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. you testify you are not familiar

with his case? ms. flanz: i am not free to speak to the specifics. >> are you familiar with all the cases in your department? ms. flanz: those that involve senior members. >> are there other active cases? ms. flanz: we have 80. some allegation of retaliation. >> how many have you closed within the past year? ms. flanz: we have been operating since july of 2013 and with closed dozens. >> only three of those dozens have disciplinary, is that what i am to understand? ms. flanz: each result in a finding that the alleged misconduct could be substantiated or a recommendation around discipline. >> let me ask you about ms.

lerner's written testimony. they're all types of cases specific cases are the people involved do you get involved in the discipline of the person who did the retaliating against the whistleblower a you are mainly concerned that the whistleblower is restored, is that correct? ms. lerner: it is a relief for the whistleblower. rep. benishek: do you report to ms. flanz's department? ms. lerner: we are working to expedite the identification of cases where it is appropriate. i want to mention we know all 40 disciplinary actions against employees who were complicit in their wrongdoing identified by whistleblowers. on the disclosure side where people can't toss and make the

disclosure of health and safety problems, it is part of our review on the agency and we look at what there taken disciplinary actions. on that par we know of at least $.40 -- 40. rep. benishek: you are only aware of three cases. three cases of disciplinary action being taken amongst the case. it seems surprising especially in view of dr. head was here last summer. and still under investigation. mr. tresmaine seems like he is under quite a bit of distress. let me ask dr. head what have you been doing in the last -- since your testimony here? what actions have you taken? it seems i you are still having trouble? dr. head: i continue to report each and every event. you know --

rep. benishek: is anybody coming to you from ms. flanz's department asking what is going on? dr. hooker: the office of special counsel has communicated with us. rep. benishek: did the office of accountability review talk with you? dr. head: they have but it has been disappointing. rep. benishek: mr. tresmaine, i heard you testify you made contact with ms. lerner's department, is there anybody else you have talked to? mr. tresmaine: no, sir other than the aib after about six -- i want to say 12 or 13 hours of grilling over 2 days -- i am sorry, three days. rep. benishek: they were talking to you. mr. tresmaine: they were not talking, they were grilling. they were investigating.

and i told them -- i clearly thought it was a sham and i expressed it on numerous occasions during the investigation. one of the most interesting questions, the questions they wanted asked or answered the most dealt with the fact that i identified a vehicle that was driving on a friday night at 8: 30 in the evening did not have any tell lights on it at all. i stopped in the vehicle and notify the driver there were not any tell lies before they got on a dark highway. and then the next monday i and part about what the vehicle was doing at 8:30 because would have feel close destroyed by staff and used to take staff to crack houses. i had a concern about why it was out. the oar and aib investigation

was more concerned why i stopped the vehicle. when i said maybe it is a good samaritan, all three of the members advise me they would never have done anything like that. i thought it was incredulous. they questioned me why i questioned the employee on monday without a union representative. i told them, i'm still number two in the organization and i felt i had responsibility to ask what the vehicle was doing at 8:30 p.m. at night. that was my -- rep. benishek: i am out of time here. thank you. >> i always felt that a lot of time these investigations are more about us and not the facts of what we have complained about. and my experience is very similar to that. >> i will try to organize this.

i am at a loss. for words. first of all, i do not understand your attitude ms. flanz the fact you can sit in there and come with literally no information and you cannot answer a question with any specificity is very disturbing. so -- i do not understand how any, the 2 of you, ms. flanz and ms. lerner can say there's been progress when we have ms. lerner saying she attributes the increase of complaints to the fact people are feeling more comfortable coming forward. at the same time that ms. flanz is admitting that there has been literally no accountability on the part of the people retaliating against whistleblowers. can either one of you explain that conundrum to me?

ms. flanz: i would like to try. we are committed to ensuring that supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers are held accountable. >> let me stop right there. it seems to me that maybe it is my prosecutorial background, if you want to send a message that road doors will be held accountable you actually have to hold at least one accountable. if you look at the numbers of complaints, they far outweigh any level of accountability. please explain that. ms. flanz again, i would like to very much. we have ongoing investigations right now that will provide as the evidence necessary to hold employees'supervisors accountable. until recently, we have not had the collaboration with ose that we have now that allows us the

evidence that they have pulled together to give a jumpstart so we do not have to start fresh with our investigation. we will whenever the evidence shows that retaliation has been engaged in. rep. rice: will hold people accountable. let me ask you this. why is that the determination of the whistleblower was not giving accurate information? it is a much easier determination to make them retaliation against a whistleblower. what i am hearing from the three whistleblowers is that if you guys have no problem saying this whistleblower was wrong but you have no ability to hold a wrongdoer accountable. explain that. ms. flanz: with all do respect, that is not how the process works. rep. rice: no, no. i have to stop you. this is a simple question.

why is it you're able to come to the conclusion that whistleblowers have made allegations that were not based in fact and you could do that pretty expeditiously it seems to me. and you can't do as expeditious an investigation when it comes to holding the retaliate or against the was laura accountable. guess what? the numbers support what i am saying. you can give whatever as nation you want, but i am telling you right now, the level of disrespect that you are showing to the veterans. by the way, and we know allegations are true in terms of treatment, ms. treatment of patients, the list, a luxury list of stuff we know is going on. everybody knows. you are telling me you are spending all of this time trying to hold somebody accountable. forget about what is happening about fixing the problem where

veterans are not getting the services they need. just another disturbing the. that's almost an afterthought to you. -- disturbing thing. i cannot hear and estimation that includes some kind of, well -- believe me. i am a lawyer. i get to the ongoing investigation is a convenient way of getting out of answering. i apologize. my blood is boiling. this is a disgrace. please give me a succinct answer. why is it that it is easier for you to come to the determination that whistleblowers are wrong before you can in a faster way you can say these retaliate or's are wrong? -- retaliate or's are wrong hold one rick talley -- retaliate or-firing them. ms. flanz: it has to do with the

burden of proof. what to show the preponderance of evidence supports. rep. rice: i get the burden thing. that's why you shall more people working on it. this system is not going to get fixed a you can tell about we change the culture here and it is so much better. if retaliators are not held accountable, that's the bottom line. rep. roe: thank you. the direction i want to go is with dr. head and mr. tresmaine and dr. hooker. when you make an allegation obviously, you are not a team player right there. what is it to lead me to believe you are not just an incompetent

employee? you are a troublemaker and you do not want to work with the team. we have all been on the team before, what is to make me because i've seen this happen before where -- how do i know dr. head is a very good dr.? he may not be good at we move them off somewhere. essentially move you out of clinical care just to get you out of the way. it is hard to protect your reputation if you have two or three or four senior people ahead of you making those allegations. how do you protect yourself from that? to follow on ms. rice's statement? dr. head: my reputation speaks for itself and my education and expertise in track record speaks for self. i have never had a lawsuit filed

against me. i've never had a level three complaints filed against me until i testified in congress. rep. roe: i am being facetious. dr. head: i understand. as a whole world needs to understand. i am a team player. i have followed the chain of command. every allegation of malfeasance the problems with the wait times , suggesting perhaps that the medical stop should -- staff should review record and nonmedical as were teasing rather than students should be doing. it is common though as i said before, what is the first thing they do? they take the whistleblower and they isolate them. second, they defame them. third, they push them out. what they have them isolated and defamed, they try to go back and rewrite history as the just something they have done to

