no sir i don't. >> there were 26 boxes and you have no idea how many claims were associated with those boxes? >> my understanding is that those claims have been worked. >> the testimony was that they were claims that have not been sufficiently identified and therefore they were in complete and as a result of incompleteness those veterans who had made those claims were not being communicated with. some have not been communicated with for months even years with respect to the claims they were making. >> i will be happy upon arrival at the regional office to investigate further and insured that full answer is provided. >> what happened to the 96 boxes of documents? we have heard testimony that they may been shredded. >> sir my understanding is that those were boxes of mail that needed to be scanned into the

system at the regional offices continue to make progress in that regard to make sure those documents on on claims have been completed are also part of the electronic virtual va system. >> general do you know more about this? >> congressman eppolito number if i'm recollecting correctly a 68 boxes and i believe it was documents that were in paper. >> this is the document, 96. >> we have a different number that kristen ruell has identified. >> is there different set of boxes? here is triaged a. is there tree are. >> when we went into the philadelphia filipov we identified 68 maldives full of claims. >> are they different than the 96 other male ben's? we might have over 115 male bands of fun -- unresponsive of

which we don't know how many hundreds of potentially thousands of pieces of veterans correspondents could be included within them. >> congressman the mail has been used to do the claim already. that claim has been completed. >> no general it has not been completed. the testimony we received is that document was not able to be appropriately either return mail or other kinds of correspondence which identifiers required further follow-up to be able to identify. am i missing something? >> congressman i will go deeply into this and come back to you personally and meet with you and bring whoever need to to explain it so that it can meet your needs and your understandings so we ensure you are well-informed. >> i need to know how many there were, how many bins and if i'm hearing testimony that there could be as many as 150 separate bins. this is not ambiguous.

>> i will look knowledge and get back to you and make sure we bring people that are capable to explain. if you have the opportunity and i know you are very busy i would advise you to come to the regional office where we do this work. >> i have been in a philadelphia hospital and we didn't expect we were having these troubles on the side of the aisle with benefits and i will be there. >> i will make arrangements. >> thank you general. >> mr. mean i understand the rule talks about the 92 boxes some two years ago in the 68 boxes we are talking about are boxes that were currently undiscovered. mr. lamalfa you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and committee. first, mr. jolly mentioned a few minutes ago to general hickey, we here have the same concerns that people step forward to

provide information in the oakland office that have been retaliated against or interviewed were practically harassed about other issues when they thought they were coming forward to help instead they are called in for review hearings on things that they actually were helping on and made to feel like they were in trouble over that. i would like to have an opportunity to approach it later as mr. jolly mentioned with some of these folks. they were retaliated against and i think one has been under suspension or even let go so i would like to have that opportunity. as well we talked about the bonuses. i think you reward people who are grinding out the work at the ground level making veterans claims be finished and finished accurately and with good quality. that is what we are talking about with bonuses especially catching up on the backlog.

when you start getting into the top level executive management there is a little less justification we talk about these backlogs, these veterans living in their cars because they can't get an answer back or waiting years and years and years or heard about 96 boxes or 56 or 58 or 14,000 files in oakland california. the captain of the ship goes with the ship and if the ship goes down the captain goes down with the ship. at the upper level i think it's highly inappropriate for veterans living in their car or contemplating suicide even why they are saying top-level people receiving bonuses so i would like to consult with the one who's receiving them at the top level and why and how we justify that. i would like to see that reformed as we have done legislatively to limit that. that's a small part of the problem.

>> congressman i did not give any bonuses to any vba personnel at the height of the. >> i call them different thing. >> they got a basic salary and they got no bonuses. >> we will investigate that more. currently how many claims are pending at the board of appeals? >> i have appeals but because they have -- claimed decisions have been made 72% of those are being paid. >> a wrong number. how many have been appeals? >> i don't have it off the top of my head. >> we don't have a lot of time. >> right now i have 276,000 things that the board appeals. in the hole and an process and that includes vba's portion vba's portion, p.s. zero's portion because they have an opportunity to do things and

that does not include the court. >> whatever it is that's a huge number. how long do you expect to go through that with veterans that have waited for years in many cases to get from, do the first and to find out that their cases been tossed and perspective of veterans for appeal. >> congressman i'm not going to blow any smoke on this. we need a better way to do this process, this appeals process. we are not doing the best we can do by veterans in this appeals process. >> 97% of them get remanded back to my understanding to the regional office once again so it's time lost for veterans especially when they are in a bad way. >> first of all vba's part of this is to do three things. the three things we do we have been 25% more than we did 20 years ago but i will sell you this. every man does not necessarily because we made a wrong

