[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRIALS IN TRANSPARENCY: AN ANALYSIS OF VA COOPERATION WITH CONGRESS IN
MEETING ITS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES ON BEHALF OF VETERANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-897 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
PAUL COOK, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
September 19, 2013
Page
Trials In Transparency: An Analysis Of VA Cooperation With
Congress In Meeting Its Oversight Responsibilities On Behalf Of
Veterans....................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman,...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Miller........................ 31
Hon. Michael H. Michaud, Ranking Minority Member................. 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michaud........................... 32
WITNESSES
Hon. Joan Mooney, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and
Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs....... 4
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mooney............................ 33
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Letter Response From Hon. Joan Mooney, To: Hon. Bill Flores'
Hearing Question............................................... 35
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Questions and Responses From HVAC, To: Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 36
TRIALS IN TRANSPARENCY: AN ANALYSIS OF VA COOPERATION WITH CONGRESS IN
MEETING ITS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES ON BEHALF OF VETERANS
Thursday, September 19, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Roe,
Flores, Denham, Runyan, Benishek, Huelskamp, Amodei, Coffman,
Wenstrup, Cook, Walorski, Michaud, Brown, Takano, Brownley,
Titus, Kirkpatrick, Ruiz, Negrete McLeod, Kuster, O'Rourke,
Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order as we
continue to adjust staff back to their seats. Thank you,
everybody, for bearing with us while we were able to produce
the 113th Congress official photograph of the Veterans Affairs'
Committee here in the House.
Ms. Mooney, welcome to you.
We are breaking ground here, I think, as most Members
already know. This is the first hearing that I can recall that
actually examines the relationship between our Committee and
the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs which Ms.
Mooney leads.
I called this hearing in response to a growing frustration
among Members in getting from your office what we need to do
our work, whether it is the timely receipt of hearing
testimony, responses to requests for information, or the
quality of the information provided, we have concerns all the
way across the board. Let me start with hearing testimony.
Prior to an oversight hearing being called, it has long
been a standing practice to provide the Administration with a
minimum of two weeks advanced notice of the hearing topic and
to request that testimony be delivered no later than 48 hours
prior to that hearing.
Receiving testimony 48 hours in advance permits the Members
of this Committee and the staff the time to minimally look at
that, gather the information that they need to carefully go
through and read that testimony, and also to craft thoughtful
questions.
But whether VA has provided two weeks notice or two months
notice, it seems that timely receipt of testimony is completely
arbitrary. For example, you knew more than a month in advance
that we were having a joint hearing with the Armed Services
Committee on servicemember transition issues back in July, yet
the testimony was received late in the afternoon on the day
before the hearing.
The fact that your testimony was received in a timely
fashion today, two days ago, is a good first step, but of
course, it is not surprising given the topic of this hearing,
but from here we have got to have a 100 percent track record on
getting testimony in a timely fashion. That should be the
standard.
Let me in turn, now, focus on information requests. We have
grown so frustrated with the timely receipt of quality
responses from VA, that we have had to taken extraordinary
steps to ensure accountability. First, the Ranking Member and I
launched a Trials in Transparency page on the Committee's Web
site, detailing the number of outstanding VA requests.
Second, I send weekly letters to the department, namely the
Secretary, reminding them of all the pending requests. In
total, we now have seventy, some of which remain well over a
year old. What is more troubling is that many of the pending
requests relate directly to ongoing Committee investigations
into life safety issues at VA facilities. For example, on
January 18th, 2013, I requested emails and documents pertaining
to a deadly legionella bacteria outbreak at the Pittsburgh VA
Medical Center. As of September 17th, no emails have been
provided. Worse, I learned that the media was provided some of
the same emails that I had requested in as few as twenty days.
The days where VA is more responsive to the media than a
Congressional Oversight Committee has to end, and if necessary,
I will subpoena that information instead of going through the
normal channels in trying to get that information from the
central office.
Given that five veterans are dead as a result of the
outbreak, which VA's own Inspector General attributed to VA
mismanagement, the Committee is engaged in an investigation
into this matter to determine what went wrong and to ensure
that it never happens again. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a
similar sense of urgency from VA to help us with our
investigative efforts. Rather, VA's reluctance to provide us
with the information we have requested is actually impeding
that process.
Now, look, I understand that many of the delays we
experienced are out of your office's control, but whether some
other office within VA or OMB is to blame, your office exists
as the first point of accountability. If there is a problem
somewhere else, it is your job, Ms. Mooney, working with the
Secretary, if necessary, to ensure that those problems are
fixed.
One final point before I conclude. Your testimony outlines
the volumes of Congressional inquires your office responds to
on a regular basis, but your office has also received a forty-
one percent increase in budget authority and a forty percent
increase in staff since 2009. Resources have been provided, yet
frustration persists on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis.
If things don't improve materially, and I would like to
work with you to develop some expectations moving forward, this
Committee will have no choice but to reconsider the funding
that your office receives. VA owes it to America's veterans and
taxpayers to engage in an honest conversation about its past
mistakes, the future challenges it faces and its capabilities
for overcoming those challenges.
Giving Congress timely access to the information it
requests is an important part of that conversation. When VA
drags its feet in providing information requested by Congress,
it inhibits our ability to ensure that America's veterans are
receiving the care and benefits that they have earned. Our
veterans deserve a VA that sets the standard for openness,
honesty and transparency. When the department fails to do so,
it must answer for that failure. That is what today's hearing
is all about.
And now, I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Michaud, for
his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As a title of this unusual hearing makes clear, Members of
this Committee are frustrated and unhappy with VA's legislative
affairs approach. That the Committee feels compelled to hold
this hearing today should send a clear signal that the status
quo is unacceptable.
I am certainly aware that the VA receives a large number of
Congressional inquiries and understand that VA is challenged in
responding to over 435 Members of Congress and the Delegates
that represents their respective territories.
The high workload is not an excuse for the current
situation which has gone on since 2009, which simply must
change. If VA needs additional funding for more staff, we need
to know about it. If VA needs to move around some of the
300,000 employees it currently has, we must know about. If the
VA needs to streamline the process in which it operates
responding to a request, we need to know about it.
We all want to do what is best for our veterans and in
order to do the best job that we can, the Committee and the VA
simply must have a relationship of trust and cooperation where
we inform one another what our needs are to make sure that
there is a flow of information quickly and is easily between
us.
It is my hope that this hearing will result in VA
understanding our level of frustration with the current
relationship, and that we seek real commitment from the VA to
improve and change that relationship. I am hopeful that working
together, we can chart a new course forward. For our part, the
Committee must prioritize requests, accept some flexibility for
achievable deadlines. We must recognize that from time to time,
there might be a legitimate disagreement between the Committee
and VA about the appropriate degree or scope of disclosure of
request information. When such disagreements arise, it is
incumbent upon VA to set forth its concerns in a timely manner
and for us to listen with an objective mind.
To set a new course forward, the VA's Office of Legislative
Affairs need to make a real commitment to customer service by
adopting a yes-we-will, rather than no-because attitude. VA
OCLA needs to provide regular and ongoing communications
regarding the status of our request. There is nothing more
frustrating than having to keep checking back with VA on when
we expect to get an answer from requests that we have had and
the VA hearing, you know, if they don't give us any information
at all.
Realistic deadlines that are met by the VA are essential. I
am willing to negotiate some due dates when, you know, time is
critical for the VA to get more information, but we have to
know that.
Finally, moving forward, I would like to see VA OCLA adopt
the rules of facilitator rather than a filter. There is a
perception across the Congressional staff and, according to
some reports, VA staff, that direct communication is taboo and
everything must go through OCLA, and I can give you a personal
example. Actually, one of my staffers spent two months over at
the VA medical facility here in DC, and I just wanted to relay
to Under Secretary Petzel that he received extreme, you know,
excellent care. Unfortunately, when we try to get a hold of Dr.
Petzel, we got to find out why do you want to talk to him, and
it was just a simple thank you.
And those are some of the things that we shouldn't have to
go through, a lot of red tape, to be able to get that, you
know, information over to the VA, and I do not discount the
value a broad department-wide perspectives can add to a
conversation. I do understand and agree that formal department-
level positions should be coordinated by OCLA. However, subject
matter experts on both sides should feel free and comfortable
to discuss their general basic issues, and I stand ready, and I
know my colleagues on this Committee stand ready to sit down
with VA and address our overdue requests and work together to
come up with a real framework to govern our relationship going
forward.
This frameworks needs to be built around three goals--
customer service, timeliness and access. Those are the three
goals, I think are important for an ongoing working
relationship between this Committee, Congress, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
And once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
having this hearing today, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Michaud appears in
the Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. With us this morning,
Members, is the Honorable Joan Mooney, Assistant Secretary for
Congressional and Legislative Affairs with the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.
Your complete statement will be entered into the record as
a part of this hearing. And Ms. Mooney, you are now recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOAN MOONEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Mooney. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Michaud, Members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on VA's work
to provide Congress with the information needed to fulfill its
oversight responsibilities. VA and Congress share the same
goal, to do everything we can to improve the health care,
benefits, and other services delivered to our Nation's
veterans, their families and survivors.
Over the last few years, Secretary Shinseki and other
senior VA leaders and I have welcomed the opportunity to meet
with Members of this Committee and other Members of the House
and Senate in your offices or back home to hear directly about
your concerns and work together to provide better benefits and
services.
I recognize the frustration that Committee Members and
staff sometimes feel regarding timely responses for requests
for information and testimony. In many instances, I share this
frustration. I respect the important oversight role that this
and other Congressional committees play in our great democracy.
Prior to coming to VA, I served on Capitol Hill for nearly
two decades, including as chief of staff for a senior Member of
this Committee. For that reason, I am uniquely aware of the
demands placed on Members of Congress who seek to best
represent their constituents and the responsibilities that come
with their oversight.