cause the action against them. and then they send out their surrogates usually not trained professionals to suggest that perhaps that person is a bad person. not a good doctor. my strength comes from my patients. i get much more out of seeing you then i give you. i do my best every day of the week to make sure that i give them the best care possible. the mistake i made initially during this process was allow them to push me out of here. i am stronger now only because i have insisted and i fight to see as many veterans as possible. rep. roe: the problem is when you stick your head out. it is easier to keep your head down. stick your head up and speak out you get a lot at rose. the point is that people shooting arrows do not have any going back there way. mr. tresmaine you come into a

new shop in working in there and see issues and pointed him out. and what happens you become the problem. mr. tresmaine: yes, sir. with a 24 point five years of the experience at two different facilities and nothing less than an outstanding rating, after arriving in central alabama, it really quickly we discovered and i discovered and then simultaneously the assistant director, we started comparing to know a little bit. we both realized we were team players and we would've done anything on the team that was going to fix things. i promise you we were never built the wrong team. the team that disrespect or harm's veterans. i'm a veteran myself. i come from a family of veterans. i have my son here who will more likely be in air force veteran. if he wants to go surf, i will

support him. i want to make sure she walks into az 8, 80 v.a. across this nation. the moment he crossed the threshold, he should be treated with dignity. it should not be a matter of which team are you on? there's only 1 -- the right team. we realized the wrong team was in place and we tried our best to help that team to re-energize that team. as it turned out, that team did not want to be helped. they wanted to protect themselves. neither dr. muse or i would give up the fight. rep. roe: thank you, the three of you for being here and speaking doubt. i think it will help other people around the country to have the courage to stick their head up. i yield back. rep. coffman: thank you. mr. waltz you are recognized.

rep. waltz: the v.a. can not provide the best care if there is a coulter of fear. since i have been here and i'm somewhat biased, this idea of coulter is never far from us. it is difficult. a week or so ago, we were on a field hearing on this very issue of over prescription of opiates and a whistleblower if you will, christopher kirkpatrick was one of the people who brought into peoples' attention. he was backed up by this. we have another whistleblower out to their whose medical record, a veteran, was looked into with a very clear example of trying to find a mental health issue to discredit them. it is so despicable because the

very stigmas we are trying to overcome among mental health is used against the people were talking about it. this is a cancer and i know the attempt and i'm grateful that we start to bring into light. in so many of these cases, the difficulties to overcome and i think ms. rice was hitting on it. we understand you have to make a case a you cannot accuse people and there is safety and collective bargaining that makes sense. i will come back to that. thank goodness for dr. hooker and the local 342 for providing democracy where management cannot run rock shock over employees. this issue seems to me and i know it runs deeper than you at the table. i looked up in the dictionary, looked a whistleblower. you know the synonyms are? but trader -- betrayer, narc.

this is hard. what you 2 are doing is more important to make sure the integrity is there. i went through the list and i'm grateful it appears we are starting to get justice for the whistleblowers. that's one piece. the accountability piece, the thing that troubles me in the nine cases you listed, i may be wrong because they are summaries for it only appears that charles led to changes to how business was done in a hydration practice that was wrong. am i wrong to assume? my concern is is threefold. justice, accountability, and improved quality. when you adjudicate these things, all you gave them back is what they should've had. you do not get a pat on the back for doing the right thing. we paid them back the music --

the money because you fired them incorrectly. maybe we're talking to the wrong people for implementation of the changes. are we seeing true change in your mind or are we just going through the motions and paying people back pay and never should've been taken away in the first place? it is the taxpayer that settles when they do this wrong. ms. flanz: we are seeing changes. not as profoundly as we should. we are seeing changes. the office of the medical inspector when they go out to investigate disclosure that comes to us through ms. lerner's office if asked to do with patient care, the recommendation in close not just -- it includes not just protection for the individual but substantive change around whatever the problem is that was disclosed.

added the department have an obligation to provide the information about what it is going to do and provide updates toward the corruption of the problem. absolutely, it is fundamental. that is what the process is about. ms. lerner: culture change requires many elements. this is not a problem that just developed overnight. it has been around for a long time. here are things we see that makes a difference in changing the culture. you have to have a message from the top. leadership has to be very strong. some of the things was seen like secretary mcdonald meeting with whistleblowers. rep. walz: this troubles me is -- was secretary shinseki unethical? did you get the impression he did not care about this or those that came before him? ms. lerner: i think a lot of the props under secretary shinseki's

term was at the office of medical inspector was doing nothing when they found a problem. when there was a disclosure, the office would say an incident and maybe the whistleblower is wrong -- that is very different now. the office of medical inspector is different. after our report, the office of medical inspector was changed around. though person was heading get left. we are seeing a change in the types of investigations they are doing, including disciplinary actions. rep. walz: my time is up. i would like to have the other three address that. i think that is fundamental. if it is made a significant change. that is an important piece. rep. coffman: you are recognized for five minutes. chris i appreciate you holding this hearing and i wish you were not necessary. i wish listing the types of changes that we wouldn't be sitting here.

i want to follow up on what thing that was just mention and i think it was the travel by the secretary and other top of v.a. leaders. this can be a question for ms. flanz as she makes reference to visiting with whistleblowers. has the current secretary visited the l.a. facility? did he meet with the doctor? ms. lerner: i do not know. dr. head: i was prevented from meeting with the secretary. i was told my id badge was -- there was a problem with my badge. i went to human resources. rep. huelskamp: say that again? dr. head: i was told you had to have an updated card and mine had expired and i would not be allowed to see the secretary. rep. huelskamp: did that happen

when you were before the congressional committee? dr. head: it could have. i was instructed to get that taken care of. i went to human resources. when i went to resolve the issue which was resolved they instructed me that a block had been placed in my id and they had a problem with the block. i was called saying you could meet with the secretary now. dr. norman has said is not a sorry to have an updated card. the problem is the secretary just finished his presentation. rep. huelskamp: very troubling. ms. flanz any response? you made the claim -- this a very public whistleblower. dr. head put his reputation on the line and very courageous, very public. was he not searched out to less solve this problem? ms. flanz: i was not consulted

for it if i had been, i would want to intervene. the secretary makes a point to model the behavior in all supervisors. i am sorry dr. head was not able to meet with him. i know that conversation would have been of use. rep. huelskamp: are there any other whistleblowers? you made is that he would like to me with the whistleblowers, in others he skipped? how many times has he met with whistleblowers? ms. flanz: it is my understanding he seeks them out. rep. huelskamp: except for dr. head? ms. flanz: it is the first time i've heard of this. rep. huelskamp: when you make statements for the record, this pretty certain. i want to the firm correctly earlier that no v.a. supervisors have been fired for retaliation against was a blower's? ms. flanz: that is not correct. rep. huelskamp: how many? ms. flanz: they fall in the

jurisdiction in my office which a look at senior managers. i cannot speak of the photos below that level. we have been involved in recommending termination for three individuals. it included whistleblower retaliation. rep. huelskamp: they have been terminated? ms. flanz: yes. rep. huelskamp: the second question. maybe have the names of those? ms. flanz: not in this public forum, but i would be happy to provide them. rep. huelskamp: follow-up all medical records. you made a reference in your written testimony that perhaps supervisors or others have access to medical records to whistleblowers to discredit them. can you describe that? i am astonished that would actually be occurring in the v.a. ms. lerner: we have raised --

sorry. we have raised some the concerts with eva and the -- v.a. and ig. we are seeing a pattern of not just accessing medical records but opening things for like hippa violations, relative minor violations that become the focus rather than the underlying focus that the whistleblower came forward with. that is problematic. one of them is the underlying disclosure and it has a chilling effect on other whistleblowers and so we are -- rep. huelskamp: hippa violation by the v.a. retaliating against the whistleblower? ms. lerner: it is all of those things. rep. huelskamp: medical records of whistleblowers being accessed, that has occurred?

