concern is that in 1994, there was a report that outlined it and you were there at that particular point. that outlined sexual misconduct within the agency. in 2004 there was an oig study that talks about the same kind of inappropriate behavior. yet here we are today with a new oig report that is over 100 pages in length. but we are addressing a decade old cultural problem, aren't we? this is not new to you, is that correct? ms. leonhart: this is new to me in this position, but in law enforcement, obviously, every company, every organization has some people that are not going to follow the rules.

to see what happened back in 2000-2003 in columbia, to see what happened in 2009 with the agent in bogota, fantasy cartagena -- and then to see cartagena. this is our opportunity to make sure that this culture -- there is no doubt that employees know that this is unacceptable and see what will happen to them. that is why firing the three employees, agents after cartagena sets the tone for what happens from here on. mr. meadows: it might if it wasn't reinforced in other ways. you keep coming back to cartagena. it may be the only time that there have been people that have actually been disciplined for improper conduct -- would you agree?

you keep running back to this as a good example, but yet your directive didn't come out until two years after that event. you were bragging about your directive that you sent out -- did that go out in 2014? ms. leonhart: yes. mr. meadows: so why, if you were concerned about the culture, would instn't it have gone out immediately or is it that the press has started to report it? ms. leonhart: we had discussions , the executive staff, on what things we should put in place. we started putting things in place in 2012 -- mr. meadows: so is it your testimony that it took you two years to figure out what to put in a directive? ms. leonhart: no, we drafted that after a working group got together to decide what takes we needed to put in place -- what

steps we needed to put in place. we drafted that on the heels of the cartagena case, being able to show -- here is what happens if you partake in this behavior. we had the disciplinary case finalized. we went out with a series of things. we had already put additional training, every basic agent training every intel analyst training. mr. meadows: let me do one follow-up. i have recently believe that some of the people that you are today saying should have been fired -- i have reason to believe that some of them have actually gotten promotions and bonuses and have gotten new assignments. would you agree with that? ms. leonhart: i know that a number of them were promoted between the activity in 2000 and when it came to light in 2010. i can tell you that sense, the

allegations were raised -- that since the allegations were raised there have been no promotions. as tomatoes: no bonuses -- mr. meadows: no bonuses? were there bonuses given to some of them? ms. leonhart: i know that there were bonuses given to the regional director. i don't know about bonuses -- i don't know about -- mr. meadows: some bonuses were given to people directly involved in this that most americans find offensive. ms. leonhart: no. mr. meadows: you said you just didn't know. ms. leonhart: the regional director that got bonuses was not directly involved in this. i don't know as to the other employees. mr. meadows: so is it possible they got bonuses? ms. leonhart: it is very

possible. mr. meadows: if you would give without names -- because obviously that is critical -- would you agree today to give the name and the number of people involved to the oig so he can report back to this committee on how many of those people got bonuses? when you agree to do that? i find that is reinforcing a bad behavior. would you do that? ms. leonhart: i will work with the department who is going to be giving you additional information here shortly to see about adding that in. mr. meadows: so we can get bonus information to see if these all got bonuses -- these people got bonuses. ms. leonhart: i will discuss it with the department. mr. meadows: was that a no?

are you going to give it to us or not? ms. leonhart: if i am able to give it to you you will get it. mr. meadows: mr. chairman -- >> we are asking you to provide the information to the inspector general. will you or will you not do that? ms. leonhart: if it was up to me to give it to you -- >> you are the administrator! who do you report to? ms. leonhart: these documents going to your committee -- >> we are asking you to give them to the inspector general. ms. leonhart: if the inspector general wants that, we will give it. >> i would be happy to take that information. >> will be inspector general report back to this committee at his earliest convenience? it was suggested in the more -- the more senior person was directly involved.

ms. leonhart: he was not involved in the activity. he didn't report it to the right place >> so he was involved. ms. leonhart: he was involved. mr. chaffetz: can we also added to their promotions title changes? bonuses, title changes promotions -- is that fair? ms. leonhart: we will work to get you that information. >> i think the chair for their

patience and i yield back. mr. chaffetz: did you want to add something? the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin recognized for five minutes. >> one of the things that is a little bit frustrating about this hearing is that you have expressed concerns about some of the civil service rejections. if we didn't have serv civil service protections you could fire anyone who wasn't on the right side politically. nevertheless you have expressed frustration and i believe some of the people who are expressing the greatest anger maybe the first to fight a new change in those civil-service laws. could you give us some

suggestions that you may have to make it easier to remove and employ -- one thing that frustrates me, we have a situation in which people are behaving outrageously. if a late-night talk show host made it up you wouldn't believe it but it really happened. things are obviously wrong. it makes me wondering what is happening. could you give me any suggestions about civil-service laws? ms. leonhart: if you look at giving us the same exemption as the fbi, i think we then would be able to make sure that the penalties were appropriate. mr. grothman: what would

they be? ms. leonhart: i think this is outrageous behavior, and knowing the facts of the case as i do, i would be concerned with the appeal rights and being able to sustain it in a merit system. i believe that some of the behavior would raise to the level of removal. mr. grothman: so they should be fired? ms. leonhart: just like cartagena, yes. mr. grothman: ok. could you just described to the public today why you feel this behavior was wrong so i get a sense? ms. leonhart: it is wrong on a number of levels. prostitution itself. human trafficking is the second

highest illegal market besides drug trafficking. look at all the efforts of the government has been putting into -- especially in recent years -- to go after the human trafficking threat. that is number one. number two -- it is so far away from the type of conduct and ethical behavior that is required of someone to carry a badge as a federal agent. in the security clearance issues , putting people and our information at risk. they are all reasons that i -- this is appalling. mr. grothman: it is appalling.

is it right that some of this stuff was brought to the attention of colombian authorities? ms. leonhart: actually, the colombian authorities -- by the time this was discovered on the corruption of the two police officers the police did a great job in helping us convict them and also they removed a number of colombian national police officers who were involved in the same activity. mr. grothman: ok. i will ask the same question to mr. horowitz. he seems a little -- will you comment on how you feel we should change? still getting protections, what changes for outrageous conduct, or even competent conduct? mr. horowitz: within the current structure, there needs to be

prompt reporting, prompt investigating, prompt disciplinary action, and follow through. that is within the current structure -- that can be done. you mentioned the colombian national example. those of thousands that were learned about from the colombian national officers who were corrupt and disclosed the information related to the 2001-2004 events. all the dea officials involved in those events down in colu olombia new nothing about it. it was years later when they disclosed that. that is a problem, a serious problem that no one thought that was reportable to headquarters and there needed to be follow through. whether it is the current system or whether it is under an fbi

regime, that was the fundamental flaw. no one thought it was important enough for serious enough to raise to headquarters. mr. grothman: it is good that the colombian people have higher standards. mr. horowitz: these were the corrupt officers. mr. grothman: but they felt it was wrong and once they got arrested a were happy to comment and report out on what had occurred. we now recognize the gentleman from alabama. mr. palmer: thank you. is there any policy against turning over dea weapons or communication devices to foreign agents or any non-dea or non-us official? ms. leonhart: if i hear you write, you are asking about prohibition on turning over a device? mr. palmer: not having immediate

supervision of the weapons and devices that belong to an agent. ms. leonhart: number one securing your weapon -- that is required. mr. palmer: i am asking -- is there any policy tat the dea that would result in any kind of reprimand or punishment for not having immediate supervision of your weapons and communication devices? yes or no? ms. leonhart: it could fall under -- mr. palmer: yes or no? you either have a penalty for not securing -- there our things that could be used against other agents or other countries. ms. leonhart: it could fall under poor judgment -- there are a number of areas, policies.