VA engages with Members of Congress on many fronts, as you
know, at our VA medical facilities, benefits regional offices,
and cemeteries across the Nation. There are VA staff who
respond to local requests for information, site visits and VA
participation at town halls and outreach events.
VA's Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs is
staffed today by 46 dedicated professionals, up from 34 in
2009, half of whom are veterans, a high priority of mine, that
help facilitate one of the busiest Congressional Affairs
offices in the Federal government.
As the second largest Federal agency after the Department
of Defense, VA provides care to approximately 6.3 million
veterans and other beneficiaries, has 1800 points of health
care, provides 3.6 million veterans with disability
compensation and employs over 330,000 people. In short, VA
touches every Congressional district in a way that is unique
among Federal agencies.
While we can and will do better, the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs has provided an
incredible amount of information to Members of Congress. During
the last three fiscal years through August of this year, the
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs has supported
over 80,000 requests. Those include VA officials testifying at
over 260 Congressional hearings, conducting over 2,000
Congressional briefings or meetings, responding to over 4,700
questions for the record, managing nearly 300 GAO engagements,
and facilitating over 75,000 Member inquiries.
During the last 1.5 fiscal years, VA has responded to over
4,700 formal policy-related requests for information and
technical assistance on legislation. This includes 2,000
responses in the first month of this fiscal year alone.
Moving forward, VA is committed to looking for ways to
improve performance in all its work.
Internally, I have been meeting with senior leaders in
order to find ways to better prioritize and expedite processes.
We can, we must, and we will do better.
Let me also offer some additional thoughts on how VA and
the Committee can work better together to support veterans. We
meet regularly with your staff to discuss ways to improve
collaboration with the Committee, and I believe that these
interactions have been productive. Here are some additional
suggestions on how we can work better together. First, early
collaboration between our staffs, both parties would benefit
from discussion at the outset of the hearing process or a
complicated information request. Second, a little bit of
advanced knowledge of the Committee's overall agenda. Having a
refined agenda on legislation would help VA prioritize requests
and discussion on that is critical. Third, discussion on
complexity of requests, sometimes a very large scale data
request comes in and can be complex and may require extra time.
In many cases, a slightly modified request can result in a
faster, more accurate response, as well as manage expectations.
Fourth, prioritization of those requests most important to this
Committee. Unfortunately, sometimes the sheer volume of work
that we receive impedes our ability to provide complete answers
in a timely way. When that occurs, we want and need your input
on which requests are most important to the Committee.
While timeliness is an important metric, we believe that
accuracy in the information we provide to Congress is at least
as important. It is important for us to work together to ensure
that requests are clear and focused, realistic timelines are
set and adjustments are made to facilitate accurate and
appropriate information delivered to this Committee.
Regarding testimony timelines, while VA strives to meet the
Committee's 48-hour advance submission rules, we cannot at
times meet that deadline, most notably when a hearing is called
with short notice or covers a complex subject. Hearings on
policy or legislation can raise important, multifaceted and
often new issues that require careful consideration by VA, and
in some case, other agencies.
In closing, VA and Congress share the same goal--to do
everything we can to improve the health care benefits and other
services delivered to our Nation's veterans, their families and
survivors. This is what guides our work in providing an
incredible volume of information to Congress on a daily basis.
We can and must and will do better.
VA will continue to look for ways to improve our efficiency
and performance in responding to Congress, and I appreciate the
opportunity to testify and am prepared to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Joan Mooney appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Your statement gives me
many more questions to ask, but let me start off with just a
couple for now.
You have been the head of the Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs for over four years, right?
Ms. Mooney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman. All right. So I think it is safe to say that
you have put your stamp on that office and the processes which
that office follows, so let me quote excerpts from your
confirmation hearing in the Senate, and then get your response
to some of those statements.
When asked what your office's role would be in the
preparation of testimony for Congressional hearings, you
responded that, ``It is my understanding that OCLA staff
responsibility is to ensure that testimony is delivered in
advance in a timely fashion.''
Now, after frustration had been brewing for months for this
Committee, we began formally tracking the testimony that has
come to this Committee since April. Testimony has been
delivered on time only eleven times out of twenty-one hearings
that we have held. So first, I want to say, how would you rate
OCLA's performance in this area?
Ms. Mooney. I think the overall performance in the
department on this area needs great improvement.
Mr. Chairman. Who is responsible for the late testimony?
Ms. Mooney. I take responsibility for testimony, sir.
Mr. Chairman. Okay. Before you were confirmed, Secretary
Shinseki had established a goal to respond to Congressional
inquiries within two weeks, so when asked what you thought a
reasonable timeline was, you indicated that, ``Standard
response goals should range from the same day to two weeks.''
How would your rank OCLA's performance in this area?
Ms. Mooney. My office does not manage Congressional
correspondence. We do have a twenty-four hour turn on our
review of them.
Mr. Chairman. Now, this is request for information.
Ms. Mooney. Okay. On requests for information, I would say
we provide a large amount as quickly as we can, and----
Mr. Chairman. But how do you respond to the fact that the
Secretary set a goal of two weeks, and we are far beyond that
on many, many requests for information?
Ms. Mooney. On correspondence and items that require ----
Mr. Chairman. No, this is request for information. This
should be relatively easy to churn out and give to the
Committee.
Ms. Mooney. On easy requests for information, that's true,
sir. On more complicated requests that require
interdepartmental concurrence or with our partners at Labor or
Department of Defense, sometimes responses can take longer and
that adds to the complexity.
Mr. Chairman. A year? As long as a year?
Ms. Mooney. Sometimes there are complex situations. If I
can answer any specific questions or take them back, I am happy
to do that.
Mr. Chairman. I apologize. It is on our Web site and you
get a copy of the letter that I send to the Secretary every
week. You know what the outstanding requests are. Is it
acceptable? Would you allow an employee within your purview to
go as long as a year to give you the necessary information that
you need to do your job?
Ms. Mooney. I understand and appreciate your frustration
and we work as hard as we can to move those responses out of
the program offices and administrations and to you.
Mr. Chairman. Okay. So you wouldn't take any action on an
employee that went as long as a year to provide you the
information you needed to do your job?
Ms. Mooney. I understand your frustration, sir. I see it
clearly.
Mr. Chairman. Okay. Your testimony doesn't mention any
metrics for how you evaluate whether or not you are achieving
the two-week goal that you shared with the Secretary, nor does
your budget submission for your office. And you mentioned at
your confirmation hearing that one of the steps you would take
is to establish a good tracking system of following up with
people.
So how long does it take on average to respond to requests
for information according to your tracking system?
Ms. Mooney. Our tracking system doesn't track time to
respond. It tracks what items are outstanding at this point in
time, and we work with the Committee as we can, Committee
staff, to prioritize those requests. First priority is the
Chairman and the Ranking Member and then other Members of the
Committee, then other Members of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman. On January 18th of 2013, we asked for
documentation, including emails regarding the legionella
outbreaks in Pittsburgh. As of this morning, very little
information has been provided, and we received no emails. Yet,
it is clear from newspaper reports and other news outlets that
media received emails regarding the outbreak through the
Freedom of Information Act. Why is the media receiving
information, the same information we have asked for, quicker
than this Oversight Committee?
Ms. Mooney. Mr. Chairman, the media should not receive it
quicker than you receive it. I don't know the nature of that
data call, whether it was different or the same as this. I do
know that the large scale data call that came in on emails was
brought and we worked with your staff to scope it down. I know
the work is in progress and the information should be
forthcoming soon.
Mr. Chairman. Okay. The fact remains that we have received
no emails and the media got the information that they
requested.
Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
Mooney, for being here.
As you indicated in your testimony, you have had the
advantage of working on both sides of this issue. For those of
us who have never worked in an executive agency, have never
worked for a large bureaucracy, will you please briefly
describe VA's process for responding to formal inquires from
Congress. Walk us through what happens from when a request
originally comes in, to when a response goes out.
Ms. Mooney. Yes, Mr. Michaud, I will be happy to do that. A
request comes in frequently to my office, or it comes, in
general, to the Office of the Secretary or to any of our
program office leads or Under Secretaries. It generally goes to
their executive secretary to begin to process the request.
Subject matter experts do the drafting, and then, if it
requires any interagency, intra-agency coordination, it is
done. My office signs off just to make sure it meets the intent
of the letter, basically, and then the Office of General
Counsel reviews for legal issues, the Office of Management may
review for budget issues, and then the principal reviews and
signs it.
Mr. Michaud. And we often refer to formal and informal
inquiries. Would you please describe what, you know, forms from
your viewpoint, differentiates the two, formal versus informal?
Ms. Mooney. Well, I would say, overall, having been on
Capitol Hill, a two-week response to a letter is more
reasonable. That was my vantage point then. Because a Member of
Congress makes a statement, they may not require more
information to answer a response.
Here at VA, things require legal review, sometimes budget
review, sometimes other reviews within the agency.
Mr. Michaud. But what is the difference between a formal
and informal? Is everything a formal request or ----
Ms. Mooney. No. We handle, you know, as I said, 70,000
requests for information over the last three-and-a-half-plus
fiscal years through August of 13. A lot of those, many of
those can be handled very quickly.
One of the things that your staff and mine have worked on
is briefings. Informal discussions and briefings are good. VA
has gone from an, let us see, fiscal year 2010, 322 engagements
with Members of Congress and their staffs to this fiscal year,
through August, 891. Those informal conversations are very
helpful.
I also know that many of your staff have direct contact
with folks in the field and throughout VA central office, and
those provide informal communications as well.
Mr. Michaud. Understanding that each request is unique,
generally speaking, what is a reasonable timeframe for us to
expect a response to formal requests and what about informal
requests.