do you have any idea roughly of how many times? ms. lerner: i don't have the number. i can find out. we have cases that involve improper access to the whistleblowers' medical records. a lot of people who work at the v.a. get their care for the v.a. so their medical records are there. rep. huelskamp: are the exempt from hippa? ms. lerner: i don't know. rep. huelskamp: what is the penalty for inappropriately accessing whistleblower medical records? ms. flanz: there is a range of penalties and in each case we have to look and see if the individual acts test a business reason to do so. i am also deeply troubled by this. we see it far more often than you would expect. i do not know if that is because of so many of our employees are veterans who receive their care at v.a. facilities for it is deeply troubling. rep. huelskamp: my idea for

penalty for that would be immediate dismissal. i yield back. rep. coffman: ms. robie, your recognize. rep. roby: thank you for the invitation to join you. i do not center your committee but i said on the appropriations subcommittee and mr. tresmaine is my constituent. to choose understatements, first to say these people are coming forward shows there are issues that need some attention as well as saying we hear over and over that you cannot change a culture overnight. it has been a year. it has been almost a year since mr. tresmaine and i had our first conversation. we are tired of hearing you cannot change this culture. it has not been overnight. it has been a year.

here we are today. mr. tresmaine i was traveling up here today and i was taking about us being in this room together today and how significant that is and i just want to thank you for you being willing to tell the truth when no one else was. for you to step forward to reveal the -- horrible circumstances in montgomery, tuskegee, just says a lot about who you are. i want to thank you many times. i want to take this opportunity today publicly to thank mr. tresmaine and the other whistleblowers who are here who i do not know but i appreciate your courage. thank you to mr. tresmaine. we uncovered layers of scandal. thousands of missing x-rays. manipulated medical records as mr. tresmaine referenced dva

employee who took a recovering veteran to a crack house and only took a year and a half even though the administration knew it had happened. it took a year and a half for the individual to be fired. the culture we are talking about a here a year later with taken a step backward in an ap article showed that montgomery and tuskegee, the hospitals mr. tresmaine that mr. tresmaine work that where number one and number two were the worst in the country. there is a new scam. let's scheduled appointment within the timeframe but we will cancel 30 minutes before and reschedule it. it is on the books. it looks is though the v.a. is doing what they are supposed to. by the way, if they come in, i learned last week, if a mental health patient comes in and asks the scene as a walk-in they

only get reimbursed for half of their travel expenses. otherwise as an appointment holder, which by the way canceled 30 minutes prior this is the kind of stuff we are hearing directly from veterans. i have to tell you -- nothing has improved. we have taken steps backward. mr. tresmaine, thank you for being here. i want to ask you because of asked nicely for a year and all apologies, i'm a little over being nice at this point. how often, mr. tresmaine did a professional staff member from the secretary of the v.a. office here in washington sit in your regularly scheduled staff meeting? zero. senator shelby from alabama and myself sent a letter that we wanted washington v.a. to come

down in oversee what was happening in central alabama v.a. has to there been any presence from the national v.a. in central alabama? direct link to the secretary's office here in washington to oversee in the last six months? ok. has the secretary and other top leadership here in washington shown a direct interest in investment in correcting the problems? would you say that washington the following through with his promise to directly oversee the overhaul in cabinet? mr. savage wasn't the visiting director and mr. chapter -- jackson is the acting director after mr. talton was remote.

mr. tresmaine: he was placed there by dr. savagery when dr. talton was fired, robin jackson came in as the director. again, i pointed out i thought -- rep. roby: i'm a visitor so i have to be careful not to violate your rules all five minutes. ms. flanz was in the room with me and the deputy secretary when i asked mr. savage to be in the same investigation that mr. tres maine. mr. savage was the first fired against the law this congress passed in august. mr. savage quietly retired one week ago. thank you for letting me be here. thank you to mr. tresmaine. i cannot tell you how much i

appreciate your courage and your willingness to help get this right. rep. coffman: i think your passion speaks for itself. when i mentioned about being on the right team, there's no question our representative martha roby has been advocate. web not seen the likes of. thank you so much for that. -- we have not seen the likes of. rep. kuster: a brief follow-up along the lines of representative rice and i want to ask ms. lerner is procedural but i think it will get an important point. you talked about the office of medical inspector doing a more proactive or interactive follow-up to the recommendation and you mentioned including disciplinary action and that seems to be what is hanging over this hearing.

our disappointment that it sounds as though it is more rigorous investigation of the whistleblower then those who have been standing behind retaliation. to me and i think this what representative rice is getting cap, if you want to change culture, you have to change the view not just a first step that we would take care of whistleblowers and treat them fairly. but something will actually happen to those who retaliated against. i am an attorney as well in understand the burden of proof. can you follow up with this? maybe we do not have the right witness in terms of the medical a -- office of medical examiner. can we ask for data that may be available? ms. flanz: i think there are 2 -- ms. lerner: i think there are

2 different processes. one of the things we look at when we decide whether the office of medical inspector's is adequate before we report it have they taken appropriate corrective measures? has relief -- it is not really retaliation investigation. where we are seeing the problem with rotarian with tori investigation is with the ig and regional council the problem is that when someone comes forward with the disclosure, and then an investigation is often opened up into their own behavior. we can protect them from retaliation if they come for but the office of medical inspector is look at the underlying disclosure.

rep. kuster: then there's a procedure because my colleague talked about you need to deal with protecting the whistleblower and making the long term changes for the health and well-being of the veteran. i want to get at the crux of the matter. who is investigating the retaliatory action and what is the disciplinary procedure for that person? do you follow me? ms. lerner: when somebody makes a disclosure, they have a number of options. they can go to the accountability and review or the ig or ose or congress for if they experience retaliation, we can open up an investigation or within use our process to get relief very quickly for them. we have been able to get relief quickly -- rep. kuster: you are still to

our relief to protect them. keep going on the track, what is the procedure for disciplinary proceeding to set the example? that is half of what criminal justice system is all about part of what an employee justice system is about. to set this example, here were modeling the behavior of this collaborative approach. over here, we do not want this to happen. sending somebody to an office with a hole in the floor. sending somebody to an office with no windows. these are things that are not tolerable and we will demonstrate to all of the other employees by saying, that person was led to go. they didn't uphold the spirit we hold dear in our workplace. ms. lerner: disciplinary action

is key to accountability, there is no question in terms of changing a culture you have to hold people accountable. it deters future violation. our primary focus has been making the whistleblower back. we have 130 employees and we have to prioritize, but what we do is when we identify a case where we think disciplinary action is appropriate we work with the office of accountability review and we try and get the agency to take disciplinary action. we have several cases in the pipeline now that will involve disciplinary action. we are trying to pin it and focus more on disciplinary action but our first priority has been getting people back to work. with someone has been fired we want them back to the work and when someone is in the basement we want to get them back. the have been very successful.

ms. flanz:rep. kuster: the sooner you can get to the retaliatory behavior, the sooner you will be going through for years on end example such as these. thank you and i apologize for going over. >> to her now recognize for five minutes. >> you still don't have an office? why hasn't he got in his regular office back? ms. lerner: i don't know, but i will find out. rep. benishek: obviously he is back in good faith and i would like that.