mr. palmer: it has already been pointed out that poor judgment is not an official criteria. you talked about these corrupt police officers. is it true that the same officer who helped facilitate these parties may have helped pay for the prostitutes, had control of the agents'weapons and communication, their badges? ms. leonhart: part of the report is that, while some of the agents were involved in that activity -- mr. palmer: yes or no. ms. leonhart: yes. mr. palmer: as egregious as as the activities the agents were involved in, which is in many respects a crime against humanity could you not find a

reason to reprimand or fire agents for turning over their weapons and communications devices to foreign nationals? for crying out loud, china is investing in south america latin america. they will spend another $250 billion over the next 10 years. did it not occur to anyone that this might also be a national security breach, a problem along that line? ms. leonhart: someone doing a security adjudication could look at that and find that those are reasons why a security clearance should be suspended and revoked. mr. palmer: were they, for any of these people? ms. leonhart: for bogota, the clearances were never looked at. mr. palmer: who is your immediate supervisor? who has the authority to hold you accountable from the other side of the dea?

ms. leonhart: the deputy attorney general. mr. palmer: have you discussed this the with the deputy attorney general? ms. leonhart: i briefed him on these cases. mr. palmer: did you advice on how to proceed? i want to ask you more specifically -- did the deputy attorney general express any reservations about how the dea has handled this, and was there any discussion about how to respond to the request of the inspector general? ms. leonhart: i have had multiple conversations about turning over documents to the oig. they have given us good guidance on that. mr. palmer: so they give you good guidance, they approved of

not turning over the documents that the inspector general requested? ms. leonhart: we didn't know we were worried about the victims names and how to handle that. mr. palmer: mr. horowitz, you have said that there have been numerous instances where the fbi has felt -- you mentioned about the dea -- when you were here in january, you were talking about delaying production material. i asked you then, did this restaurant structure and? -- did this rise to obstruction? you said it had a significant effect but did not go as far as obstruction. i want to ask you that again -- are you willing to call instruction? mr. horowitz: what occurred back in 2013 when we were given redacted documents impeded and

obstructed our ability to move forward with this investigation in a timely manner. and it took months, and it required me to elevate it to the leadership. when i elevated it, we got the reaction. but i didn't have to do that with the atf in the marshal service. mr. palmer: i am not trying to put you on the spot, but -- mr. horowitz: i think in this instance we were obstructed. mr. palmer: is there information you would like to get from the dea? mr. horowitz: at this point we made the decision to move forward even though we have concerns about production, because this was so important to put forward. and frankly, at this point, we have other reports to get to that we still have the same issues on. mr. ballmer: is there additional information you would like to have? mr. horowitz: on this issue no.

mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you. i am not sure if the memo from attorney general holder has been admitted to evidence, but in case it hasn't -- ok, great. in the attorney general's memo for all department personnel dated april 10 2016, it says that the solicitation of prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims, and a consequent increase in the number of minors tracked into commercial sex slavery -- you agree with that? mr. horowitz: i certainly think it raises the risks. ms. leonhart: i certainly doms.

leonhart:. mr. lynch: under the department of homeland security regs and statutes what we're talking about here is solicitation of prostitution it is clearly within the definition of human trafficking. yet the dea is charged -- i know we were down in central america recently and that is a big part of the dea's mission, to combat human trafficking. we actually give grants to the department -- to the dea and to the fbi and the state department as part of trafficking victims protection act and the violence

against women act. we give grants to your agencies to prevent human trafficking prevent prostitution. yet the very people, the very departments that are getting this money are in this case engaging in human trafficking. it brings me back to the of believability of what has happened here. -- the on believability of what has happened. under the factors that we use in determining discipline, one of the factors is the seriousness of the offense and whether the offense is indirect fire relation of the agency policy. the notoriety of the offense. whether that offense prohibits that individual from doing their job.

in this case, we have dea agents still on the job that are receiving federal grants to stop trafficking who have already engaged and committed to trafficking. i don't see the end of this. i don't see the end of this, if we leave the situation the way it is. so, i went believe this would be necessary, but we may need to amend title five. we may have to put in a provision that says -- that hold you accountable. right now you can pass it off to someone below you and you don't have to accept responsibility and you haven't. that is clear. but if we adopted an amendment to title five that said "outrageous and/or criminal conduct in direct violation of an agency's mission would give

you the ability to fire someone," that would solve this. and the failure to report. managers of the lower levels did not report, did not pick this up the chain of command. we need to hold them accountable, too and there should be a provision which shows refusal or failure to report an offense like this will give the agency and the government the ability to claw tensions, clawback salaries, accepted by those individuals violating the law. it is a shame that we have to get to this, but i think that may be where we are at right now . mr. chaffetz: i have a series of questions as we wrap up.

you became -- you try to paint a picture of this as a decade ago. when did you become the deputy administrator? ms. leonhart: march, 2004. mr. chaffetz: how many deputy ministers are there? ms. leonhart: one. mr. chaffetz: so you were the sole demonstrator. that you were confirmed in 2010. it is pretty safe to say you've had your finger on the pulse of this agency for more than a decade. correct? ms. leonhart: yes. mr. chaffetz: one of the things he said that is troubling in a long list, and was brought up by

mr. lynch, is the idea that -- this was in response to the gentleman over here asking questions about those that were directly involved -- i want you to seriously consider, i won all these departments and agencies to seriously consider -- in my mind, they are directly involved because they failed to report. you may not have been the person who was directly, fully engaged in the inappropriate behavior, once you know about it you have a responsibility to deal with it under policy, correct? ms. leonhart: correct. mr. chaffetz: so that offers me great concern. to understand that? -- do you understand that? ms. leonhart: i do understand, i was just making the point that he wasn't involved in the behavior. he failed to report and that is

what his shortcomings were. mr. chaffetz: part of the aborted behavior is covering it. that is the concern. that is what it is -- it is covering it up by not reporting it up chain. as mr. horowitz pointed out, the only -- removal. it is the only one. removal is the only option. so let me ask you. do you believe that soliciting prostitution is sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: i believe that prostitution is sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: what is the

difference between sexual misconduct and sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: sexual harassment is a workplace behavior. sexual harassment is something that affects the employees in the workplace, or an employee. sexual misconduct is outside of the workplace, like prostitution. there is a difference. does it affect the employee hitting a raise? -- getting a raise a transfer, a particular job? is in a hostile work environment? those are sexual harassment, sexual misconduct is a different idea. you could have sexual misconduct that is often sexual harassment but there is a difference -- prostitution would be sexual