Ms. Mooney. Informal requests I tried to hold to, since we
are talking about my confirmation hearing, the oft repeated
phrase in our office is what Senator Burr asked me, which is
``will you try to tell me what I can have rather than tell me
what I can't have?'' The goal is to get you as much as we can
as easily as possible. So we will work towards briefings, et
cetera.
On a formal response, it depends on the subject matter and
it depends on the prioritization of Committee rank. The
Chairman letters go first, both for the House and the Senate.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Mooney, thank you for joining us today.
I will try to get through three questions really quickly.
You described a process a minute ago, as to when a request
comes in, what happens inside your office--well, actually
inside the administration, to get answers.
Just roughly, how many layers of concurrence does a typical
question from a Congressional office go through in preparing a
response?
Ms. Mooney. As I noted, within VA, the subject matter
expert looks at it. Then, somewhere within that office,
probably someone looks at it then. If it is Congressional, you
know, I just look at it; the Office of Management, if it is a
fund-related request; for legal issues, the Office of General
Counsel pretty much signs off on everything; and then that is
pretty much layers.
Mr. Flores. Okay. It is my understanding that many of the
questions that come to the Hill that go through your office are
sent by your staff out to the Legislative Affairs offices in
each of the three VA administrations. What is your opinion
about taking all those separate legislative teams and putting
them together under one umbrella. Would that make the process
more efficient?
Ms. Mooney. Well, those folks that work legislative
programs for offices and administrations, those are the people
that help us collect the information in response to your
questions, and we rely on their expertise. This office kind of
serves a unique role, so let me take a familiar subject, CBOCs,
right. If you call and ask me about a CBOC in your district,
that is not just VHA. It is the Office of the Management, the
Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, of course,
General Counsel for legal matters. So working together in
collaborative session, we are able to expedite responses, so if
there is a high priority and the Chairman articulates it, and
he says it is his number one priority, we work to move that
information as quickly as possible.
Mr. Flores. Okay. And then you touched on this in general
in your testimony. How do you triage a request that comes in,
in terms of ranking it for the timeliness of the response?
Ms. Mooney. We try to handle all of them as fast as we can.
We prioritize certain requests, particularly requests from the
chairs of Committees, but we prioritize them, we try to work
the easy ones as quickly as possible. The more complex ones, we
try to work with Congressional staff on the Committees to see
if we can break it down into manageable pieces.
Mr. Flores. Okay. And then the last question is, I mean, we
have seen numerous incidents throughout the executive branch as
a whole, as to the impact of politics and responses, and
dealing with Congress, and dealing with the outside world. Tell
me, has your office ever been asked by any senior leadership or
by the White House to delay or to modify the response to
request before an election or within six months of an election?
Ms. Mooney. For my office, I am generally the final sign
off for matters. You know, there are, as you know, OMB circular
A19 requiring OMB review as well, but I know that on a regular
basis, I work through deliverables, if not every day, almost
every day, moving them through. If I don't do it, someone else
in my office does it.
Mr. Flores. Has the White House ever asked you to--have
they ever edited one your responses to Congress?
Ms. Mooney. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you,
Secretary, for being here.
I am a new Member of the Committee, a very proud Member of
the Committee, and I just wanted to add my voice to what the
Chair and the Ranking Member and their opening comments, I
wanted to add my voice to their comments in terms of sharing a
level of frustration about our oversight ability and working
together.
And as a new Member of Congress and a new Member of this
Committee, I feel like I am in a Committee where both Democrats
and Republicans are working very closely and collaboratively
together for a common cause. And I know you and the leadership
of the VA shares the same objectives. And it seems to me as
though we should be the most productive Committee, in terms of
getting to our goals, because we are all here sharing the same
goals and working collaboratively. And as a consequence,
sometimes it becomes, I think, frustrating. And Mr. Michaud's
construct of what an effective VA department could be in terms
of being customer service, being timely and being accessible, I
think, are great parameters and goals of which we need to work
towards, in order to ensure that we are servicing each and
every one of our veterans, and all of their individual needs
with kid gloves and with great care.
So having said that, I had just a specific, a very specific
question to you. I know a while back I wrote to the Under
Secretary, Allison Hickey, with several of my colleagues
actually from this Committee requesting the VA match California
State's Joint Claims Initiative dollar for dollar. This is
something that the state of California had proposed which would
help tackle the over 60,000 pending claims in California.
We sent that letter on June the 13th of 2013, and yet, we
still have not received a response.
I am sorry, I can't quite see you. I apologize for that.
And my staff has contacted the VA, but we still haven't
received a response yet, and the VA did indicate that they were
still working on it, but it has been well over three months.
And it puts me in a precarious situation, since I am trying to
represent my state and their issues that--and they inquire with
me, and I have to say, well, I have inquired with the VA, but I
still, you know, haven't had a response.
And so, you know, I guess the question is why. And the next
question would be, is there anything that we as Members of
Congress should do to help the VA to expedite this process?
Ms. Mooney. I would say on this subject, I know it is of
high interest to you. I will take it back to the Under
Secretary. My sensing maybe it is a complex subject matter. It
obviously involves resourcing issues, and so I will take it
back to Under Secretary Hickey and ask for a quick response.
Ms. Brownley. Well, I thank you for that and appreciate
that very much.
Secondarily, I know back on July 10th I think maybe the
chair may have alluded to this, but on July 10th, the House
Veteran Affairs Committee and the House Armed Services
Committee held a hearing on DoD and VA collaboration to assist
servicemembers returning to civilian life, and in the past, at
least I have been told, that this has been a priority for both
the Secretary of Veteran Affairs and the Secretary of Defense,
but yet in that Committee hearing they were asked to attend and
didn't attend, and sent some members of their staff to testify
on their behalf. And that particular hearing was frustrating to
me because the folks that did attend really couldn't address
the questions that we were asking because we really needed the
decision-makers, you know, at the table to be able to respond
to some of our questions.
And so I was wondering if you could explain the process by
which the department really chooses who will testify on behalf
of the agency, and what sort of preparation takes place in
order to appropriately answer the questions for the Committee.
Ms. Mooney. As you know, we do want to send the best
witnesses and the most appropriate witnesses to answer your
questions. First and foremost, when it involves programs within
VA, we look to the best people to represent, also understanding
our mission and ensuring that people who testify, as a small
part of their duties, can actually continue to serve and do
things. And the specific example that you offered, we at VA,
when it involves interagency testimony at VA, our practice is
to match witnesses. And I think, as you know, the Secretary is
very dedicated to the issues at hand here and welcomes the
opportunity to testify at any time.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Mooney.
Thanks for your testimony.
I will start off with a personal experience, actually
chairing on the Subcommittee and sitting in that chair where
Chairman Miller is sitting holding the gavel, and going through
a hearing without testimony, going through a markup without
testimony and actually having to ask unanimous consent to the
other side, to allow it to go forward, until we get the
information from you, so we can sit down with CBO, to get a
score to see if it is even feasible to move the bill forward,
and when you tie all this together and you start looking at
everything we are talking about, it parallels all the other
issues and the claims backlog in the VA. It is the same issue.
Do you need more staff? Is it getting done right? Well, it is
complicated. It is not getting all the way done. And it is,
frankly, you have us waiting the same way you have a lot of
veterans hanging out there. So it is something in the DNA in
the VA.
One question I have, can you provide--and this is about
workload with your staff. How many inquiries, briefings, and
hearings, does a representative usually have assigned to them
at one time?
Ms. Mooney. Oh, how many briefing hearings do you all have?
Multiple ones----
Mr. Runyan. Does your staff have assigned to them, at one
time, workload basically?
Ms. Mooney. Well, in terms of legislative hearings, that is
an interesting viewpoint. I know in the case that you reference
on DAMA, we have shorter notice than we normally have, and on
legislative hearings, we have a team of about three people
doing the work.
Largely, our legislative views are managed through the
Office of General Counsel, and our staff helps facilitate that
activity. So with that, we know that there were--our statistics
have fifty-three bills total, we are offered at eight
legislative hearings, thirty-three completed on time or 62
percent. If partial views are views without costs considered,
VA, the total goes up to ninety of the bills. Of the fifteen
bills in the category, fourteen needed cost only and five
needed to be completed.
The work on legislation is cyclical, and it depends on
Congressional action. David Ballenger and Joanna Glaze of my
office, do their best to manage these items with one program
analyst, as well as my deputy, Bill Delaney, and myself, with
our Office of General Counsel.
The issue of legislative testimony delays and views and
costs are something that we have discussed. They involve
General Counsel, the Office of Management for us within VA and
we know there is a challenge there. I have recently engaged,
after this last round of bills, with the Office of General
Counsel, with the General Counsel himself and his deputy to
find a way to improve this process or to consider what changes
need to made within the agency to facilitate faster views and
costs.
Mr. Runyan. Is there someone, either you or someone under
you, that actually shepherds the request through the process,
through all the different departments, or is it just put on
someone else's desk and hope they get to it?
Ms. Mooney. It is not that kind of issue. The legislative
views are a little different. On oversight matters, we do
shepherd every issue. On legislative items, that goes to our
Office of General Counsel, where they collaborate with all the
internal entities within VA to get it done. We set project
management deadlines for them generally of when this is needed,
but sometimes requests with short notice on legislative views
that require either intra or interagency collaboration are
challenged. We understand and recognize the big challenge this
last summer, and we are working to change that process.
Mr. Runyan. One last thing, talk a little bit about
training, communication and professionalism. My staff has told
me numerous times there are certain people that are awesome at
getting back, responding, and there are other people that
totally ignore phone calls, voice mails, emails. Is there a
training regime you go through and how are these people being
held accountable, and would they be held accountable if we were
to turn their names over to you?
Ms. Mooney. Absolutely. You know, we are a customer service
organization. We serve the Secretary, but we also serve Members
of Congress. So if there are issues with any members of our
staff, I personally would like to know about them.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Chairman. Ms. Negrete McLeod. Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing today. Appreciate that, and I want to
thank the Secretary for being here.