rep. benthis is the same supervisor you have had all along? dr. head: no, really, it is dr. dean norman. rep. benishek: this is not a hip of violation, so why are they accused of violations? ms. flanz: we are very protective of patient care information and not all supervisors are aware of the right of supervisors to provide

that information to other oversight bodies. rep. benishek: miss lerner, what changes have occurred since last year's hearing? ms. lerner: we have many more cases to investigate. we have been able to do a little bit of hiring, working full-time on v.a. cases and the expedited review system, hiring additional staff to work cases. our process works -- we have been getting relief or whistleblowers and getting people back to work, getting adverse personnel actions. i think people feel more comfortable and know about us and we are getting more cases. rep. benishek: thank you. doctor tell me what your responses today to the testimony of ms. flanz. dr. hooker: we had one patient

-- you are really technically not supposed to continue giving that medication that someone has abnormal drug screens. repetitive positive urine drug screens should be the cause for not giving the medication. we had a clinical specialist who reported that practice going on. rather than investigate they investigated the nurse. he has been sitting in a clerical position. doing no functions a windowless office reporting to clerks who need something moved or carried around when he has a masters degree. he is on active duty. just this past weekend in the

reserve, they have no proposed -- he didn't contact the office of special counsel back in august. they did propose discipline against him proposing suspension on something that occurred in 2013. a couple other things that they alleged occurred in 2014. rep. benishek: i just want to interrupt you because i have heard of this before from other members and physicians, saying they have a peer-reviewed ga ig, without referencing the thing you brought up. is that your experience? dr. hooker: my personal experience for being in the limelight -- i only had one time when i was called to the peer-reviewed committee. this particular instance, there was no peer in the room or on the telephone to be my.

. -- my peer. there was a dietitian and a few other occupational therapists, but there was no true peer for me to address my concerns. number two -- rep. benishek: the peer review process is flawed at your facility? dr. hooker: very flawed. people that they want to harass -- i had several colleagues who had no true peer in the room when they went before the peer-reviewed committee. we have people in the inner circle who are the team players and you don't get the reviews for cases that should be peer-reviewed, and others who get peer-reviewed cases that should not be. rep. benishek: thank you. >> you are now recognized for five minutes.

rep. rice: what is the burden of truth you apply when looking into allegations by whistleblowers? ms. flanz: it depends on the tribunal that my peers in action. rep. rice: are you making a regimentation to -- ms. flanz: it is -- in most cases, employee discipline will be subject to the appeal of the merits protection board. and almost all cases, it applies a preponderance of the evidence. rep. roby: for both retaliated and whistleblowers? -- rep. rice: for both retaliate or send whistleblowers? ms. flanz: if it is a suspension, a demotion, a removal, most actions -- there are differences if we are

talking about title 38 doctors and nurses who have their own disciplinary process. but if we are talking about title five, if the person did something wrong and should be discipline and the appeal goes -- the preponderance of the evidence standard what apply. rep. rice: in terms of disciplinary action, that is meant to be taken against the retaliateor or a whistleblower? they both have built-in protections, union representation or whomever, no, none? ms. flanz: not for pure title 48 -- that is a little glitch in the system pertaining to section 74. dr. hooker: what the secretary says goes and that is typically delegated to a chief of staff

locally who can be very, very, very retaliatory to physicians who do not play according to the party line, or who are not team players. rep. rice: mr. chairman, maybe that is something that we should as a committee look into trying to fix. in my prior life as a prosecutor, there was a saying that it is true not just in the world of criminal justice but i see it here in the world of va. that term is snitch is get stitches. -- snitches get stitches. while you don't have physical stages they are certainly burying figurative ones. >> thank you. i am still trying to figure out

parts of the testimony but i am looking at a document from november, 2014 about rebuilding trust. at that time, you did note that there were over 100 investigations currently being undertaken. do you have a rough figure what those numbers are? ms. flanz: i believe he was speaking to the ig. it was at its most active point at 98 sites. they have completed their work at several of them. let me make sure i have the right data here. they have completed their work substantiated some scheduling and propriety of 14 of the 43. they found no particular impropriety at 29. their investigations are ongoing at the balance.

rep. huelskamp: so they have not delivered half? so five months later from this report to the public, half these -- these investigations have yet to be completed or started? ms. flanz: you really have to ask the ig. rep. huelskamp: can you ask them for me? this is from the secretary. the justice department and the office of special counsel, all those together. do you know a, comparable figure? half of these have yet to be completed. ms. flanz: i believe ig has

started them all and finished quite a few but has not yet delivered the report. rep. huelskamp: this would be worth three individuals have been fired out of 100 investigations. ms. flanz: the question that you posed before about individuals three had to do with whistleblower retaliation. the ig is looking at something different. that would be a different number. i'm here today to talk about whistleblower retaliation and i apologize, i don't have a number of actions taken as a result of the ig finding. rep. huelskamp: one thing i will ask -- when you put together this testimony who did you visit with to clear this testimony? the deputy secretary cleared this testimony? ms. flanz: there is a process

that includes our leadership yes. rep. huelskamp: so they approved all this testimony? so nobody in the front office knew mr. head did not have the opportunity to visit -- you are suggesting that everyone was talked to. somebody looked at this and let you say that a decision might have been made? ms. flanz: i testimony is that the secretary makes a point of meeting with was as he travels throughout the system. it didn't specifically speak to any meeting with dr. head. when the secretary of veterans affairs came to our facility he did not meet with any whistleblowers. we asked for a private meeting because we have sent a letter in november about a number of people under investigation that we thought were inappropriate

that appeared to be sham investigations. he had a strict schedule. we were allowed to go with another union for 15 minutes jointly. i was unable to go because i had care duties. my colleagues in the union went. >> the secretary didn't visit our facilities. the deputy secretary did but he did not meet with any of us. >> i am just about out of time -- if i might ask ms. flanz of the 15 corrective actions that were rectified, i would like to know how many of those had business with senior v.a. officials? would you please find out? >> thank you. >> i will venture out on a limb -- i bet you get a call from the secretary now.

it goes to something bigger for me. i would go back to this issue with secretaries and jackie -- secretary shinseki. an organization this bed has to happen -- i want to get to this training and how we will change it, how we will make it better. i want to talk about osc. i bet everyone in this room has gone through some form of professional training, whether it is on a friday afternoon or a retreat, and i bet you can count intel the ones that were highly effective and those that were forgettable. i am going to go to this -- have any of the three of you received osc whistleblower certification training? dr. hooker: no, i have not. ms. flanz: know. -- dr. head: no.

dr. hooker: what the training is -- it is not a specific training. there are five steps agencies have to take and one of them -- a lot of it is the training component, putting posters that facility and providing information to new employees about retaliation, providing information to current employees. >> their confusion on that in the v.a.? that if someone tells you about a practice, isn't it widely known that you don't move them from their office without due process? yes, facetiously but do you believe this is going to work? >> the problem is that it has to filter down. the message is good coming out of headquarters those folks for implementing it. >> is this going to work, dr. head? >> i think the current practices

made a big change. >> i would venture to say -- i always think about this is -- training folks is not technique and content. i would argue the a's issue is people -- argue v.a.'s issue is people. there are a whole bunch of dedicated v.a. employees that are living at sacrificing and doing great service and their morality hurting. -- their morale is hurting. there are folks in the management chain that do that so my question is what would be the most effective thing we can do? i do want to belittle the training but i think it is good to refresh your course on what is appropriate and what is legal. i just -- i would ask the three of you, what should we be doing more of? >> i think one of the -- your definition of a whistleblower

that in itself is really derogatory. i don't think that in itself -- it kills a lot of people when they think whistleblowers and negativity. you have to embrace that, you have to embrace the whistleblower and acknowledge that and acknowledge that there are problems and you have to resolve those problems. just adding knowledge meant and that openness, the transparency is critically important and we just don't have that. we have the retaliation. that seems to be the first step anytime a whistleblower comes forward. >> why not want to be better? you could take everything with a grain of salt. each one of us in our lives when you get positive feedback from those you trust -- why that resistance? >> i don't know.