misconduct. mr. chaffetz: so explained to me, then, exactly what you believe -- or explained to me what you think sexual harassment is. ms. leonhart: unwelcome remarks touching an employee. a supervisor touching an employee. a supervisor making threats about, you're not going to get that promotion unless you do a, b, c and d. those kind of activities. mr. horwitz, do you want to weigh in here? mr. horowitz: based on what you have written down as the definitions, and looking at

actions, some of these, for example, one of the instances we site talks about the assistant regional director making inappropriate sexual comments forcing others to watch pornographic movies, other kinds of actions. mr. chaffetz: so within the report, do you believe those are sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: yes, that is sexual harassment. mr. chaffetz: so if you are the dea agent in this case and you're having commercial sex paid for, you don't believe that is sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: no, that is sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: is procuring -- no harassment? ms. leonhart: it's not the

workplace. mr. chaffetz: it happened in government housing. ms. leonhart: it's not behavior against another employee. mr. chaffetz: so in your mind in your world, which is a different planet than i live it's not sexual harassment if you do something to somebody who is not a federal employee? what if they were here in the washington dc area but you were in charge of the los angeles field? they got to somebody in los angeles and start saying some ridiculous comments, that is just harassment? or it's not, in your world? ms. leonhart: as it's defined for government, as it's defined by the eeo, it's all workplace

related. mr. chaffetz: so in the course of the workplace, somebody they are investigating, if they accept the federal employee accepts commercial sex, is that sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: that is sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: we will have to further explore this. we are getting to the heart of one of the biggest problems, which in your world, which i don't think is the real world the charge here for the person in bogotá was improper association. does that sound like the appropriate charge? ms. leonhart: for which person in bogotá? mr. chaffetz: the dea agent this is the case of the prostitute. he throws a glass at a woman, a security guard seized is happening.

there is no doubt about the facts, according to your previous testimony. so that was not sexual harassment? ms. leonhart: sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: wow. and under sexual misconduct, do you think improper association is one of the proper charges? do you think this person was properly -- i guess the word is charged? based on that case and everything you know this person was suspended without pay for 14 days for conduct unbecoming and improper association. do you believe that was the proper charge for that person? ms. leonhart: i believe those are two proper charges. the deciding official had a number of other charges they could have looked at as well. mr. chaffetz: i'm asking what

you personally believe they should have been charged with. or do you believe that was the proper conclusion? ms. leonhart: i think it would be conduct unbecoming. it is improper association. i would have concerns about false statements. i have a number of concerns with those cases. mr. chaffetz: any other, in your professional opinion it your experience, you worked with the opr, you've been at the agency for 30 plus years. you've been the acting are deputy or administrator for more than a decade. do you believe this person in bogotá was properly charged, or do you believe they fell short? if they did fall short, what else do you think they should have been charged with? ms. leonhart: i do believe it fell short. mr. chaffetz: so what else should they have been charged with? ms. leonhart: is not so much the

charges, the penalty. mr. chaffetz: the charge determined the penalty. when you say this person engaging with a prostitute throwing a glass at her, i mean how many things did we list out that are wrong, and is -- improper association is the one that they go with? ms. leonhart: the penalty for improper association and conduct unbecoming can be removal. mr. chaffetz: and it was only 14 days. we even have an eyewitness, security guard who works for the federal government. do you think any of these cases we brought before you, there should be additional charges? ms. leonhart: again, not knowing all the facts -- mr. chaffetz: you said you knew all the facts. you issued a memo saying you had fully investigated this. it says "these allegations were fully investigated by dea office

of professional responsibility." you sent this out on march 20 6 2015. ms. leonhart: not knowing all the circumstances that the deciding officials, who are the only ones who can decide punishment in dea, not knowing everything they took into consideration, they could have, by charging conduct unbecoming an improper association, the penalties are up to removal. mr. chaffetz: mr. horowitz, do have a comment on that? mr. horowitz: they were charged with offenses such as conduct unbecoming poor judgment which by the way isn't a category, and others that were inconsistent. the concern is, and we deal with this in our own agency when we have to look at individuals who may have engaged in misconduct, you want to charge what the

number of charges should be, in part because there is precedent. you look to prior individuals for similarly -- similar conduct under similar charges. that's one of the concerns we have as to the important of consistent charging and charging the appropriate offense. mr. chaffetz: is the dea part of the intelligence community? >> a sliver of dea is part of the intelligence community. mr. chaffetz: is it governed by the intelligence community directive number 704? define that sliver, please. ms. leonhart: under 60 positions in dea within the intelligence division. mr. chaffetz: those that are serving overseas, with a be subject to this? ms. leonhart: it depends on the

position. there are some intelligence analyst in some country that would be under that. the special agent would not. mr. chaffetz: again, we are getting close to wrapping up, i promise. walking through security clearances. who makes the determination who gets the security clearance, and who makes the decision as to whether or not it is revoked and when? ms. leonhart: the same office that determines that a new employee gets the security clearance, that same office makes the determination. mr. chaffetz: what offices that? ms. leonhart: office of security programs. they do all adjudicating of security programs, for contract employees or anyone is going to be in the work orders within dea. the same office also handles

periodic re-investigations and handles reviews of people who already have security clearances. for instance, in the car to hang a case, -- in the cartagena case opr referred the case over to security programs when they had completed their investigation, and a complete review of their security clearances adjudicated it, made a decision that there was enough to move to suspend, and then the agency and, because the person no longer has the security clearance, removal from service because they cannot be a dea employee without having a security clearance. mr. chaffetz: what are the standards by which you can have and not have a security

clearance? where is that standard? ms. leonhart: there is a number of things they look at. the main thing is securing information, national security interest information. does this person -- mr. chaffetz: contact with a foreign national, allowed or not allowed? ms. leonhart: not allowed if it is unreported, and there are rules for reporting. mr. chaffetz: is there document that it turns -- that determines what you will and will not give for security clearance? ms. leonhart: there is a document that every employee is to fill out. mr. chaffetz: but it's just a couple of dudes down in the bowels of the dea that just make a random decision, or how is the decision made? ms. leonhart: they are trained on adjudication. if there's anything that is a

red flag for them, like past -- mr. chaffetz: his sexual misconduct or red flag? ms. leonhart: if the person was disciplined, received any discipline, on their form they check it. the office of security programs does a review of that. mr. chaffetz: the office of security, have they ever revoked somebody's security clearance for people engaging in prostitution? ms. leonhart: i don't know about prostitution. i know they have rico -- they have revoked security clearances. other than from cartagena, i'm not sure. mr. chaffetz: mr. horowitz, have you looked into the security

clearance possibilities? mr. horowitz: we did not look into what could have happened had they been referred to the office of security programs, primarily because the concern we saw that they weren't being referred to the office of security programs. we were not in position to review what actions they took with regard to these matters because we learned that opr when they did finally get these allegations, never turned around and sent them to the osb. mr. chaffetz: what do you say about that? ms. leonhart: that's one of the changes we put in place november of last year. we've never had any his -- in history of dea, we've never had a formal mechanism for those security clearances to review upon an opr investigation. mr. chaffetz: you are the deputy administrator or acting administrator from us 10 years