And I wanted to start out on a positive note. We have had
numerous positive interactions with the VA and one that comes
to mind is Steve Muro who is the Under Secretary for the
Cemetery's Administration. We had a very detailed request
related to the Fort Bliss Cemetery and he was incredibly
responsive, and not just in a timely fashion, but in terms of
the scope of his response. It was very helpful to us in getting
back to our community because we are trying to hold you
accountable. We are held accountable by our constituents, and I
think that is where a lot of this is coming from.
And I also wanted to single out your office and General
Hickey who worked with Congressman Flores and myself as we met
with the Texas delegation to address long wait times out of the
Waco and Houston regional offices for service-connected
disability claims, and I thought that was a productive meeting,
responsive to our request and, again, a very positive example
of how we can work together.
To turn to the frustration that we have had in our office,
and I want to address this in a cooperative, constructive
fashion, we filed a bill that really followed the lead that the
VA had set. It is called the Faster Filing Act, and it is a way
to encourage, at no cost to the VA or the Federal Government,
veterans to file fully developed claims online. It saves you
money, the VA, in processing those claims, and it saves the
veteran hundreds upon hundreds of days in getting a more timely
response, and starting last month, a full year's retroactive
benefit. So it is a win for everybody.
We introduced the legislation in April. We met with a VBA
Congressional liaison before we introduced it to vet it with
them. We met with them through the process. When it came to
Subcommittee for markup, there were no comments from the VA.
When it went to Full Committee for markup, there were no
comments from the VA.
Along the process, because it is a no-cost solution that is
going to improve things for everyone involved, we asked the VA
to consider implementing the bill administratively.
We got a response back to our request. So we introduced it
on the 26th. Congressman Cook and I sent a letter June 19th,
asking it be adopted administratively. We got a response back
from the VA on September 10th, the day before a hearing where
we were to discuss these issues with Tom Murphy, the director
of Compensation Services.
So that was frustrating in and of itself, the delay. What
added insult to injury was the response said that your bill
will add undue administrative burdens, it will delay our
ability to get a veteran a timely response on their service-
connected disability claim. It will, in essence, make those
veterans wait longer in line. It made no logical sense. It was
given after the eleventh hour. It was incredibly unhelpful.
So in the spirit of cooperation, how could we have handled
that process better? What could we have done to get a response
in a more timely fashion and to work through some of these
issues before finding out after the fact that you all had a
problem with it?
Ms. Mooney. When we know things are going to be on the
schedule for consideration, we should work together. I think in
this case, we were challenged with a number of bills in the
Senate and in the House at the same time, and we can and will
do better on legislative views.
Mr. O'Rourke. I appreciate hearing that. And I also wanted
to follow up on one other thing that you said. You referred to
yourself as a customer service organization, and I really like
to hear that because I think that is the approach the VA should
take with its constituents. It is the approach that we take in
our office in El Paso, and we track every single constituent
case that comes in the door. We age it immediately from the
moment that we received that phone call or the person walks in
requesting help. And then we hold, I hold, my staff
accountable: Why has this been out there for ninety days, what
are we doing, how do we escalate this, how do we get somebody's
attention on this, why have we not been able to get back to
this person with an answer?
You said earlier that you do not have a tracking system. Is
that something you are open to? I am a big believer that those
things that we measure tend to improve. If you are not
measuring response times, how do you expect it to get better?
Ms. Mooney. We do measure response times on many items on
requests for information. We have a knowledge management system
where we do track them. We look at the date it came in, and
regularly, we have collaborative sessions within VA to make
sure regularly, on an almost daily basis, to make sure items
are moving along.
Mr. O'Rourke. So earlier you said you do not have a
tracking system, but it sounds like you do.
Ms. Mooney. No. I apologize for that. It is Congressional
Knowledge Management System. It doesn't have all the features
that I would like it to have and we are working to get to that
point but, yes, on occasion, I do share printouts of our
Congressional Knowledge Management System items with the staff
directors of the Committee.
Mr. O'Rourke. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mooney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. Dr. Benishek.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
calling upon me here now.
Ms. Mooney, who in your department is in charge of making
sure that you are in compliance with the 48-hour rule for
getting the testimony before our Committee?
Ms. Mooney. On the testimony, I am, sir.
Mr. Benishek. You know, according to the information we
have here, only like eleven of the twenty-one hearings have had
their testimony brought in, you know, with the 48-hour rule in
tact. So you don't have that task assigned to anyone else to be
sure that these things occur?
Ms. Mooney. The Congressional relations officer that
manages the particular hearing does have a project management
timeline at----
Mr. Benishek. Is there not one person in your department
that is in charge of making sure that, other than you, that is
in charge of these things are done on time, somebody bird
dogging these people to make sure that the testimony had gone
on time?
Ms. Mooney. I think that there are a number of people that
do the bird dogging along the way, sir.
Mr. Benishek. I know, but the problem to me is--see, this
is all a management problem. Your department, as far as I am
concerned, is not being managed properly because half the time
you can't get your stuff done on time and there is nobody
responsible for it except for you. I don't understand that. I
mean, this is the problem we keep coming up against with the VA
time and time again, that you acknowledge that there is a
problem but, you know, we're working on it, but still it
doesn't produce, and there is nobody responsible but you.
Let me ask you another question. Have you had a bonus in
the last year?
Ms. Mooney. No, sir.
Mr. Benishek. I am glad to hear that because I don't like
the fact that there seems to be, you know, non-performance. I
mean, if I were you, I would say that there should be somebody
in my office who demands that the people get these testimony to
our Committee on time. I mean, you are in charge of
Congressional liaison. That should be your number one priority,
is making sure that the stuff is here on time.
Ms. Mooney. If I may, sir. So we do have people, my
deputies, Chris O'Connor and Bill Delaney, work with directors
and the Congressional Relations Officers. There are a number of
people working very hard to ensure that concurrence and
collaboration happens so that we get these through the
appropriate Office of General Counsel, Office of Management if
it has budget implications, and a few concurrences.
Frankly, where we are challenged is, and all testimony
needs to go to the Office of Management and Budget per OMB
Circular A11, but I do want to emphasize, they are not
generally----
Mr. Benishek. Are you saying that is the problem is those
guys?
Ms. Mooney. No, sir. No, sir. They are not. They are
partners in this. Not at all.
Mr. Benishek. It sounds like there is too may partners
there that you just can't do it because to me, you know, half-
time performance is not, you know, anything to be proud of that
you can sit there and tell us how, yeah, we are working on it
and there are all these things happening, but you know, we just
can't, you know, it is just not happening.
Ms. Mooney. Well, what I appreciate, Congressman, is
Congressman Michaud's statement, Congressman Miller and others
to work together to see if we can set realistic deadlines.
Understand sometimes two-weeks notice and forty-eight hours
advanced submission of testimony, if there is a chance that we
can get a little more time on some hearings, I recognize that
even sometimes on complex hearings that require interagency
collaboration, it may require a little bit more time, but
working together, we can get this done, I think.
Mr. Benishek. Well, I appreciate what you are saying, but
you know, my confidence is not that if we made it three weeks,
then it would be all done on time. See, I don't have that
confidence level from, what, you know, what I am seeing here
since I have been here.
Mr. Runyan was talking about, you know, trying to get some
legislative hearing, important stuff done, and we don't have
the information.
Ms. Mooney. I understand, sir. In the past we have had--in
the past few years even, we have had good records on on-time
testimony and we will work to achieve that again.
Mr. Benishek. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking
Member and Ms. Mooney. I thank you both for bringing us
together on this. I think our constituents know that when we
work together for a common goal, that is the way it is supposed
to be and I can say, and I think everyone in here can say,
there are very few places left that it works like this. We are
partners for a common goal. Many of us share and work on
legislation together. Many of us are friends, not all, but many
of us are working together and get it done, but I can tell you,
something happens in here, I can request something from the
minority staff if I have a question or need something, I
request it from the majority staff and they return it
immediately as if it is a request from a veteran directly, and
I know that is your goal, too. And I know there are so many
good things that go on, but as I have always said, I am also, I
will stand at the VA as your staunchest supporter, but your
harshest critic when the time comes to get that.
And this issue, if I could, like Mr. O'Rourke I think did a
nice job, offering from some of the constructive criticisms.
Mr. Runyan's point about many of the issues we are dealing with
are echoed by our veterans the same way, and I think that is an
interesting one, and I would just like to tell you this one. I
introduced a bill with Senator Frank and they held a hearing
over there on June 12th, and we were trying to get feedback
from that. That was over three months ago. I got that feedback
from your office on Tuesday. I got to be honest. I think it
would have been better if you had not given it to me on Tuesday
because I am somewhat skeptical of why I got it before this
hearing.
And I don't even care about the time to be honest with you.
I understand, and you are telling us the constraints you have.
What I am most concerned about is, is the lack of communication
and expectations, and it is the same thing my veterans say. We
don't know what is going on. We don't know what you are going
to say, and I don't know when to expect it, so I am not
complaining about the time. You are managing your workload. I
would like to get it sooner, but it's kind of like, wow, it
showed up this week, that's awesome. Well, it didn't help me.
And then, I think a more pressing problem on this is, I
could have written the response I was going to get because I
knew what you were going to say and I don't think anybody
listened to what we were putting out. This piece of
legislation, by the way, is to speed the backlogs of claim.
Everybody is trying to do this.
I don't write these things just myself. The folks sitting
behind you represent millions of people. They help me write it.
The comments that I send and ask of you are coming from my
veterans and they don't believe they are being heard. This
piece of legislation came out of roundtables, facility tours
and everything else, and let me give you an example here.
Section 2 H.R. requires the VA to forego unnecessary disability
rating examinations when sufficient medical evidence has
already been submitted such as when a veteran submits a DBQ.