you hit the nail on the head when you said there are many v.a. employees -- the majority of the v.a. employees, 99.9% are going to work every day and love taking care of veterans. you just have that small minority that feel that they can utilize taxpayer money to do whatever they want and retaliate and -- >> do you think miss rice is right, that there needs to be some teeth in this? is there a patience to this? i don't want to step on anyone's due process rights but you hear the frustration that nobody is ever held accountable. it is not a juvenile desire to seek punishment for the sake of punishment, it is about making sure people are served. >> we don't have due process rights in the traditional sense. 742 prevents us from2 having that due process right. in the committee, i would be held to the standards of my peers, but in the v.a. i am told

what i do and how i do it. i can't argue in a sense the way i could with colleagues. i don't have the collegial oversight, i have clerks telling me how to practice medicine. if i call the office of special counsel and report -- i did come across evidence that another veteran employee reported two years before i discovered it through a proposed termination of another employee who had brought up some issues. she was put in another window was office in the basement and had two masters degrees and a counseling degree. where i'm going with this is that, when i reported to the ig, i went to the inspector general of report goes back to the v.a. i called on all nine people i currently have sitting home, getting paid at a high

professional salary level for not doing their job. they don't even know why they are home. and ophthalmologist was just threatened. when we do reports of these outside agencies, they turn it over to the v.a. for investigation. i am not a farmer but i would have trouble asking how many hens are in the coop when the feathers are sticking out of the foxes mouth. >> thing mickey is coming back to me is this is how deep it is -- what is the deal with this office thing and moving people to the basement? that is an intimidation -- that is your definition of violence in the workplace. >> that is unacceptable. >> i went over my time. >> one quick final point. that has to be accountability. move me to a storage bin makes

me feel bad, but they are trying to send a message not only to me but to everyone. look at dr. head, he thinks he's great. they said they will protect them but on my v.a., no. they listen to me and congress can't do a thing about it. they are trying to intimidate all the other potential -- i like to label whistleblowers as patriots. these patriots, they are trying to suppress their willingness to make a better life for these veterans. it is shameful. >> let me say also that retaliation simply isn't limited to employees of the v.a. but also patients who step forward. in colorado, we had a case last year where a patient gave a statement to an investigative reporter and the reporter then called the v.a. and talk to the

public affairs individual. the public affairs individual said you really don't want to talk to this person, he is a patient undergoing psychiatric care. i sent a letter to the secretary of veterans affairs, never got a response. are thanks to the witnesses. you are now excused. today we have had a chance to hear about problems that exist within the department of veterans affairs with regard to whistleblower retaliation. from the testimony provided and questions asked, i am dismayed at the failure of the department to adequately protect conscientious employees who seek to improve services provided to our veterans. since this hearing was necessary to a con question -- what efforts it has made to improve whistleblower protection practices and processes; address

where improvements either have not been made or where insufficient attempts give way to continued retaliation experienced by whistleblowers; and ss next step -- andassess next steps to make sure that those who seek to correct problems with the department are adequately protected. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. i would like to once again thank all of our witnesses and audience members for joining us in today's hearing. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2015] >> coming up, the senate foreign relations committee reviews the iran nuclear framework.

followed by hillary clinton at her first campaign event in iowa. on the next, " washington journal," jim mcdermott. the lead democrat on the ways and means subcommittee on health discusses the reapeal of the medicare -- and challenges to the president's health care law. then james renacci discusses house bills on the floor including a tax overall. after that, our spotlight on magazines features "time" magazine on his reporting of the shooting of an unarmed black man in south carolina and the relationships tweebetween police departments and communities. you can join with your calls and comments on facebook and

twitter. >> on april 14, 1865 at 10:15 p.m. eastern actor john wilkes booth shot president abraham lincoln. the president died at 7:22 a.m. the following morning at the peterson house across the street. today, we will be live from the peterson house to mark the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination with a w reath lane ceremony. that starts at 7:15 a.m. >> first lady's is now a book published by public affairs. looking inside the personal lives of every first lady in american history. based on interviews with more than 50 preeminent historians, learn details of all 45 first ladies. their lieves, ambitions and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book "first ladies,

presidential historians on the lives of 45 women," provides stories of these women who for survive the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great personal cost while supporting their families and husbands and even change history. c-span's "first ladies" is illuminating and entertaining and inspiring read and is now available hardcover or an e-book for your favorite bookseller. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with comcast to learn about the history of saint augustine florida. >> ponce de leon mary not have been searching for the fountain of youth. a lot of people had said that he was looking for additional properties for the king of spain. which is decidedly true. we do know that juan ponce de

leo came ashore after searching for good harborn for water and wood. this area presents one of the few freshwater springs in the area around 30 degrees 8 minutes, and is the location of the 1565 first settlement of saint augustine, 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was found in and 55 years before the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. >> the hotel ponce de leon was built by henry morrison flagler. flagler is a man who is very little known out side of the state of florida. but he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he had been a co-founder of standard oil company with john d rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. and as it turned out florida was it. he realized that he needed to

own the railroad. between jacksonville and saint augustine to enuresure that guests could get to his hotel. so clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary. >> watch all of our events from saint augustine saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. >> senator bob corker, the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, thanks for being with us on c-span. senator corker: the senate foreign relations committee

passed out legislation that requires -- before lifting the sanctions on iran to come to congress first, some of the details and allow it to lay before congress without lifting no sanction and to give congress, if they disapproved, the right to pass a resolution of disapproval was with stop sanctions. then to continue to play a role to ensure they comply. most people worry that iran would cheat. that is said by both sides of the, including the president. so this was a great victory. the american people do need -- people on their behalf looking at the details. i want to strongly negotiated agreement. that is the best outcome. i think congress plague was role on behalf of the american people to make sure that iran is accountable, that we have full transparency and that this is something that is impossible is

important for us to do -- the this is enforceable. host: what change the president's mind? senator corker: at 11:30 today john kerry was pressing strongly against this legislation. i think they realized by 12:30 this train was running in front of them and it was going to pass overwhelmingly. it was going to be way beyond a vetro-o-proof majority. at1:00 they sent the chief of staff over. it took congress showing strength on this issue. they realized this is a losing proposition for them. they lifted their hold. host: did anything change with the new ranking democrat ben cardin? senator corker: bob menendez was a star. obviously, things change.

ben cardin, what a great american stepped in and picked up where bob letft off. i do not know how many discussions we have had over the last five days, but he did an outstanding job. it worked the way things should work. i am proud of the senate today. host: we are talking with the chair of the senate foreign relations committee. did congress get what it is looking for in this legislation? senator corker: absolutely. made the process even stronger. this is exactly what we proposed in the beginning. and that is that the president has to submit every detail including classified annexes the public will not have access to, to allow to set there for the clock to start on us reviewing this. for us to have a process where if we disapprove, we have the right to do that, which is a high hurdle, but to stay involved and make sure that the

president can certify, whoever he or she is they can certify that iran is living within a deal if one is consummated. this is what the process had always been. i'm glad senator cardin, senator menendez, senator cain how to work it through the way they did. lindsey graham in the beginning was with us. he is not on the committee. host: if passed unanimously, did that surprise you? senator corker: i knew we were going to have a strong vote. and i knew it was going to give a strong signal to the white house that their veto was going to be useless. and so there probably were a couple members that was the new the veto was going to be lifted that went ahead and voted, but it was going to be overwhelming. host: your earlier point -- you do not trust iran? senator corker: let me say one

more time, the best solution for americans and for the world is a strong negotiated agreement with iran. iran has proven, that with every single agreement we have had, that they hvaave not lived up to it. in the interim agreement, there are 12 pieces of information that iaea is seeking. only one of them has come forward. i think they have proven to be difficult. proven -- by the way, i think everyone involved in the negotiations on behalf of america understand this is a group of people that certainly have not lived up to prior obligations. so look, i think there is a lot of distrust both ways. they distrust us, also. look i hope we will end up with a great agreement. very strong. that demonstrates that democrat -- diplomacy can prevail. at the same time, i think we need to be wary and understand

all the details and know that this is something enforceable and will keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. host: senator bob corker, republican, tennessee, chair of the senate foreign relations committee. thanks for being with us. >> the senate foreign relations committee consider the iran nuclear framework and passed legislation that requires the white house to submit details of any agreement to congress. it also requires a review during which sanctions against iran could not be lifted. the hearing is an hour and 15 minutes.