at that point and you never had that policy in place? ms. leonhart: we never had a formal policy. it would be up to the office of professional responsibility to flag an internal investigation that had security issues, and then to referrer that over to security programs. so we have set up a mechanism for that to happen automatically. mr. chaffetz: so were those recommendations made before or after the draft report from the inspector general? ms. leonhart: the recommendation that security programs -- that office of professional response flagged security violations and given the security programs was happening long before that. what we did in cartagena, we

made sure the security clearances reviewed -- were reviewed and then more recently, in november, set up a mechanism so that security programs and opr have a mechanism to pass on a regular basis security clearances over. mr. chaffetz: that's just unbelievable to me. there's some things you just think, this has to be happening. on the one hand you've got this problem, i mean, we've listed out a host, not one incident. were going to have some people do something stupid somewhere. people are going to make mistakes, people are going to get themselves in trouble, i get that. at this is happening with such frequency, to not have that moved up the chain earlier, to say they were not directly involved you've got to hold everybody accountable, to get that thing all the way to the finish line. i don't understand why you

personally don't take a hand in that. mr. horowitz has referenced these made up categories of offenses. why did you make those? ms. leonhart: that's how employees for the last 40 years have been charged at dea. mr. chaffetz: so nevermind the guidelines, we just keep doing it like we did 40 years ago? ms. leonhart: part of charging by the deciding officials in order conduct is to look at agency precedent and government precedent. mr. chaffetz: the problem though and again we have exhausted this. we are getting to the end. this is a problem. you get caught before this committee and say it's terrible it's awful. but you personally have been responsible for this for more than a decade, and you didn't do anything about it. you may cry in the mirror, but

i'm telling you, you are in a position to do it. after cartagena, that should have been a wake-up call. it took you two years to get out a memo, as mr. meadows brought up. we have a lot more that we need to go through. mr. horowitz, are there any other outstanding issues that you need help with from the department -- the drug enforcement agency? mr. aro wits: with the drug enforcement agency, no. -- mr. horowitz. as to at least four other ongoing reviews we still do not have all the records that we need because of the fbi's continuing process of reviewing records, determining what is allowed under its legal judgment to provide to us, go through that process go to the attorney

general or deputy attorney general and get their approval and then get it to us. so as to several ongoing reviews, we still do not have all the materials in response to our request. mr. chaffetz: so why do they not have to adhere to what the other agencies are doing within the apartment -- department of justice? >> let me tell you sir, this latest letter, there were five investigations noted. the records involved e-mail. we have turned over 35,000 e-mails to them. there are 200 e-mails in question out of 35,000 that we are working with them to go through. we believe in the rule of law. we have a legal disagreement with the inspector general. mr. chaffetz: mr. horowitz?

mr. horowitz: they haven't given us the 200 e-mails. our understanding is it's because they believe they have a legal review to conduct. what our understanding is as to why we are not getting them, for several of these matters, these are multi-months we have been waiting for them. there is no reason why we should not be getting the materials immediately. none whatsoever. i understand they have a legal position that is different frankly, the easiest way to resolve this, and on this we are in complete agreement, if the office of legal counsel would simply issue its opinion, think we would both say we would be very satisfied. may will be the one year anniversary. >> i concur with the inspector general. we will follow the olt opinion to the letter.

mr. chaffetz: why are you different from the other agencies within the department of justice? >> what i can speak for is matters involving the financial privacy act and other matters that we strongly believe we have a legal responsibility to review and forward into the inspector general. mr. chaffetz: what are you not willing to share with the inspector general? mr. perkins: for incidents rules 16 material. mr. chaffetz: explain that so people can understand it. mr. perkins: the secrecy rules involving grand jury information. once matters have been reviewed. mr. chaffetz: it had been a

long-standing practice of the fbi to provide the inspector general that material. mr. perkins: i cannot speak to that. we provide the information once there has been a legal review that says that we determine legally that we are on solid ground to provide the information. mr. chaffetz: what was it before, mr. horowitz? mr. horowitz: there was no objection from the fbi as to fair credit reporting act, grand jury information. we got that material in fact in a 1998 and 1999 proceedings in district court in oklahoma. the department itself took the position that we were entitled to grand jury material, and two federal judges agreed. this has all changed since 2010, with no change in the law. the only thing frankly that

occurred was, several hard-hitting reviews about how the fbi was handling some of its national security charges. other than that, nothing changed in 2010. mr. perkins: we have hundreds of people working there in the department of justice intended to be the fair arbiters who can get in and look under the hood and see and ferret out these problems. quite frankly, the reason the dea and the fbi are here today we have cited several times that atf and marshall's, this is not a problem. it's not an issue. they have problems within their agency, don't get me wrong. they have things they have to clean up, and were going to work with them on that. but the reason you're sitting here today in the hearing, and i know were very focused on the dea, but the two agencies, the

fbi as well as the dea are impeding the ability to understand and unearth what the problems are. mr. perkins. there are process issues with the fbi and the deputy director has made changes that the inspector general is aware of. changes in the business process will eliminate these kind of holdups. not having to do with the other issues he brings up, as the inspector general, if rlc would render their opinion, we would march forward and abide by it 100%. the starlets: i think we would both take any opinion at this point, good or bad --mr. chaffetz: we completely disagree on the legal issue, and certainly we've questioned why all of a sudden in 2010 -- i

have hours of questions on this, but were going to wrap up pretty quick. this act, the inspector general act authorizes "to have access to all records reports, audits reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and other materials available to the applicable establishment that relate to the programs and documents which the inspector general has responsibility under this act." and there was no change in the law. it's just in 2010, after the inspector general was unearthing some very difficult things for the agency, they just thought, were going to change the rules. i'm not suggesting, mr. perkins, that you personally did that. but the consequence is, we have hundreds of people at the

inspector general's office who can't do their job. and you, the fbi, or standing in their way. and the dea is standing in their way. we're going to keep yanking you up here time after time after time if we have to. i'm fortunate to be the chairman of this committee. the very first hearing the have's on this. and i can promise you, will continue to yank you up here as long as this continues to be a problem. the act is clear. the inspector general is to have unfettered access to all records, not just the ones you want to supply. this idea that an old lc is just pending and it's going on for close to year is just intolerable. and there's not a prevailing attitude within the fbi or the dea that believes that the inspector general works to balance those departments and agencies.