You know that the rating examination is at the bottom there. It
is one of the biggest ones that is causing us problems.
But here is what the VA response says--well, this is
totally unnecessary and duplicative. VA is already allowed to
adjudicate a claim without an examination of evidence provided
by that claim and its adequate for rating purposes.
I know that. You are not doing it. That is why we put it in
to make it a requirement. So the feedback came, nope, already
got it covered, no problem with this, and it went on.
Three months is one thing, but it was three months for an
expectation I got that everything is just peachy. I didn't
think of this idea. Millions of veterans over thirty years
thought of the idea and I was dismissed three months later as
that it was nothing, and I think--here is where I take issue
with it. It appears to me totally disregarded or acknowledged
that there are things that we can do better.
Now, I know that goes beyond where you are sitting. The
issue here is that the expectations, the information, the flow
and all that. But just like Mr. Runyan said, it sets up the
expectations to me I am being stonewalled, you know what is
best, my veterans don't know, take this and we will get it to
you when we can get it.
I got to tell you, as someone I hope has developed a
reputation for trying to get problems on this, is, that is a
horrible precedence and put me in a position where I am really
irritated that that would happened. I didn't know it was going
to get there. When it got there, I expect that you are going to
say we already got this and it is going.
So I would just encourage, and on different hearings of
trying to get things back to us, the Chairman, Ranking Member
and other Members here are right. What we have to do--and
again, I want to acknowledge this. There is incredible work
happening at the VA. There are incredible things happening for
our veterans, and I do not question anyone's commitment to
getting it right for veterans, but something is not working in
managing those expectations, getting information back.
There are incredible things happening for our veterans, and
I do not question anyone's commitment to getting it right for
veterans, but something is not working in managing those
expectations, getting information back.
And I could have accepted this, if I would have thought
someone actually looked at it; they did not. And my veterans,
you go out right now, go out and every one of these members
here, go on and ask your veterans if they think the VA is
taking in private medical evidence to help speed their claim on
that. They will laugh at you. They know that that is nonsense,
and yet, I was told, no, no, don't do it.
So now the problem is, I didn't get it in time. I don't get
a hearing. There is no chance to vote on it. And here we are
wondering what can we do about the backlog of claims? It is not
my idea. It is the idea of the veterans who brought it forward.
So I would just encourage us to figure out a better way to
go about this. I think it--when I hear this folks here--when
this--I have been in other Committees where people--it is
disingenuous, Members of Congress complaining that we are not
working together. I know that is an oxymoron to the public. I
know they think that. That is not true in this place. Everyone
in this room wants to work together. You and all of your staff
wants to work together. So when we are telling you these
things, they are in the spirit of constructive criticism to
serve veterans.
And I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for making that
available. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Huelskamp, thank you for yielding your position in the
questioning to Mrs. Walorski. She needs to leave and she has a
specific question that she would like to ask. You are
recognized.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
My question has been consistent. So I have been here nine
months this month, and the question I had of Secretary Shinseki
in January, February, was about a CBOC in my second district of
the State of Indiana. Fifty-four thousand veterans in our
district and I asked for the status of the CBOC, he looked at
the guy next to him and he said, you know what, it is on time.
And I said, can I have that in writing with a timeline?
We have been waiting for eight months for that timeline and
we have put repeated requests in through the staff of this
Committee, through my office, and through our staff as well,
and all we received last week was an amazing letter that now
this whole project is delayed because an archaeological problem
in the State of Indiana. And I can assure you there are no
cities beneath the farmland in the State of Indiana. And then,
I find out last week, the Governor's Office, the State of
Indiana, has never been contacted about this NEPA permit that
is holding up the process.
So I am asking you today again in front of CSPAN and the
veterans that are sitting in my district that need help and
that need health care, when is this CBOC going to be built and
when can we receive a timeline? Can I get a timeline by the end
of close of business today?
Ms. Mooney. Congresswoman, I will work to get you a
timeline as quickly as possible.
Mrs. Walorski. I have been waiting eight months.
Ms. Mooney. I will work to do that today.
Mrs. Walorski. And when will I receive the timeline?
Ms. Mooney. I can't guarantee that I will have it today,
but today I will----
Mrs. Walorski. When will I receive it? Just give me a--will
it be next week? Will it be Monday of next week? Will it be
Friday of this week? When will I get a written timeline?
Ms. Mooney. On the overall project, I will say----
Mrs. Walorski. On the completion date and why there is a
delay.
Ms. Mooney. How about if I offer you why there is a delay,
Congresswoman?
Mrs. Walorski. How about when the completion of the project
will be a timeline? It can't be that difficult. There is
nothing in the soil in the State of Indiana that has anything
other than farmland.
Ms. Mooney. Congresswoman, we will make sure that we get
something to you and I will personally call you and follow up
on that.
Mrs. Walorski. By?
Ms. Mooney. If I can do it by mid-next week.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Ruiz?
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Mooney, thank you for being here. I am
going to take this opportunity to ask you some questions
because you oversee the legislative staff, and I want to be
able to ask you directly.
This summer in my district, California's 36th District in
the Coachella Valley area, eastern Riverside County, we
launched a veterans initiative. We had multiple problem-solving
veterans forums with hundreds of veterans coming together to
talk about their issues, their priorities, and solutions, and
what we can do together to implement those solutions.
And during the veterans forums, I was informed that
veterans had problems accessing VA medical services at other
hospitals outside their region or their state. One anecdote
shared at a forum was of a veteran who was in Las Vegas and
could not receive services from the local VA hospital without
first going through the cumbersome process of re-registering to
receive services at the Las Vegas VA hospital.
Can you tell me why a veteran would have to re-register? Is
this VA established policy or is this required by actual law?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I am happy to take that for the
record and get you a full response from the Department.
Mr. Ruiz. Okay. I appreciate that.
And also in these veterans forums, one of the most common
themes that I heard from my veterans is their lack of access to
their health care records. My constituents are confused that
very little is being done to address this, and one of the
recommendations that was made, which would also address the
claims backlog, is that the VA and the Department of Defense
work together in some fashion to provide, as an exit
consultation, the recent veteran, a disk of their medical
records that they can have and present and work with the VA to
have it done. Is anything of that sort being looked at, at this
point and what do you recommend that we can do to work together
to make that happen?
Ms. Mooney. I am sorry, sir. Could you repeat that?
Mr. Ruiz. So many of my constituents said they have
difficulty acquiring their health care records. One, can the VA
provide them a disk with their updated VA medical records upon
request? Two, is oftentimes, when they leave the Department of
Defense, become veterans, it takes a long time to get those
records from the Department of Defense. Is there any work that
we can do so the VA and the Department of Defense can ensure
that the men and women in uniform who are going to become
veterans receive their medical information in a disk?
Ms. Mooney. I will get you a response for the record.
Veterans can download some of their health care information
through Blue Button and some other initiatives that VA has
might help the veteran.
And then on the other question with DoD, we work with our
partners in the Department of Defense and I am happy to get you
a response to an interagency request.
Mr. Ruiz. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mooney. Thank you.
Mr. Ruiz. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Are you next?
Mr. Huelskamp?
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A very quick question. Madam Secretary, how do you decide
which request--which information request to simply ignore?
Ms. Mooney. Requests are not ignored, Congressman.
Mr. Huelskamp. Wouldn't you consider a 52-week non-response
probably ignoring the question?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I know there is a response--I
think there is a response forthcoming to your letter.
Mr. Huelskamp. Which letter do you refer?
Ms. Mooney. I know you have a letter that is outstanding,
sir.
Mr. Huelskamp. Fifty-two weeks, is there--can you explain
why you have ignored that question for--well, fifty-one-and-a-
half weeks, perhaps, Madam Secretary?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I know that issue--that
correspondence is being worked within the Agency and there will
be a response forthcoming.
Mr. Huelskamp. What is the topic that you are referring to,
because there are a couple of different things out there?
Ms. Mooney. Sir, I know that they are working to move all
correspondence.
Mr. Huelskamp. Can you explain why you wait 52 weeks?
Seriously, 52 weeks, that is ignoring the response--that is
ignoring the question, excuse me.
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, sometimes responses have complex
subjects and----
Mr. Huelskamp. How much did you spend on the 2011 Golden
Games? That is a figure; that is a dollar figure. Why have you
chosen to ignore that question until maybe sometime in the
future?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we owe you a response to your
request and I will make sure that happens.
Mr. Huelskamp. Can you describe again--please, just answer
the question. Why have you not answered that question for 52
weeks and a list of numerous others? Have you just said, you
know what, we don't like that question or we don't like--take
your pick. I am just trying to get some insight of why you will
ignore a very basic budget question and just say we don't care;
is that the answer?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we are working all the requests
that are in front of us right now.
Mr. Huelskamp. Ma'am, you have told me that for about 11
months. Eleven months you have had people come over and tell me
and tell the Committee and say we are working on those. Fifty-
two weeks we have talked over and over about working together
and I just wish you would admit to the Committee why you are
refusing to answer that question----
Ms. Mooney. Congressman----
Mr. Huelskamp. --and that has to do with the Golden Age
Games.
And something more recently that you have ignored is about
100 days ago, questions that came up in a Subcommittee hearing
about data insecurity at the VA, a very serious question, a
hundred days I asked specifically who violated the security,
what did you know about it?
As you know, the VA was not forthcoming. It took a
whistleblower to tell us what was going on there. But 100 days,
is that--is a data insecurity that puts the data, personal,
private, banking, and private health care information, makes
that open to the world, is that something you can ignore for
100 days?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we will work to get you a response
to your request. I understand and hear your frustration.
Mr. Huelskamp. Do you not know the reason why you waited
100 days or you are just not willing to share that with the
entire Committee? I not only want a response, I want to know
why you are ignoring the issue.