senator corker: this business meeting will come to order. the only order of business today is s-615, the iranian act of 2015. i want to start by thanking all the members of the committee for the tremendous amount of work that they have done over several months to get us to the place that we are. and in any piece of legislation, obviously, there are things that members would like to see different, but i think we have reached a balance here that is very, very appropriate. i want to thank former chairman and former ranking member senator bob menendez for his tremendous efforts on all things iran and certainly this piece of legislation. i can't imagine a member being more constructive and i want to say that for me, today, what may occur is the true reemergence of

the foreign relations committee becoming more than just a debating society but a committee that takes up the significant work that we have before us around the world. and i want to say again to our former chairman and former ranking member, there is no question that over the last two years, you have helped bring us to this point where instead of debating things, we in fact may well be taking up important legislation that will have a significant impact on the security of the middle east and of our citizens. i want to thank tim kaine for his incredible effort. tim is someone who understands truly the role of the united states senate and issues of significance that has been a stalwart to articulate more

clearly than anyone else why it is important for us to take the role that i hope this legislation today will allow us to take. and then to ranking member cardin, i don't know how many times we have talked over the phone over the last several days. i can't thank you enough for your temperament, for your tone, for your seriousness on a very very important issue and i look forward to working with you on other significant issues but today, to be where we are is a testament to the type of senator you came here to be and i want to thank you for that. let's set the stage. in spite of what may be being said by buildings down the street on the other end of pennsylvania, this legislation is exactly the congressional

review that we have been working on from day one. i want to thank everyone here for allowing this legislation to be in the form that it is in today, with 100% of the integrity that we had hoped would be a part of this process embodied in this piece of legislation. what this legislation does, i think everyone understands that these iran nuclear negotiations are incredibly important to the citizens we represent. i think everyone would want to see an agreement that ensures iran does not get a nuclear weapon. they has passed numerous pieces of legislation that many give credit for bringing iran to the negotiating table.

congress prevailed and the sanctions that we have put into place are the sanctions that have brought the iranian economy down certainly a great deal. it certainly cause the inflation and the destabilizing affect that cause them to want to be at the negotiating table. what we have before us today is a bill that forces the administration, before they are able to lift the sanctions that we collectively put in place that brought them to the table it forces the administration to bring to us every detail if there happens to be a final agreement. every detail. we have left time frames in here, we work through with a parliamentarian to make sure the procedures are appropriate. ben and i will have a colloquy

in a minute to further confirm that. it means that these sanctions that have been put into place by this body cannot be lifted without the administration bringing to us every detail of the deal. then the clock will start and there will be a period of time where congress will be able to debate and decide whether it want to move ahead with a resolution of approval or a resolution of disapproval. during that time, no congressionally mandated sanctions can be lifted. after that process is over there is a third process it is very important. i think everybody understands what has happened in north korea, where arrangements were made but there was no follow through. a very important aspect of the third like to this agreement is that congress stays involved if an agreement is reached.

and if one is not disapproved, congress stays involved. every 90 days, the administration has to certify that in every way the regime is compliant. and if there is a violation they have to give that to congress so we have an ability to quickly reapply the sanctions. i think this puts congress in its rightful role. people should know, and i think everyone understands, the sanctions being negotiated are the nuclear sanctions only. the sanctions relative to ballistic missile testing, they stay in place. the sanctions relative to terrorism, they stay in place. the sanctions relative to human rights, they stay in place. today we are only focused on the nuclear peace. but if over the time the

sanctions are lifted because a deal is approved in congress chooses not to disapprove it, i would say to everyone here, this bill gives us more reporting on terrorism than we have ever had, more reporting on ballistic missile testing than we have ever had, more reporting on human rights than we have ever had. we will have that entire arsenal of sanctions that we put in place since 2010 to reapply in those areas if we feel that ron is again doing things that is not in our national interests. i want to thank again the ranking member and everybody who has worked with us in this regard. many people may have opening comments, but it has been a true pleasure to work with senator

cardin and others, for us to be in the place that we are with the entire integrity of the congressional review process that we started with staying in place. and with that, i will turn it over to our ranking member who worked with us to get it into place and i hope many democrats will be willing to join in. he did so toughly but with a temperament that allowed us to move along in a very productive way. senator cardin: senator corker thank you very much. i want to agree with you in the role that senator menendez has played. the congressional review of the iranian reports that we hope will be presented in june. senator menendez enjoys the strong thanks for the incredible leadership he has given in the senate foreign relations committee as its chairman and as ranking member. i am honored to be the ranking member.

i did not want to become ranking member under these circumstances and i hope that senator menendez's issues will be resolved quickly. i represent the democratic members, but in a broader sense i think we both represent all the members of the senate in bringing as much unity as we can to foreign policy in this country. i look forward to working with you in that regard. it is clear to me that there is a strong common commitment in the congress of the united states and the white house, to make sure that iran never becomes a nuclear weapon state. that is our objective. that is a game changer for the middle east and something we cannot allow to occur. i think we all agree that the preferred course to achieve that objective is through diplomatic means.

the negotiations taking place with a strong agreement that would prevent iran from becoming a nuclear state. such an agreement would have to provide ample time for iran to break out to a nuclear weapon so that if they do not comply we can know about those breaches and take action. bottom line is, there is no disagreement in this committee or in the congress that we cannot trust iran and that the agreement has to be able to ensure that iran does not become a nuclear weapon state. i start by saying thank you to senator corker and thank you to senator menendez and thank you to senator kaine. the bill that we are working on today provided a way that congress could review any

agreement reached between our negotiating partners in iran with regards to nuclear weapons. secondly, it provided a means that we could get timely notice in the event that there was a material breach so that congress could take appropriate action. those two principles were in the original bill and they are still there today and i agree completely with those purposes and said so well before the hearings. i am pleased we were able to negotiate a package that has broad support and input from many members of this committee and i want to thank members on both sides of the aisle for their input into the matters of this amendment. it reflects, i think, the best thoughts of all the members of the committee. it provides the best framework for congressional review and potential action.

mr. chairman, i just want to go over some language that is in the amendment. the sanctions regime put in by congress is primarily responsible to bringing the iranian regime to the table. these are critical for the national security and foreign policy for the united states and its allies. this legislation does not require a vote for legislation to commence. approval or disapproval of no actions under an agreement. i want to point that out because people have asked why we are involved here. we have to be involved here because only congress can currently change or modify the sanctions regime which is clearly part of what the president is negotiating in regards to the iran nuclear program. secondly, let me point out that

the amendment has the appropriate role for congress in regards to when we get the agreement and how we act on it. it is clear that we will only act if the administration has presented to us an agreement. that is when the clock starts. we will go into the timeframe in a moment, that on the assumption that we will get it through on time, there is a 30 day review period. that gives congress ample time to decide on action. we don't know if there will be no action, there will be a resolution on sanctions. all of that is possible. there will be no action prior to receiving the agreement.