otherwise they would want to come in and clear their good name or ferret out problems. in this nation we are different. we are self-critical. i cannot have this type of hearing in another nation. but you can in the united states. but it requires good people to allow somebody to come in and check and look under the which is what the inspector general is supposed to do. we've had a long hearing. i appreciate your patience. we need your help and cooperation moving forward. again, to the thousands of men and women who served in these departments and agencies i cannot thank them enough for putting their lives on the line. my grandfather's career fbi. i care about the agency. i care about law enforcement in this nation. but were going to do it the right way. we are going to do it the right way. and allowing sexual harassment or misconduct to get a little slap on the risk, with 2-14 days

paid risk, is not acceptable. we are going to look toward other things we can do within the law to give future administrators and directors more latitude and the inspector general, i thank you for this report. we would not have known about it without your good work and the good people within the agency. so we thank you, and his hearing stands adjourned. -- this hearing stands adjourned. >> coming up on c-span, veterans affairs whistleblowers testify about retaliation on the job. the senate foreign relations committee considers the iran

nuclear framework. later, hillary clinton holds her first campaign event in iowa. >> it is tax day tomorrow, and the irs commissioner testifies before the senate homeland security committee on implementation of the tax penalty in the health care law. you can see his testimony like wednesday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span3. >> wednesday, samantha powers, u.s. ambassador to the united nations, testifies before a house appropriations committee on 2016 state-foreign operations spending. you can see her testimony live, starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> were you a fan of c-span's first ladies series? it is now a book published by public affairs. looking inside the personal life

of every first lady in american history. based on original interviews with more than 50 pre-eminent historians and biographers learn details of all 45 first ladies that make these women who they were. their lives, ambitions, and unique partnerships with their presidential's houses. the book provides likely stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house sometimes at great personal cost, while supporting their families and famous husband, and even changed history. c-span's first ladies is an illuminating inspiring read and is now available as a hardcover or e-book for your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's student cam video documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages

middle and high school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create their documentary based on the theme, the three branches and you. to demonstrate how a there is treat focused -- their entry focus on the topic of immigration. >> in arizona, we have had the chance to meet people from all walks of life. we began researching the statistics. in order to truly understand the situation so many people, we set out to tucson, arizona, to learn more about the executive action. president obama: if you have been in america for more than

five years, if you have children you are american citizens, if you register, pass a criminal background check, and willing to pay your fair terror of taxes you will be able to apply -- pay your fair share of taxes, you will be able to apply to temporarily stay in this country. >> many men migrate to the united states for work by often taking low-wage jobs. in response to the president's address, a local migrant support operation rallied around for a press conference.

to further understand the

circumstances that half of the undocumented population faces, we travel to mexico and saw life on the other side of the wall. we observedthere is an ongoing fbi investigation. his death is an example of attention -- of the tension they face. the border communities are stuck with what they leave behind. >> hosea antonio had been throwing rocks on them. flex waiting in line -- >> waiting in line to legally enter the united states has taken a toll. they search for ways to immediately travel across to find work and safety. speaker boehner: it will only encourage more people to come your illegally and put their

lives at risk. we saw the humanitarian crisis on our border last summer. next summer, it could be worse. >> it made it so clear to me how much people's lives are impacted by what we do and united states and the law and policies we have. my very first day, i went out as a journalist to cover the camp and it was the fourth of july in 2004 and i just finished college. we came across two guys sitting on the side of the road. it was the first time encountering people on that journey. seeing the look of exhaustion and what they were saying to us, they could not go on. they were too tired. they thought they would be able to make it.

how sad and upset they seem to to feel. they asked us to call border control -- border patrol. it was difficult for us to do. >> even though some actions have had that your mental outcomes, others have had -- detrimental outcomes, others have had positive results. >> 2010, the last time the dream act was voted on. we can let other people choose -- we cannot let other people choose or determine our lives for us. parents will be able to qualify. their permit will be extended to three years. 4.4 million people will be benefited. that leaves more than half of

the undocumented population wondering. there are still things that need to be in progress and that need to be changed, like the broken immigration system needs to be modified. we talk about getting in line and getting into the nation the right way. a lot of us have been in line. >> a metropolitan arts institute in phoenix, there is a bright and ambitious dreamer. we are able to happily welcome her to come out of the shadows. >> it enables me to have access to more colleges that i have more interests in. a lot of people out here that really want to get somewhere.

they have the opportunity to be doing it. >> the system is complex and intricate and has been worked on for many years. the final result is unknown, as is the state of families affected by this complicated issue. next to watch all of the winning videos, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. tell us what you think about the issue these students addressed on facebook and twitter. >> the c-span cities tour has partnered with comcast to learn about saint augustine florida. >> he may or may not have been searching for the fountain of eternal youth. a lot of people said he was searching for property for the

king of spain. we do know that constantly on came ashore --ponce -- ponce de leon came ashore. this is the location of the first settlement of san augustine 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 55 years before the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. >> the hotel was built by henry morrison flagler. flagler is a man who is very little known outside of florida. he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he had been a cofounder of standard oil company with john d rockefeller. he always wanted to undertake

some great enterprise. as it turned out, florida was it. he realized he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine to ensure guests could get to his hotel conveniently. clearly, the dream was beginning to grow. he had a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary. >> watch all of our events from saint augustine on saturday at noon easter and sunday afternoon at 2:00. >> to v.a. doctors testify about some of the retaliation they faced after becoming whistleblowers at the veterans affairs department. we will also year from other v.a. officials. congressman mike kaughman chairs

this meeting of the house subcommittee meeting. kaughman chairs this meeting of the house subcommittee meeting. congressman mike coffman: i would like to ask that be allowed to join us as she has been active in the case of one of our witnesses here today. seeing no objection -- additionally, i would like to ask unanimous consent that three statements be admitted into the hearing record. two from whistle blowers and one from the project on government

oversight. hearing no objections, so ordered. the hearing will focus on the treatment of whistle blowers within the department of veterans affairs. particularly the types and levels of retaliation they experience when reporting problems. on they experience when reporting problems. this will serve as a follow-up to the hearing conducted by the committee on july -- in july 2014 where we will address what progress the department has made to correct its retaliatory culture and fail to protect conscientious employees. the three whistle blowers we'll hear from today come from v.a. facilities across the area.

the hostility they receive for their behavior shows that the retaliatory culture is still very alive ask well in the department of veterans affairs. the truth of the matter is the congress needs whistle blowers to help identify problems on the ground in order to remain properly informed for the development of an effective legislation. for example, the national wait time scandal that this committee revealed just over a year ago which resulted in the secretary of the department resigning simply would not have occurred without responsible v.a. employees stepping ready to fix problems. in the year since that came to light a new secretary has come

to the department and stayed one of his primary missions is to end whistle blower retaliation in the v.a. jeff miller introduced legislation that would improve legislation to whistle blowers within the v.a. and discourage supervisors and other employees

byism posing more strenuous penalties foreign gauging in retaliation. you should not be working for v.a. and you certainly should not receive a bonus for your despicable actions. to that end i encourage members in support of h.r. 571 retaliation prevention act. along with the whistle blowers here today we'll hear from the office of special counsel regarding the efforts v.a. has made since our last hearing and where improvements remain absent and needed. i was very pleased to learn that

the office of special counsel recently took action on behalf of a whistle blower in the v.a. from the eastern colorado healthcare system. this employee was removed from her nursing duties and assigned to a windowless basement after reporting the misconduct of a coworker. thanks to the efforts of o.s.c., this whistle blower has returned to her nursing duties at an another clinic while her reprisal claims are being invest guyed. they'll also be here to address why whistle blowers continue to have their livelihood jeopardized. i look forward to the discussion we'll have here today on this important issue. with that, i now yield the ranking member custer for any opening remarks she may have.