Twenty million veterans had their private health care
information breached and the Committee asked questions and the
Subcommittee Chairman right here, no response, no answer. My
constituents want to know. They are shocked and outraged by
this occurrence, and it continues, it continues to grow, and
they worry about what is going on at the VA where they won't
even answer basic questions about that data insecurity.
So your response is we will get to you or we will get to
that?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we will get you an answer to
your----
Mr. Huelskamp. Can you explain why you won't answer the
question for 100 days or 52 weeks? I mean we have been trying
to talk about what is the reason for this, rather than the
basic questions. I don't understand how you can be in charge of
a shop that can wait 52 weeks on something, basic budget
matters, or 100 days on something as critical as private,
personal, medical information breached by potentially nine
foreign agents in numerous countries and no response, or do you
know the answer to that and just can't share that here?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I think as I mentioned earlier, my
office does not manage correspondence. I am happy to take your
requests back.
Mr. Huelskamp. This is an information request, came from
the Committee. It is on the Web site. The public, the world
knows that you are ignoring the question, and I am just very
frustrated that not only will you not answer the question, but
you continue to give the same responses, we are going to get to
it sometime in the future. You won't tell any of my colleagues
when we are going to answer your questions. You won't even give
us the courtesy of saying why you are refusing to answer those.
It is the same old denial, and how can we work together? I
mean, that is your responsibility, to answer these questions,
and I guess you will sit here today to say, we will get back to
you on that.
So what I see coming out of this Committee hearing is
another set of questions, another maybe a year before you
respond. At the end of the day, 20 million veterans have their
data breached and we have no answers on that and that is very
serious. I think that is probably the most serious matter in
here that is sitting in their unanswered questions by a
multitude of folks, and it reflects very poorly on an
Administration that is ready to put in the biggest health care
system expansion in the world in just a few weeks, and the one
that they are trying to run now with 20 million veterans and
their dependents, and you can't answer how is it secure or how
it is insecure, and by the way we will get back to you sometime
in the future.
Can you tell me when you might answer those questions?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I understand and I hear your
frustration. I will take back your concerns and we will get you
a response.
Mr. Huelskamp. So you don't know the answer?
I don't care if you care about my frustrations. I really
don't care about that. I want an answer. Americans want
answers.
Will you answer that question today? Just say yes or no.
Just say, no, I refuse to answer your question.
Ms. Mooney. I am sorry. I think I said, Congressman, we
will get you a response to your question.
Mr. Huelskamp. When, is the question.
Ms. Mooney. As soon--I will work to get it soon.
Mr. Huelskamp. The answer is no answer.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We will have another round of questions, Mr.
Huelskamp.
Did I understand you to say that the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs does not handle
Congressional inquiries from Members?
Ms. Mooney. We do handle inquiries. Correspondence is--
principals handle their own correspondence throughout the
Agency.
The Chairman. So your office has absolutely no idea when a
Member of Congress writes to a principal asking for an answer?
Ms. Mooney. Frequently, letters will come into our office
and will go to----
The Chairman. Now, if I write a letter to Dr. Petzel, you
don't know that I wrote a letter to Dr. Petzel?
Ms. Mooney. If it comes to my office for concurrence, yes,
I do.
The Chairman. So Dr. Petzel could answer that question and
you would never know that I inquired or he answered the
question?
Ms. Mooney. On Congressional matters it would come to my
office for concurrence.
The Chairman. Well, I would think that a letter from a
Member of Congress is a Congressional matter.
Ms. Mooney. And it would come to my office for concurrence,
yes.
The Chairman. So you do see those letters and you don't
track them? You don't track what Members of Congress are asking
through letters of inquiry?
Ms. Mooney. Within my scope of responsibility, which is
concurrence on those, yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The Chairman. So you do track the letters?
Ms. Mooney. Having a letter come through for concurrence,
yes.
The Chairman. Would a letter not come through your office
for concurrence?
Ms. Mooney. That is accurate. Congressional letters go out
throughout VA----
The Chairman. So I would write a letter or any Member of
this Committee could write a letter and it would not go through
your office for concurrence?
Ms. Mooney. No. If you were to--say you were to write a
letter to your network director or, you know, a hospital
director, we would not see that, no.
The Chairman. Even I write letters to the Secretary and you
respond. I am just a little confused.
But Mr. Coffman, you are recognized for your questions.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I think you would like us to believe today
that you are just incredibly incompetent. You know, I don't
think that is true. I don't think you are incompetent. I think
you are a very smart political operative, and I think what you
have engaged in is a process of systematically covering up
information that is embarrassing to the Veterans
Administration. And I will tell you what, I think if General
Shinseki keeps you on after this hearing, then he is also
complicit in that cover-up, in that systematic process that you
have engaged in since 2009.
I have got a couple of questions here, but I think you are
pretty smart and I know what you are doing. I think the first
one on February 13th, 2013, Dr. Petzel told me that he would
provide the results of an internal mental health survey by the
close of business that day. As of today, no information has
been received. Can you explain why the survey I requested has
not been provided?
Ms. Mooney. Mr. Coffman, I think I will go back and check
on that and find out the status of it.
Mr. Coffman. In a hearing this past March, I asked for
release of the medical inspector reports regarding the medical
facilities in Columbia, South Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia,
prepared by Dr. Pierce and his staff, the Deputy Under
Secretary for Health for Operations and Management at the VHA.
The Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and
Management at the VHA committed to look into disclosure for the
record. Nothing to date has been received. Please explain.
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I will look into that request for
you.
Mr. Coffman. Thanks.
I got to tell you, I am, you know, I think it is such an
affront to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for
this country, who have worn the uniform for this country, that
you are in this position. And I think it is also, in my view,
an embarrassment to General Shinseki who has served this
country honorably for over 30 years in the United States Army
to have somebody like a political operative like you in this
critical position engaging in this systematic cover-up on
information that is embarrassing to the VA about the
mistreatment of the veterans who serve this country. I just
think it is extraordinary.
And you are not who you appear to be today, this bumbling
idiot, this incompetent manager. I know what you are engaged in
and it is wrong.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Mooney, on the 18th of January of this
year, the Committee asked for documentation including emails
regarding the legionella outbreak at Pittsburgh. You have
already heard me say the media got the answers to their
questions before the Committee did. You responded that that
should not have occurred. I don't know how it occurred. But,
you know, we haven't received any of the emails yet, can you
please explain why?
Ms. Mooney. I can say in the case of Pittsburgh and the
emailed documents, the requests came in. It was a rather--it is
a large-scale data pull with--the goal was to focus and scope
down search terms, et cetera, with the Committee, which we did,
and the work is in process and on-going and the results should
be forthcoming very soon.
The Chairman. I think the words, probably, if you put
``legionella'' and ``death'', those would be two pretty
specific words that you could search pretty quickly.
And, you know, again, to Mr. Coffman, we are not asking
these for ourselves and our own benefit; we are asking on
behalf of the veterans of this country----
Ms. Mooney. Understood.
The Chairman. --and every obstacle that the Agency puts up
in front of us prevents us from doing our job in oversight.
Let us go here. On the 19th of January of this year, we
requested information regarding the Veterans Canteen Service.
As of today, no information has been received, and what I want
to hear from you is, what are the obstacles and where exactly
in the bureaucracy does this obstruction occur?
Ms. Mooney. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will say back to the
legionella, even legionella being requested for a whole entire
health--all employees in an entire health care network, plus an
entire hospital and central office would be nearly impossible
to fulfill. However----
The Chairman. But it is not----
Ms. Mooney. --we work with your staff----
The Chairman. No, excuse me. I will take the time back.
It is not impossible to do a data search like that. There
are software companies all over this country that tell me that
you can do a data search of information like that in a
relatively quick fashion, and when I say ``relatively quick,''
I am talking about days, not months, and that is where we are
at.
I mean, we haven't received any emails. I mean, you would
think you could start at least sending us the first tranche,
the second tranche, so we could begin our process of sifting
through those, just as you sift through them as well. I mean,
we know that you are having to read them, you are wanting to
read them so nothing else comes to this Committee that you are
aware of that is embarrassing to the Department.
On the 14th of May of this year, we requested all documents
and emails related to VA's Office of Information and
Technology's authority to operate, or ATO, including waivers of
automated information systems from January of 2010 to the
present. As of today, zero. No information has been provided.
Why haven't we gotten any, any information from May?
Ms. Mooney. Mr. Chairman, that work is ongoing and the goal
is to get you the emails as soon as possible. We will have to
talk to your staff about which data calls to prioritize. I
understand the ATO emails at this point are first, and we are
working to produce those right now.
The Chairman. I do want to say that the Ranking Member and
I requested from all Members of Congress incidents that they
have had with your office in trying to gather information, and
we received numerous responses from Members and some of them
were pretty specific in the issues that they provided, and I
will gladly make that information available to you with the
caveat that you assure me that you and your office will work on
solving and answering these issues and these problems.
Ms. Mooney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to comment today on a question. I just want
to follow up on a comment that Ms. Brownley made earlier about
the joint hearing we had with dealing with the transition from
DoD and VA and trying to get veterans to work and we requested
both secretaries to be at that hearing. And I was very critical
of the fact that neither Secretary showed up at that hearing.
And I found out later on--exactly, I did talk with Secretary
Shinseki. He was willing to come. However, Secretary Hagel was
not able to make it, so therefore, he did not come. So I do
apologize to the Secretary--being so critical of him for not
showing up. I was told that he refused to come, but that was
not the case. So I think it is important to state that for the
record.
Ms. Mooney, the other question is, what authority do you
have internally to the VA to get other parts of the Department
to work Congressional inquiries quickly?
Ms. Mooney. We do prioritize requests. We work to
prioritize them for--within VA, the Chairman's requests come
first, Committee Members. We work with program offices and
administrations on a weekly basis to move all items, particular
items that the Chairman and Members of the Committee have
stated are priorities.