it is also very clear that the april 2 framework is not part of that type of a review process. the 30 days could be extended if there was action taken that required presidential approval during that period of the presidential review. no one can anticipate where we will end up on this but it basically is a 30 day review process. i want to thank the chairman because we got into a big debate and we may have an amendment being offered on this. we have eliminated from the original draft certain presidential certifications that were not related to the iranian negotiations. i think that was the right thing to do. this is a complicated enough agreement. we will not be able to solve all the problems with iran. if we can stop iran from becoming a nuclear state, that

is the purpose of this agreement. did they have other issues with the international community end us, you bet they do. i ask my colleagues to take a look at the manager's amendment because we have strengthened getting adequate information about their terrorist activities in violation of human rights that we have that information and can use that information as we see fit. i believe the manager's amendment stretches this bill but does it in the right way without interfering. in fact, i would suggest that this bill strengthens the president's ability to negotiate in regards to the nuclear framework itself. lastly, i think there is an amendment that is offered that makes it clear that the security of israel and the survival of israel is clearly paramount, one of the paramount goals, and i

agree with that completely. i thank senator rubio and senator boxer for their leadership on that issue. i want to thank senator coons for his help on shortening the period and senator shaheen on how we put this together. i think this is a proud moment if we can get this type of legislation. i think it is the right thing not only for congress but for the american people. and mr. chairman, if i might, i just want to make one point on some of the new tax in the manager substitute amendment which is been agreed to between senator corker and myself. the original bill mandated a 60 day. congressional review during which time the president would

not be able to provide statutory sanctions relief. in the new text, if the sanction is committed by july 10, there would be a 60 day period. it provides for a further 12 days for the president to consider a veto of the resolution of disapproval and 10 days for congress to consider overriding a veto. the ten-day. would begin the day of presidential veto. senator corker: that is actually my understanding and i think it is your understanding that the timeclock only begins with the president submits all of the materials including all of the classified annexes that the public will never see but is important for us to see prior to any section relief. senator cardin: you are correct.

senator corker: and if it submits after that period of time, all of our members should know that because of the way congress doesn't function during the day of august, there is a 60 day process that we revert back to. that is our understanding and certainly it is spelled that way in the manager's amendment, but i want to make sure that we have an agreement. at this moment, i really think it is important or senator menendez, who has been such a champion, not only on this piece of legislation, but regarding our mutual concerns with iran. i would like to call on him to make some opening comments. senator menendez: thank you mr. chairman. let me thank you for your gracious remarks and i appreciate having worked with you on the legislation and your

consultations with me on changes to the legislation which i support. i think this continuation of the bipartisanship that i try to set out when i had the privilege of chairing the committee rises to the high calling of what the united states senate is all about. it particularly shows the significance of the senate foreign relations committee. i want to thank senator cardin the ranking member, it is incredibly hard work in perfecting the legislation that brings us to what i hope will be a broad, strong, bipartisan vote. and i can't become anyone better to take my place during this interim period. and i want to thank senator kaine. in my view, the way to send a message to iran about our feelings is to pass the corker-menendez act.

it underscores congresses critical role in one of the highest priority national security, nuclear nonproliferation challenges of our time. the fact is that the p5+1 and iran achieve an agreement by the june deadline, congress must have oversight ability. this bill establishes a framework for congressional oversight. i differentiate this agreement and others that the ministers has cited for exclusive executive action the cause of the mandated sanctions that are law. as the author of the sanctions working with others on this committee and beyond, i can tell you that we never envisioned a wholesale waiver of those sanctions without congressional

input and action. my goal is one goal, and that is to make sure that iran does not have the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon. the best way to achieve that goal is with bipartisan support that strengthens the united states'hand and sets out expectations for iranian compliance. let's send a message to iran that sanctions relief is not a given and not a prize to signing on the dotted line. iran must comply with all parts of the agreement. i have many questions about the framework agreement, including but not limited to the divergent understanding of the agreement the difference in what iran can do in research on advanced centrifuges, the timing and pacing of sanctions relief, the ability to bring back sanctions if there are violations, the ability to address the military

dimensions of the program, the ability of the iaea's ability to do snap inspections. those are all more the reason for congress to have an oversight role. i urge a strong bipartisan vote on the bill. senator corker: any additional opening comments? senator risch: the reason this is so difficult is because we are negotiating toward two different goals. the united states and the world wants to negotiate to a point where the irradiance cannot now and cannot ever have a nuclear weapon. the iranians are negotiating to have a specific, clear path

forward to how they can have a nuclear weapon. this is a culture that has been around for two and a half millennia. 10-15 years is nothing for them. under the agreement talked about, they patiently can put one foot in front of the other and get to where they want to go. unfortunately, that means that people will be sitting in these chairs in the future to deal with that. that is what has made this so difficult. having said all that, i think there are steps we can take at this point to at least slow it down and, who knows, maybe the iranian people can overthrow what they are burdened with in their government and decide to be reasonable actors in the world and get to the point where they abandon their nuclear ambitions. this agreement that we are talking about right now does not get them to the point where they

are abandoning their nuclear agreements. they would just destroy all their infrastructure, abandon a completely, and move on. that is not what we're talking about here. having said that, i think there are some good things in here that we will have to get on board with. senator corker: i think the comments you are making about the agreement, you are talking about the agreement that is being negotiated between the p5+1 and iran. today's agreement will hope to deal with that and by giving us the ability to weigh in, a way to put us into a better place. senator cardin: i think it is critically important that we underscore that because we will have strong bipartisan support for this agreement. i think is very clear that this vote on the review process is not at all a reflection on how

members feel on the underlying negotiations. quite frankly, i will just speak for myself, i want to see the agreements before i comment on the agreements. it is still in the process of being negotiated. i do want to it knowledge the president success in keeping iran at the table during these negotiating period's in keeping the sanction regime in place when many of us thought when the first framework was announced that we would not be able to do that. we will reserve judgment on the merits at a different point, but right now i hope we can focus on the framework for our review. senator boxer: i really do appreciate the very hard work that you, mr. chairman, did along with our ranking member.

so many others. so many people were involved in this and to me is very, very important. i believe this bill has been changed for they point at which i did not supported to a point at which i can. it is because i believe the former bill would have disrupted and upended the ongoing negotiations between iran and the p5+1. i believe this new bill will not do that. i have received assurances all day, this morning i was on the phone with experts saying, do you feel that if we vote for this bill we will upend negotiations? the answer came back as a very straightforward know, this bill will not do that. the reason for that is, there is no longer language in the bill tying extraneous issues to the agreement. we may have an amendment to do that and everyone has a right to their opinion.