>> thank you mr. chairman. the sub committee is holding a follow-up hearing to the hearing that our full committee held last july. i believe that some of the most effective hearings this sub committee holds are follow-up hearings. they that is the core of our work here to identify problems and work together to fix them. and ensure the highest quality of care is being delivered to every veteran. today's hearing will focus on the treatment on whistle blowers who play a crucial role in ensuring they're held accountable for providing quality care for the nation's veterans. they were drews mental in helping this committee uncover the wrong doing in phoenix, arizona, which helped enform or drafting of the choice acts.

in addition, the v.a. and the o.f.c. have implemented and expedited the review process for whistle blower retaliation plans. i'm please to hear the v.a. have taken steps moving forward but there are too many problems regarding how the v.a. treat and handles whistle blowers. o.s.c. is responsible for whistle blower complaints from all across the federal government yet 40% close to half

of its incoming cases in 2015 will be filed by v.a. employees. o.s.c. reports that the new number remains overwhelming. and it's monthly intake of new v.a. whistle blower cases remains high at a rate of nearly 150% above historic levels they include include encloseers to fraud and abuse. the large number of complaints received is to some extent a reflection of the size of the v.a. but it also raises serious red flags as to the continuing problems that are systemic throughout the v.a.'s system and the treatment of v.a. employees. the o.s.c. testimony highlights some troubling concerns they investigate the whistle blowers themselves rather than

investigating allegations raised by the whistle blowers. they also reference several cases where the medical records were improperly and unlawfully accessed in what seems to be attempts to discredit some whistle blowers. as a "new york times" article last year outlined there an is a culture of silence and intimidation and a history of retaliation at the v.a. according to the whistle blowers testifying before us this afternoon, this is still the case for us today. they'll testify about this environment of intimidation and retaliation in order to silence whistle blowers. i believe that the v.a. has made progress but clearly more remains to be done. v.a.'s culture of retaliation and intimidation did not happen overnight but a combination of decades of problems that are deeply engrained in the v.a.

system. we must also not forget they are involved in healthcare an industry that is intolerant of whistle blowers. this culture cannot be changed overnight but the sake of our veterans and the sake of ensuring that the v.a. is finding the highest quality of care this the culture must be changed. it's the lack of accountable and the absence of collaborative spirit to in order to seriously address whistle blower complaints. this afternoon let us begin the process of identifying what steps the v.a. needs to take going forward as the v.a. works toward the secretary's goal of "sustainable accountability."

all v.a. employees are working toward the common goal of helping and serving our veterans. mr. chairman i thank you for holding this hearing and before i yield back i want to take a moment and thank our whistle blowers for appearing before us today. it takes real courage to put your careers at risk for coming toward and calling attention to these problems and concerns. it's my hope we move forward creating a culture at the v.a. that welcomes is whistle blowers and acknowledges your portions in better serving our veterans. i hope that the v.a. will be known as an organization that welcomes and encourages all employees to work together to solve problems. and i yield back. host: thank you reigning member custer. i ask that all members waive

opening remarks. i invite first and only panel. on the panel we hear from director of the v.a.'s office of accountability review and the honor honorable and chief of staff legal and quality assurance for the greatest los angeles v.a. healthcare system and dr. marilyn hooker m.d. neurologist and president a. f.g. and mr. richard truemain.

>> v.a. exists to serve veterans. that service takes place through interactions between veterans and frontline v.a employees. doctors and nurses, claims processers and cemetery workers and countsless others upon whom v.a. depends to serve veterans with the dignity compassion and dedication they deserve. we depend on the same employees to have the moral courage by helping to make our processes and policies together. >> the department's responsibility to protect whistle blowers is an integral part of our objectsation to provide safe, high quality healthcare and other benefits to veterans in legally compliant and fiscally responsible ways. it is important to keep in mind

that the underlying purpose of the whistle blower protection rules is to encourage candid disclosure of information. so problems can be identified and corrected. v.aplt is fully committed to correcting problems and ensuring fair treatment for employees who bring problems to light. secretary mcdonald talks frequently about his vision of sustainable accountability. we need a work environment in which all participants to top v.a. officials tpraoerly share what they know whether good news or bad for the benefit of veterans and as good stewards of the taxpayer's money. to reach these goals the

department has taken several important steps. last summer, the secretary reorganized and assigned new leadership to the v.a. office of the medical inspector which investigates disclosures related to patient care. they also established my office to ensure leader accountable for serious misconduct. in addition to its on going work investigating leader misconduct o. a. r. is working to improve the ability. v.a. has also improved its khraeub collaboration. that certification reflects the department's commitment to educating employees and supervisors about the whistle blower protection rules.

the v.a. has also negotiated with o.f.c. and expedited process to speed corrected action for those experiencing retaliation. we are also working with o.f.c. to create a robust knew face to face training program so they understand their roles and responsibilities under the protection rules. since secretary mcdo notnald was con tkeurpld they met with whistle blowers across the system and engaged with those who raised their voices to propose solutions. they do that both to acknowledge the critical role whistle blowers play in improving the programs and to model to supervisors throughout the

engaged open and accepting behavior they expect them to exhibit. they have identified problems v.a. needs to address. last month i had the opportunity to appear before the sub committee to provide the department's views including two to whistle blowers. at that time i acknowledged and i reiterate that the department still has work to do to ensure that all digs khroerz received prompt attention and protected from retaliation. not withstanding significant efforts on our part v.a. is still working toward the full culture change we must achieve to ensure all feel safe and any supervisor who retal late is held accountable. on behalf of the department i'm committed to continue to work

with o.f.c. and this committee to get things right. i'm honored that they have asked me to assist them in this critical effort. this concludes my testimony. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, chairman coffman and members of the sub committee. thank you for the opportunity to to testify about the special counsel and our on going work with whistle blowers. last july i spoke to this about their early efforts about the unprecedented increase in whistle blower cases from the v.a. since then there has been substantial progress. for example, they started an expedited process. this process has resulted in relief for many whistle blowers including landmark settlements on behalf of phoenix v.a.