Mr. Michaud. So, if you have a priority but BVA says that
is not our priority and they stonewall that, do you have
authority to have a response from BVA? I mean, I am just trying
to figure out what authority you have over the different parts
of your department.
Ms. Mooney. I have the authority to speak with the Under
Secretaries and the Assistant Secretaries of various program
offices and administrations, and I do on a regular basis.
Mr. Michaud. And do they have to respond--I know you can
speak with them--but do they have to respond or can they say,
well, that is not their priority and do something differently,
or do they have to respond to your priorities?
Ms. Mooney. Everyone takes Congressional oversight and your
responsibilities very seriously. These are also people who are
working to implement, direct, and manage programs, and direct
services to veterans, so they are balancing priorities. We all
work together to respond as quickly, completely as we can to
Members of Congress.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. My last question--and I know that you
mentioned in your testimony and through questioning that
sometimes testimony is late due to the complex, you know,
policy questions that arises--you know, I can understand that,
but what I can't understand is sometimes, you know, your
testimony is late, at a later hearing that covers the same type
of hearing that we have covered already in the past. So why is
it--I can see if it is complex the first time around, but if
later on we have another hearing in a similar issue that the
testimony is late again, that is concerning. I know that you
said that you definitely would do a better job in getting that
information to us and I appreciate that and will definitely be
keeping a close eye on it because as one Member of this
Committee, I do like to read all of the testimony before the
hearing. And it makes it problematic if we don't get it until
the day before, as far as being able to go through the hearing,
you know, for the next day. So I would encourage you to
definitely try to stick with the timeframe that you said that
you want to do it, within the 48 hours before the hearing, so
we can get the--so we can do our job, but more effectively.
So once again, I want to thank you for being here today. I
looked forward to working with you, and I will just re-
emphasize, you know, customer service, access, and timeliness
is extremely important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. To follow-up on Mr. Michaud's line of
questions, you had said in the last three, three and a half
years that you have a good record on providing testimony in a
timely fashion. Can you tell me how do you know. What is that
record?
Ms. Mooney. We do track these in the monthly performance
review in the PAR and our strategic plan.
The Chairman. So what is the record?
Ms. Mooney. Let me pull that out for you. Actually, I can
provide it for the record if you----
The Chairman. Well, it would be nice if you make a comment
that you've got a good record, that you could back it up for
us.
Ms. Mooney. Okay. I am sorry. I don't have that. Chris?
Mr. O'Conner. Yeah, 98 percent, I think, in fiscal year
2011 and 90 percent last year.
Ms. Mooney. 90 percent last year and 98 percent in fiscal
year 2011.
The Chairman. I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no way.
And if so, I would be very alarmed if I fell from 98 to 90 to
50 percent. There obviously is a management problem somewhere.
Ms. Mooney. And I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
We work with this Committee and we work with many other
Committees.
The Chairman. I am talking about this Committee.
Ms. Mooney. I will have to get that----
The Chairman. And I would be very interested in knowing if
other Committees get a higher percentage of timely testimony
than this Committee gets.
Mr. Huelskamp?
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to follow-up and make sure I understood a few
of the responses or lack therein back on the issue of data
insecurity.
Are you aware of the Subcommittee hearing we had 100 days
ago or 100--almost four months ago on this issue?
Ms. Mooney. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Huelskamp. And you are aware of the questions that came
forth from that Committee and have received all of those
questions?
Ms. Mooney. Those questions are being worked and will be
provided to you.
Mr. Huelskamp. Have you answered any questions that were
submitted in response to that hearing?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we are working to complete all of
the tasks in front of us.
Mr. Huelskamp. Have you answered any of the questions that
were submitted?
Ms. Mooney. Has VA answered any of questions? Sir, I would
have to take that for the record and get back to you with that
request.
Mr. Huelskamp. Could you ask your assistant behind you? I
mean it is a pretty simple question, did you answer any of
them? Does anybody here--I mean who is here with you that can
answer that?
Ms. Mooney. Sir----
Mr. Huelskamp. Anybody?
Ms. Mooney. --I was called as the witness. Our office is a
facilitator to get things done. What we do is, we work with the
program office to answer your questions, to get answers to your
questions, and we are working----
Mr. Huelskamp. The Committee hearing is about not the
answers; it is about answering the questions. It seems to be
more about process.
I just want, on this particular matter, which is of
critical importance, do you know if any questions have been
answered, and I guess the answer is no, you do not. You are not
aware of any answer being submitted yet?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, we are working to answer all of
the questions. VA is working to answer all the questions.
As Congressman Michaud noted in his opening remarks, our
office is a facilitator office.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. Well, I am asking if you facilitated
an answer, and it is pretty clear that you have not answered a
single question about data breaches at the Department of VA,
the database for twenty million veterans and their dependents.
Do you think that is a critical issue if that database is
insecure?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I will get back with you----
Mr. Huelskamp. No, the question was, do you think that is a
serious issue?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I am not an IT expert. I will get
back with you with a response for the Department.
Mr. Huelskamp. This is about like the failure to respond
for 52 weeks. This is a pretty simple question, ma'am. Yes or
no. Is it a critical issue if the database might be insecure?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, your questions are important and
we will have answers to them.
Mr. Huelskamp. How about this question? Is it important--do
you think it is a critical issue if the database might be
insecure?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, as I stated, we will work to get
the answers to your questions.
Mr. Huelskamp. Can you answer the one I just asked? Just
say yes or no. Is it impossible to say no or yes?
Ms. Mooney. Yes, it is critical.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. And do you think waiting 100 days for
Members of Congress and the people we represent to have an
assurance that that data is secure is something that has to
have an answer in a critical period of time, like days, instead
of weeks and months?
Ms. Mooney. Congressman, I will make sure that you get a
request--excuse me--an answer.
Mr. Huelskamp. And maybe you have missed this, I mean you
are a facilitator, but we had testimony in the Subcommittee
that foreign agents had accessed that database and when the VA
was asked who they were--first after denying that the access
took place. They had admitted in a Committee hearing. We asked,
well, is the data secure now? Tell us how it is. Are we meeting
those data security standards that are required in the private
sector? Ma'am, we are 100 days past that.
Do we know if we had 100 days of access to that data? I
mean, where is that? I mean, the response has been from the
Department in the hearing was this, if you have a problem, if
somehow your financial records are compromised, we will provide
you help to put it back together. But these are the kinds of
things you might say well, that is not too important to get an
answer to that, and I understand.
All I am saying here is, ma'am, that is one that people are
asking and demanding to know, and if the VA refuses to answer
that question--which every day you don't answer is a refusal--
100 days later.
Ms. Mooney. Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. O'Conner has let me know
that we've briefed the Committee on that issue as well.
Mr. Huelskamp. Can you tell me what the answer is then?
Ms. Mooney. We have briefed the Committee on the issue and
I will be happy to get you the information for the record with
what we can do on that.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to hearing about the briefing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We will follow up on that as well.
And as a facilitator, who is responsible for making sure
that testimony, inquiries, other information is provided to
this Committee?
Ms. Mooney. That responsibility lies with me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay. So let us go back to some of the very
first questions that I asked in regards to how do you, after
hearing the comments today, how do you rate, grade your office
on its performance with this Oversight Committee?
Ms. Mooney. Mr. Chairman, I would rate us at a--I would
rate us at a B minus, C plus overall for the three and a half
years, and I have heard the concerns that the Committee Members
have offered us today, and I look forward to continuing working
to make improvements to get much higher than that.
The Chairman. And I appreciate that candid remark, and I
think the Ranking Member and all the Members of this Committee
want nothing more than the information that we request. We are
requesting many, many times on behalf of veterans and
constituents that we have in our own constituencies and then,
of course, each of our Subcommittees has questions as well.
And before I adjourn, I would like to ask if Mr. Bilirakis
has any questions that he wants to ask.
Mr. Bilirakis. No, I think I am fine.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much.
So, do you commit to testimony being delivered 100 percent
on time?
Ms. Mooney. That is our goal, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And you have fallen woefully short of that
goal this year, correct?
Ms. Mooney. That is my goal. That is what we strive to
achieve and we will--we can and will do better.
The Chairman. And so have you met that goal this year?
Ms. Mooney. No, Mr. Chairman, we have not.
The Chairman. Do you reaffirm that the two week standard on
information requests can be met?
Ms. Mooney. I would ask for collaboration on that.
The Chairman. Well, you know, interestingly enough, we give
you collaboration and you took a shot at this Committee a
little while ago by saying that we did not notice the hearing
on time when, in fact, you were informally notified that there
was going to be a Committee hearing, although you did not get
the formal notice, so you were aware that it was going to take
place.
And the other thing, I think it is interesting is, you say
you don't know what this Committee is focusing on. Every year,
we do a report, that you should have a copy of, that tells you
what we are going to focus on. Now, if five veterans, maybe
six, die in Pittsburgh because of a legionella outbreak, we may
shift the focus just a little bit, but, you know, we will work
with you. But I think it is very clear that you need to do a
much better job working with this Committee in providing it the
information it needs in order to do our job.
Mr. Michaud, anything you would like to say?
Mr. Michaud. No, thank you.
The Chairman. All right. With that, all Members will have
five legislative days with which to revise and extend their
remarks.
Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman
This hearing will come to order. Good morning, everyone.
Ms. Mooney, welcome to you. We're breaking new ground here. This is
the first hearing I can recall examining the relationship between our
Committee and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
which you lead.
I called this hearing in response to a growing frustration among
Members in getting from your office what we need to do our work.
Whether it is the timely receipt of hearing testimony, responses to
requests for information, or the quality of the information provided,
we have concerns across the board.