decision. the re-man can be because the veteran came in a very open process that never ends and brought in a brand-new thing that didn't exist at the time of the initial. >> additional information is a good thing but it shouldn't have been an in appeal board to begin with. >> there should be acclaimed for an increase or a new claim and i agree with that. >> there is funny business mr. arronte alluded to. we don't believe that dates are maintained. we are getting information on that. once it becomes a new claim it's hard to go backwards. >> we can do that for you congressman and we are working on that right now. i can type those complaints the full complete body of complete body those claims 14,000 of those, 10,000 of which we were able to grant a most professionals that we would not have been able to take care of. just an thousand veterans the way we did by doing that provisional process. that said i understand so that's why we are doing a 100% review.

>> thank you. ms. rubin said the oakland office 14,000 claims were found stored in cabinets and 2012. you visited that office and discovered these files were actionable not just stored and what have you. these are actionable plans to need to be taken care. they dated back to the early 90s and you connected, directed the office to process these claims immediately yet we find until recently they have hardly been moved. what was your follow-up on those files in those claims that were stored in the cabinet somewhere dating back to the 90s? >> sir in 2012 when we identified the volume of work that needed to be addressed there were a number of steps undertaken to include a large number of claims to be brokered so they would get immediate attention by some of our highest performing offices. we also provided many help teams to come into oakland to help

train them to identify the system issues and to ensure that they continue to work those claims, the oldest claims first. >> we know that some of those are still not done. some of those are still not completed. mr. chairman nye you will yield back. >> thank you very much mr mr. lamalfa and thank you to the witnesses both the first in the second panel. i think ms. hickey the concern that we have is the american public when you say you have cut the backlog in half, they think that have to veterans have gotten their disability but that's not true because the veteran board of appeals is going to their process. there are other machinations that are being handled so what we are trying to do is get to the bottom of how many veterans

are actually receiving a check for their disability claim, not how many you have moved out of the va because we know that you don't have, you don't count them when they go to the court. is that true? >> chairman we have three different processes. >> yes or no when it goes to the veteran court of appeals. >> the court of appeals is not an va organization. but i understand there are still veterans. >> totally agree with you on that. >> is true just tell the american people that the backlog that veterans are now experiencing is still there. >> chairman i'm so sorry it's late and i'm getting a little flustered with my words to forgive me please. chairman of the backlog is separating claims. that has been the commitment. >> i've got that. will you please admit though

that there is still veterans waiting for their disability claims because they have gone to the court? >> i will admit chairman that there are veterans waiting on particular decisions on an initial claim which we are paying. 72% are betting appeals process or our ticketing resources from the va for any number of medical issues they have claim. >> i apologize. i though -- this hearing is adjourned.

>> federal reserve chair janet yellen testifies before the senate banking committee on the monetary policy report. live coverage of this hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. today, a hearing on public and on cyberfforts

criminal networks. the senate judiciary committee on crime & terrorism meets at 2:30 p.m. eastern and you can see it live on c-span3. >> we are at the henry a wallace country life center, 50 miles south and west of des moines. this is the birthplace home of henry a. wallace. fondlyriarch was known as uncle henry, and he was the wallace's farmer magazine. c. wallace was u.s. secretary of agriculture under woodrow wilson, and his son was born on this farm in 1888. he went on to become editor of ' farmer magazine."

he was secretary of agriculture from 1933 to 1940 one, and from 1941 to 1945 he was roosevelt's vice president and u.s. secretary of agriculture. he is known for the agricultural adjustment act, which was the first time that farmers were asked not to produce. at first people could not believe the things he was proposing regarding that, but then as prices went up they started to listen to him, and people still refer to him today as the genius secretary of agriculture. >> exploiter the history -- explore the history and literary life of des moines, iowa, this tv."nd on c-span2's "book >> live today on c-span -- "washington journal" is next. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the house

returns for general speeches. house continues work on the financial services appropriations bill. and in 45 minutes, california congressman jeff denham talks about the unaccompanied minors at the u.s.-mexico order and his efforts to get house republicans to act on immigration legislation. at 8:30 a.m., representative jim mcgovern of massachusetts talks on u.s.e resolution troops in iraq. and dan iannicola of the financial literacy group discusses the financial literacy of u.s. teenagers. ♪ yellen delivers her

semiannual report to congress. that will be a 10:00. you can watch that live on c-span3. the president traveling to virginia to look at those matters on thursday. the president also going to delaware to talk about an effort to put more private investments into bridges. there has been a back-and-forth between rick perry and rand paul on how to approach security. both using iraq as an example.