employees. in total, they have secured relief for over 45 v.a. whistle blowers and putting courageous public servants back on the job. these sentl settlements are accepting messages if they report problems they'll be protected from retaliation. in my earlier testimony i also addressed several serious problems with investigations by the v.a.'s office of medical inspector or o.m.i.and in response to my concerns, this review that is led to positive change. a recent whistle blower case is tkepldemonstrative demonstrative. in response to the referral the medical inspector determined that the beckly facility was trying to save money guy

substituting medications with older and cheaper drugs. they were made over the objections of mental health providers. this was a clear violation of v.a. policies. o.m. i.investigation called for review of all patients who were impacted to determine if there was any harm caused by the subs stews. they also recommended the discipline be considered for beckly leadership and others who were responsible. while the facts are very troubling, the omi responses and sign of progress from where we were just nine months ago n an organization the size of a v.a. problems are bound to occur. therefore there it's critical when they identify problems they are addressed swiftly and responsibly. properly functioned omi is key

to doing so. finally since last year the v.a. became the first cabinet level department to complete them. in addition to fulfilling the basic certification requirements they're work to conduct training for supervisors. it's not consistently filtered down to the regional facilities. so additional training for regional employees may help address this issue. i want to close by flagging 1edation natural and on going area of concern. often where whistle blower comes forward with an issue of real importance, the v.a.'s investigation focused on the whistle blower instead of their disclosure disclosure. there are two main problems with this approach. first by focusing on the whistle blower, they may not receive the

attention that it deserves. second instead of creating a welcoming environment, it could chill whistle blowing and their own actions might come under intense scrutiny. the v.a.'s focus should be holding accountable those who are responsible and not going after whistle blowers. we looked forward with working with the v.a. and committee to address this issue. we appreciate the committee's on going attention to the issues we raised. i thank you for the opportunity to testified to and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. doctor, you are recognize for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. coffman and all other members for inviting me again to i think a very important meeting. since my last testimony july 2014, when i returned back to west l.a. v.a. hospital in my

position as associate director, my leadership -- my direct leader was essentially resigned resigned -- basically was assigned to a chief of staff outside of west los angeles to long beach hospital, who i've never met and still have never met. i started to notice that my patience were reassigned mid therapy to other surgeons. when i asked this, the chief of staff said, "if you don't like it, take it to congress. there is nothing they can do to me." i reported the statement to congress and also the office of special counsel. following that, i was presented to go into the operating room when i had a patient under anesthesia. i was told my credentials had been revoked to go in the operating room.

when i asked that an hour later they were told, oops, we made a mistake. it's okay. unfortunately veterans and other hospital officials overheard that conversation. i have essentially been removed from my office in the chief of staff suite and transferred to the fourth floor. the cleaning crew told me they believe it used to be a nursing storage unit. there is a hole in the floor and non functional along with some of the other equipment in the room. a group of the general -- a piece of plastic was placed over the floor and janitorial other

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

today we should focus on the veterans. because of the way i was brought up, i will always take a stand for this population. you remember i made reference to the e-mail in november 2012, that's part of the packet i committed where i questioned the irregularities of the counsel. i also noted there is a number of patience and the number of colon cancers that were entering the system but later appearing with advanced cancer. i did this as a team player asking for a briefing to all of the chief of staff. i was rebuffed. i want to go on the record to be more specific. i witnessed the did he lesion of 179 consults. two, the systemic did he lesion

of the consults most of them were done by non-medical staff. three, i witnessed 40,000 consults. the other thing i want to go on record when i realized it was probably result me in losing my job but i think the veterans deserve better. $25,000 was given to our v.a. where is it? it was reported that it was given. >> could you review that number with us again. >> i'm sorry $25 million was appropriated to our hospital to

improve access for veterans. >> thank you. >> doctor. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak on continued whistle blower retaliation. my written statement outlines the type and extensive reprisal against federal employees that continues. retaliation is destructive and costly to our nation in so many ways and too convenient to be used without fear of consequences. when they sound alarm it's for the safety and well being of the veterans we serve. my written statements speaks as a house divided with power and resources for the v.a. itself gained at the expense of care provision to the veterans we

serve. for example, i had the honor of meeting an 88-year-old world war ii veteran several weeks ago. he aryedrived in an electric wheelchair as he was unable to walk. same for the loss of his left arm and hand and right shoulder. he was unable to see to his right eye due to glaucoma. he was living at the ymca. that's all he could afford $500 a month special security. he was sent to the y as an answer to homelessness. years ago he could have called our facilities extended care section his home. but due to yearly mandates reducing the beds earmarked for extended air if favor of more rapid turnover and hence more

billables and collections this 88-year-old warld war two veteran was sent to live in the ymca ymca. who is community is the community living center and what type of living is being provided. true to world war ii vet generation he believed a bed must be needed for someone in worse shape than he. he had no what do we look at when we evaluate success? if expediency the only measure? what is the most important thing? there is a spirit that enters the body at birth and ace area that leaves at death. our nation was founded on's airport. -- on air it. -- on spirit.

when the day come to the v.a. must they have their spirit crushed? rep. coffman: thank you. you have five minutes. mr. tresmaine: thank you. i am here with you today to testify about the unacceptable vicious, ongoing retaliation against our health care system where the director became the first senior executive service member in history fired for neglect of duty. the chief of staff under investigation was on paid leave for six months.

the disingenuous claims of improvement there remains an atmosphere of retaliation. we were to seasoned and experienced -- too seasoned and experienced. we i didn't of wide manipulations and illegal higher her -- we [indiscernible] fraud and breakdown of human resources, we quickly concluded he would not support our efforts to whole stuff accountable. -- staff accountable. we were forwarded e-mails. alerting him to critical manipulations from the staff position.

publicly claiming to no prior knowledge of no scheduling manipulations and we became concerned about his integrity. on june 11, we raised it. we also informed we had been contacted by representative martha roby about her face-to-face. immediately after, the severe retaliation escalated exponentially for we later learn it was because -- about talton t o talton. from june 24, i sent a plea about violent outburst in management -- mismanagement about talton. i was forced on the campus by order of robin jackson. i was devastated to realize i had been betrayed. i was removed from my leadership responsibility and prevented by talton and jackson and humiliating all employee

e-mails. he promised he would immediately be in effect if needed to help us bring four days earlier, he had chartered a fact-finding about allegations by talton and jackson. it was chaired by a subordinate as a result, they requested an aib without specific charges. it was conducted by aor. instead requesting additional testimony citing a new allegation by a union president thus extending the investigation. one of the members, sitting director was a former subordinate. incredulously during my first year, i'd been under investigations for the render five out of 365 day -- 305 out of the render 65 days per it is

difficult to describe -- a 365 days. it is difficult to describe. major reorganization and without my input. my direct reports -- i was excluded from key information. blocked from critical horse on major, when i asked for the assessment done before i write he told me if you want to see it, requested through a freedom of information act. a detailed -- they detailed the doctor out for 90 days. i speak to you with a heavy heart disgusted by the continued cover-up and discrediting campaign to open an investigation by the v.a. i've always loved serving and being a part of area so many employees

are monitoring and hope leadership at all levels demonstrate a commitment to true excellence and transversely by creating an environment free from whistleblower reprisal. if the actions against a dedicated veteran executive and a brilliant terror woman executive both who have committed their lives it will most certainly have a chilling effect on any other of those 74. -- of those stepping forward. we both fear a further loss of our reputations. we sat in disbelief a year ago and agreed that moment in time we do not have a choice because it was more important to protect our veterans than protecting either one of our careers. we respectfully request you immediately address whistleblower retaliation that has become rampant in our v.a..