my own view, that would be a dealbreaker because we know how many problems we face with iran. we would be here all day. we are trying to take care of one of these problems today so i would urge colleagues to refrain from trying to solve every problem with iran. there are years worth of problems, years worth of terrorism, and we are still dealing with that and we will still deal with that. there is light which in there that states we will still deal with that, let's not tie it to this legislation. also, i believe that what is highlighted is a section that says we will not be voting on the final deal, if there is one, until after it is concluded. i think that is very important and i appreciate senator corker and senator cardin accepting the language that i put recognizing

israel's right to exist and security. we all feel that way and i am proud it is in there. i am proud that the language i wrote on expedited procedures should this be a breakout, so that we can immediately go on to the floor of the united states senate, no filibuster allowed, and add back sanctions or do other things. in its new form, the bill clears a very strong path forward for congress to vote up or down on sanctions that it imposed. i view the bill as a vote on sanctions that we imposed. i want to be clear because you know i always am. if this bill is altered in ways that threaten this once in a lifetime opportunity to deal with the looming crisis, i will use every tool at my disposal to

stop that from happening. this is just too important. i want to thank not only the leaders of this committee, and that does include senator menendez, but also this administration for its extraordinary effort in putting together a framework addressing iran's nuclear future. i look at the framework and it does call for intrusive inspections, not only of their nuclear facilities, but of the supply chain. it is not a freeze, it is a rollback. i have positive views about the framework and pray that the progress of continue because as i look at the alternative, to me -- did you plan that? as i look at the alternative to this negotiation, this ongoing

negotiation, it is frightening to the american people. they don't want another war. we had a colleague on the other side of the aisle actually called for bombing iran now. and i feel there are more than one that feel this way. i feel that by this committee taking control of this process i think it is the best thing we can do. the very last point, i hope people read the letter we got from eight administrations, five republican administrations and three democrat, urging us not to take any action to derail the ongoing negotiations. and i have to tell you, they are smart people. they know what they are talking about. and that is why i was very, very concerned. frankly, if i was the chair, which i am not, i would probably

start by holding a hearing and call up all those experts before we went to today's markup. but we are where we are and i feel good that we have moved to a place that doesn't threaten his ongoing negotiations and i think everyone for their effort. senator corker: if i could, i want to move to senator rubio. but it is my understanding that no one is discussing waiting to vote on this legislation before it comes out of committee. you are referring to voting on the resolution for approval or disapproval after the administration comes forth with an agreement. senator boxer: there may be some horrible amendments that are offered on the floor which would destroy this very delicate

balance that you two have achieved. i wanted to put it out there that i am not going to sit back and say go for it. i will use every tool at my disposal to keep it the way it is because there is no such thing as perfection, but i think the two of you have struck just the right balance and i want to protect that on the floor when this comes up. senator corker: senator rubio who has contributed heavily especially on the issues relative to israel. i want to thank you so much for his contribution and constructive efforts. senator rubio: i want to thank you mr. chairman and for senator boxer. i do want to say that i am even more concerned about, not simply destroying the delicate balance that is built, i am concerned about the destruction of israel. i will tell you why. in july of 2014, ayatollah

khomeini tweeted, " this barbaric regime of israel has no cure but to be annihilated." in november of 2014, the supreme leader's twitter account issued a chart showing nine reasons for the elimination of israel. “in its 66 years of life, the fake zionist regime has tried to realize its goals through an iron fist while boasting about it blatantly.” it calls for some sort of referendum where the jews have to go back to their country. he says, "until the day that this regime is eliminated through a referendum, resolute and armed resistance is the cure of this ruinous regime." “the only means is a resolute and armed confrontation."

"it is the mission of the islamic republic of iran to erase israel from the map of the region." i think at some point when people say they want to destroy you, you should take them seriously. i think there should be an amendment on here with a president has to certify to congress that iran's leaders have to legitimize the existence of israel. it is the intent of congress that the president observed that the agreement does not damage israel's right to exist. this is an issue we will have to talk about on the floor and as we move forward beyond this place today because while we are concerned about the national

security of the united states and the applications of a nuclear iran that is also, by the way, moving forward on ballistic missiles. you build ballistic missiles because you want to put a nuclear warhead on it. this program does not only pose a risk to the united states ultimately, but it poses an immediate risk to israel. i know that because the supreme leader has said it himself repeatedly. i appreciate your work to include this language. it is better than not having it at all. i also appreciate that we added that sanctions over terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place. senator shaheen: i won't repeat all of the eloquent statements that have been made, but i do want to reiterate what has been said about the leadership from you, senator cardin, senator menendez, and senator kaine,

relative to getting an agreement on this legislation. i think, as you have said, it is not only important to the future of the foreign relations committee and the very important work that we should be doing but i think it also sends a very important signal to the people of this country that we can work together on big issues to address common problems that face the country and we should be doing that as often as possible in the future. i want to congratulate you again for the great work you have done and i intend to support this legislation. senator johnson: i also think the chairman and the people who worked on this agreement. i understand it has been a tough road to haul. i realize your challenge in trying to accomplish this piece of legislation could get bipartisan support and overcome a threat and presidential veto. i understand the challenge, but

i did offer a number of amendments to provide clarity. if we have reached an agreement, and we can take this to the floor of the senate, i will withhold offering is amendments during this markup. but i do want to talk about what this piece of legislation is and what it is not. you said it creates a rightful role of congress. it creates a role, no doubt about that, and right now we have no role. i would rather have a role than no role whatsoever. i realize it is the executive, commander-in-chief, who after negotiate this. but this is a role of congressional review potentially congressional oversight, but it is not advice and consent. it is a long way from advice and consent. i think this agreement that president obama is negotiating rights to the level of a treaty.

there is no set criteria for what a treaty is. the u.s. state department's own foreign affairs manual lists considerations. one of them is the extent to which the agreement involves the commitments and risks affecting the nation as a whole. i think this agreement does. another, whether the agreement can be put into effect without subsequent action from congress. i think that applies. what the president is doing on behalf of america is a treaty and according to the constitution, treaties should be subjected to the advice and consent of the senate. that would mean, if we were really engaged in our role of advice and consent, that require 67 senators to approve this deal. that is not what is going to happen here. we will not have 67 senators approving this deal.

that is not what this bill is going to do. there are basically three types of international agreements. there is a treaty that requires advice and consent. there are also congressional executive agreements. if you have a congressional executive agreement subject to regular order, it would be subject to a filibuster so you would need 60 senators approving the agreement. there potentially could be congressional executive agreements under expedited procedures which were not allow a filibuster. that would require 50 senators as well as a majority in the house. both congressional executive agreements require a majority in the house formally approving the agreement. in other words, allowing the american people to have a say in an agreement that involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole to their elected representatives.

what this bill does, it kind of turned the advice and consent on its head, because it basically allows for a vote of disapproval. in order for that vote of disapproval to have an effective stopping a bad deal, if it is not feed out, that would require 60 senators voting for disapproval, which means 41 senators could approve this deal and we would not have that vote of approval. if that vote of disapproval is be towed by the president, we would need to overcome that veto with 67 senators which means 34 senators would be required for approval of this deal. this piece of legislation, which again, i appreciate the fact that at least this gives us a role. it is an incredibly limited role. it is a far cry from advice and consent.

which is 67 senators voting in the affirmative that this is a good deal for america. it is beyond me why democrats simply won't agree to the fact that more than one person should actually be able to evaluate whether this is a good deal or not. as it is right now, it is one person, the present of the united states is going to decide for america if this is a good deal or a bad deal. i think the american people should be involved in that decision through their elected representatives. i think that this agreement rises to the level of a treaty and we should be providing that advice and consent and we should be affirmatively approving this thing with 67 votes. i think i have provided clarity and i will support this as long as the deal that has been struck is approved year.

senator corker: i appreciate the comments, and if i could wave a wand or pigs began to fly, we could turn this into the type of agreement that has been discussed, but i will say this the administration, as you know in the previous hearing we had has been fighting strongly against this. secretary kerry fighting against this earlier today. i know they have relented because of what they believed to be the outcome here. but i believe this is going to be an important role and especially the compliance pieces that come afterwards. a very significant thing that did not occur under the north korean agreement. senator cardin: i don't think we will convince congress tha