thank you for your commitment to our veterans and i'm available to its are any questions. rep. coffman: thank you for your testimony. as a combat veteran, my heart goes out to you. you are waiting for our nation's veterans. i would like to ask the whistleblowers a question first or all three of you, to your knowledge, has there been any disciplinary action taken to those who have intentionally created kind of hostile workplace that you testified today in terms of retaliation against you? start with mr. tresmaine. mr. tresmaine: there has been none. dr. hooker: none. dr. head: none. rep. coffman: ms. lerner, if you

look at the number of cases from the v.a. that have gone before the usc compared to other agencies of the federal government, it seems substantially higher. a civil comparison would be to the department of defense. i believe it is -- the number of civil servant employees and yet there are more cases. last year, that came forward from that of armor of veteran affairs that the department of defense. can you explain just the nature of the volume of cases from the v.a.? ms. lerner: we do get more retaliation claims is -- cases that any other federal agency and other department. the numbers are increasing. just for comparison, the complaints we get from the v.a. are higher than the dod which

has doubled the number of employees. so we know that people come forward when they feel that they have to to protect the life of a veterans or the health and safety and so the fact that people are coming forward is a very positive sign. while the numbers are bad and are increasing, i personally am encouraged that more people are coming forward. we need to know when the problem exist. and so, i am encouraged that people feel confident that they will get some relief when they come to our agency and get some results. the number one reason whistleblowers come forward is they feel an obligation. the number of a reason they do not come forward is they feel like they will not get a result, nothing will happen. it is a double edge sword. we are not happy the numbers are increasing and our staff is overwhelmed by the word. on the other hand, we're glad they feel comfort and coveted

coming to us. ms. flanz: i would add go what -- echo what ms. lerner said. people feel comfortable raising disclosures whether to members of the committee or -- rep. coffman: i think they are willing to take a risk. ms. lerner: i would agree with that. the whistleblowers left come forward today to provide their stories, it is an act of cour age. something we need to celebrate because disclosures about problems give us an opportunity to fix them. if we do not learn about them we're not able to improve. to ms. lerner's point, we do need to to understand what it is that is driving these numbers continuing to drive these numbers and be able careful not to assume good or bad things

about the numbers. the fact people are coming forward with a concert is an indicator -- with concerns is an indicator. the fact that they are bringing them forward it means we have the opportunity to identify the problems. rep. coffman: can you comment give me some idea, we had testimony from the witnesses here that are whistleblowers that in no disciplinary action has been taken a guess at those who retaliated against them. can you give me any data in terms of actions that the v.a. has taken in terms of disciplining those who have retaliated against our whistleblowers? ms. flanz: absolutely. i cannot speak to the cases of the individuals here. tell from my colleagues at the office of special counsel. their issues are pending.

we currently have in my office 80 ongoing investigations of which 15 involve among other things whistleblower retaliation. we keep a database of employee disciplinary actions taken across the department until the late summer of last year we do not have any particular database that show discipline across the v.a. we have begun to collect and that data. among the things that go into the database are general descriptions of the charges that are used to support the discipline. one of the charges is something having to do with prohibited personnel practices. a generic term that includes whistleblower retaliation. another type of charge is retaliation. information that i have is that

ended the approximately one year we have been collecting information and we have 22 actions in our database that include charges of prohibiting personnel practices or retaliation. it is not a large enough number. i will say that now. we have more work to ensure individuals who have retaliated against whistleblowers as ms. lerner and her staff bring cases to us to provide corrective remedies to the employees who have been subjected to retaliation -- rep. coffman: i am running over my time. it seems like such a typical hearing. you are giving us a great news. we have three individuals who have testified and not -- testified before. no disciplinary action is taken against those retaliating against them. that situation remains unchanged. ranking member kuster. rep. kuster: thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to address my remarks to ms. lerner and i want to thank the whistleblowers for bringing your individual cases and encourage you to work with our good colleagues. representative roby is on the case with you mr. tresmaine and encourage you to work with the office of special counsel as well to make sure that you get the protection you deserve. and we do not have any other tragedies. chris absolutely. it has been a lifeline. working throughout this ordeal for the past year has made a huge difference. i do not think there is any question. they are totally understaffed. the opportunities i've had to speak with them made a huge difference. rep. kuster: good and i hope your situation will get resolved. it sounds like we have 45 settlements of whistleblower

cases which hopefully did bring some relief to those people and i know there been reinstatement with back pay and such and it is important to send that signal to others. one of the issues i wanted to get at is the issue of the v.a. culture and because it seems to me that in the idea it has gone to the osc is a recognition that this issue has blown up to a place where it was not resolved at a lower level. i want to make sure that we have a collaborative workplace throughout the agency. i did note of the charges we received, the top agencies providing case were, it is true that the v.a. is higher than the dod. what is interesting for me and i did i know if they get the desk for the camera, the v.a. and dod are right at the top. then it drops dramatically down for any other agency in the

cabinet. and i'm curious about sort of the hierarchical nature and structure of those organizations and whether it is a greater challenge to change the environment. i am a so curious and this is to ms. flanz what steps are being taken to foster a more collaborative workplace? i will combine this with my follow-up question. we hear about steps taken here in the dce for improvement but how -- what are the specific steps that are being taken to improve the a culture and ensure accountability on the frontline? step-by-step with the people can protect the lives of these whistleblowers and protect the quality of service of all veterans? ms. flanz: i want to speak to both of those questions.

one with respect to improving the culture at the front line across the v.a. system. the veteran health administration has an office called the national center for development. that office is looking at an issue of psychological safety and how psychological safety can be improved in v.a. workplace. it is a larger term of which protecting whistleblowers is a component. he had all the national center for organizational development speaks in terms of 4 cornerstones of the culture that is required to ensure that patient care is provided in an environment in which people feel safe and the workplace is as we want it to be. those 4 cornerstones are transparency, accountability psychological safety, and risk-taking and innovation.

they need to be in balance. transparency perhaps is stressed above all other things. you may get people feeling less they and/or less willing to involve in risk-taking and innovation. if accountability is overstressed you may sacrifice other issues. the experts are focusing on tools for employees and supervisors across the v.a. system to improve psychological safety within the framework of those cornerstones. with respect to accountability for whistleblower retaliation we are working on a number of things. first, we need to capture the attention to understanding of medical center directors regional office directors and regional council at the facility level. ms. lerner's staff are coming to get a training program to our regional council coming to town

later this month. we will address them and begin with some training, new training we will rollout to supervisors. training regional attorneys and hr from the facility level and having them serve as the trainers. we need to get at 2 things. make sure the environment in the workplace is appropriately safe and we need to improve understanding on the part of supervisors and attorneys as to the ramifications for retaliation. rep. kuster: thank you very much. rep. coffman: the story emerged about the wait time scandal in the phoenix v.a., how many -- since that time, how many disciplinary actions have been taken against those who have retaliated against whistleblowers? how many k-fed and finalized? ms. flanz: the numbers i brought

i did not break down by month. rep. coffman: utah's only about pending cases, how many cases have been finalized where those who retaliated against whistleblowers? ms. flanz: i am aware of three. the numbers from the facility level are kept in our database and i would love to provide you specifics which i do not have to my fingertips. rep. coffman: you're here to testify on the congress and you do not have specifics? ms. flanz: i have the specifics i have -- rep. coffman: how convenient. i was ask you on the record to submit. dr. head: thank you. i am frustrated by this.