Let me start with hearing testimony. Prior to an oversight hearing
being called, it has been long-standing practice to provide the
Administration with a minimum of two week's notice of the hearing
topic, and to request that testimony be delivered no later than 48
hours prior to a hearing. Receiving testimony 48 hours in advance
permits Members and staff the minimum time necessary to not only
carefully read the testimony, but also to craft thoughtful questions.
But whether VA is provided two week's notice or two month's notice,
it seems the timely receipt of testimony is completely arbitrary. For
example, you knew more than a month in advance that we were having a
joint hearing with the Armed Services Committee on servicemember
transition issues back in July, yet the testimony was received late in
the afternoon on the day before the hearing. Ms. Mooney, the fact that
your testimony for today's hearing was submitted on time is a good
first step - not surprising given the topic--but there must be a 100%
track record going forward. That ought to be the standard.
Let me turn now to information requests. We've grown so frustrated
with the timely receipt of quality responses from VA that we've had to
take extraordinary steps to ensure accountability. First, the Ranking
Member and I launched a ``Trials in Transparency'' page on the
Committee's Web site detailing the number of outstanding VA requests.
Second, I send weekly letters to the department reminding them of all
of the pending requests. In total, we now have 70 pending, some which
remain well over a year old.
What is more troubling is that many of the pending requests relate
directly to ongoing Committee investigations into life safety issues at
VA facilities. For example, on January 18, 2013, I requested emails and
documents pertaining to a deadly Legionella bacteria outbreak at the
Pittsburgh VA medical center. As of Sep 17, 2013, no emails had been
provided. Worse, I learned that the media was provided some of the same
emails I requested in as few as twenty days. Ms. Mooney, the days where
VA is more responsive to the media than a Congressional oversight
Committee must end.
Given that five veterans are dead as a result of the outbreak,
which VA's own inspector general attributed to VA mismanagement, the
Committee is engaged in an investigation into this matter to determine
what went wrong and ensure it never happens again. Unfortunately, we
haven't seen a similar sense of urgency from VA to help us with our
investigative efforts. Rather, VA's reluctance to provide us with the
information we have requested is actually impeding our progress.
Now, I understand that many of the delays we experience are out of
your office's control. But, whether some other office within VA or OMB
is to blame, your office exists as the first point of accountability.
If there is a problem somewhere else, it is your job, Ms. Mooney,
working with the Secretary if necessary, to ensure they are fixed.
One final point before I conclude. Your testimony outlines the
volumes of Congressional inquires your office responds to on a regular
basis. But your office has also received a 41 percent increase in
budget authority and a 40 percent increase in staff since 2009.
Resources have been provided, yet frustrations persist on a bipartisan
and bicameral basis. If things don't improve materially - and I'd like
to work with you to develop some expectations moving forward--we'll
have no choice but to reconsider the funding your office receives.
VA owes it to America's veterans and taxpayers to engage in an
honest conversation about its past mistakes, the future challenges it
faces and its capabilities for overcoming those challenges. Giving
Congress timely access to the information it requests is an important
part of that conversation. When VA drags its feet in providing
information requested by Congress, it inhibits our ability to ensure
America's veterans are receiving the care and benefits they have
earned. Our veterans deserve a VA that sets the standard for openness,
honesty and transparency. When the department fails to do so, they must
answer for that failure. That's what today's hearing is all about.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael H. Michaud
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the title of this unusual hearing makes clear, Members of this
Committee are frustrated and unhappy with VA's legislative affairs
approach. That the Committee feels compelled to hold this hearing today
should send a clear signal that the status quo is not acceptable.
I am certainly aware that the VA receives a large number of
Congressional inquiries, and I understand VA is challenged in
responding to the over 535 Members of Congress.
But high workload is not an excuse for the current situation which
has gone on since 2009, and which simply must change. If VA needs
additional funding for more staff we need to know. If VA needs to move
around some of the 300,000 employees it currently has then it must do
so.
We all want to do the best we can for our veterans. In order to do
the best job we can, the Committee and the VA simply must have a
relationship of trust and cooperation, where information flows quickly
and easily between us.
It is my hope that this hearing will result in VA understanding our
level of frustration with the current relationship and that we seek a
real commitment from VA to improve and change.
I am hopeful that, working together, we can chart a new way
forward.
For our part, the Committee must prioritize requests and accept
some flexibility for achievable deadlines. We must recognize that, from
time to time, there may be legitimate disagreements between the
Committee and VA about the appropriate degree or scope of disclosure of
requested information.
When such disagreements arise, it is incumbent upon VA to set forth
its concerns in a timely manner, and for us to listen with an objective
mind.
To set a new course forward, the VA's Office of Legislative Affairs
needs to make a real commitment to customer service by adopting a
``yes, we will'' rather than a ``no, because'' attitude. VA OCLA needs
to provide regular and ongoing communications regarding the status of
our requests. There is nothing more frustrating than having to keep
checking back with the VA on when we can expect answers, and the VA
having no answers to give us.
Realistic deadlines that are met by the VA are essential. I am
willing to negotiate some due dates on less time-critical requests, but
when VA agrees to a due date, I expect it to be met.
Finally, moving forward, I would like to see VA OCLA adopt the role
of facilitator rather than filter. There is a perception across
Congressional staff and, according to some reports, VA staff, that
direct communication is ``taboo'' and everything must go through OCLA.
I do not discount the value a broad Department-wide perspective can
add to a conversation. I understand, and agree, that formal Department-
level positions should be coordinated by OCLA. However, subject matter
experts on both sides should feel free and comfortable to discuss
general, basic issues.
I stand ready, and I know my colleagues stand ready, to sit down
with the VA and address our overdue requests and work together to come
up with a real framework to govern our relationship going forward.
This framework needs to be built around three goals: customer
service, timeliness, and access.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Joan M. Mooney
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, Members of the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) work to provide Congress
with the information and assistance it needs to fulfill its oversight
responsibilities as well as be responsive to constituents.
VA and Congress share the same goal: to do everything we can to
improve the health care, benefits and other services delivered to our
Nation's Veterans, their families, and Survivors earned through
service. That is what guides our work in the Office of Congressional
and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) in central office and throughout the
broader VA health, benefits, and memorial affairs operation across the
country that also work with congressional offices every day.
As Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
service to both Veterans and Congress is engrained in who I am. My
father was an Atomic Veteran who passed away from cancer linked to his
service. My mother was his primary caregiver who predeceased him
putting his healthcare needs before her own. I personally understand
the importance of the services VA provides.
I also understand the important oversight role that this and other
congressional committees play in our great democracy. Prior to coming
to VA, I served on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades, including for a
senior Member of this Committee. For that reason I am aware of the
demands placed on Members of Congress who seek to best represent their
constituents and the responsibilities that come with oversight.
Over the last few years, Secretary Shinseki, other VA senior
leaders and I have welcomed the opportunity to meet with Members of
this Committee and other Members of the House and Senate, in your
offices or back home to hear directly about your concerns and learn how
VA can improve services for Veterans. For example, annually, Secretary
Shinseki and I request meetings, either one on one or in small groups,
with Members of this Committee as well as Members of the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs and Senate and House Appropriations
Subcommittees on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies. Through meetings in informal settings as well as committee
hearings and roundtables, VA seeks to engage this and other related
committees regularly.
I understand Congress' need for timely and accurate information
about developments affecting Veterans policy nationally or locally. I
also understand the importance of receiving information in advance of
an upcoming hearing or mark-up.
VA recognizes the frustration that Committee Members and staff have
regarding submission of testimony. While VA strives to meet the
Committee's 48-hour in advance testimony submission rules, we at times
cannot meet the timeline, particularly when a hearing is called with
short notice. Hearings on policy or legislation raise important,
complex and often new issues that require careful study and
consideration by VA. Let me state our continued desire to work with the
Committee to improve timely delivery of VA testimony and on more
advance lead time for hearings.
As I stated earlier, accuracy in the information we provide to
Congress is a top goal and so while we have and continue to provide a
significant volume of information to Congress, quality is just as
important as quantity. Some of the information requested may include
data the Department does not collect or does not collect in the form
that is being asked. As a result, certain requests may require VA to
conduct data calls, taking time and resources and impacting the ability
to process other requests. That is why it is important for us to work
together to ensure that the requests from the Committee are
appropriately structured so that it is very clear what is being asked
for, realistic timelines can be set, and adjustments can be made to
facilitate getting the information to the Committee. These discussions
are also important so that the time of subject matter experts in the
field or VA central office who may be asked to compile and assemble
much of the information, be managed in the most efficient and effective
manner possible allowing them to balance their day to day work with
responding to these important requests.
Our mission in OCLA is to improve the lives of Veterans, their
families and Survivors. We do that by fostering a productive working
relationship with Members of Congress, their staffs, and committees,
keeping them abreast of policy matters and programs, and helping VA
better understand and engage with Congress.
As all of you know from firsthand experience, VA engages with
Members of Congress on many fronts. At our medical facilities, benefits
regional offices and cemeteries across the country there are VA staff
that respond to local congressional requests for information, site
visits and tours, and VA participation at congressional town halls and
outreach events, among many other types of requests.
VA's OCLA, based in central office, is staffed by 46 dedicated
professionals that help operate one of the busiest congressional
affairs offices in the Federal government. Today OCLA's staff includes
23 Veterans, representing 50 percent of our workforce, an increase of
39 percent since I began my service as Assistant Secretary. Increasing
the number of Veterans working in OCLA has been a longstanding goal of
mine as Veterans and family members of Veterans bring firsthand
experience to our daily work. Our staff also includes many individuals
with prior work in congressional offices or Veterans Service
Organizations and advocacy groups.
As the second largest Federal agency after the Department of
Defense, VA provides care to approximately 6.3 million Veterans and
other beneficiaries, has 1,800 points of care, provides 3.6 million
Veterans with disability compensation, and employs over 330,000 people.
In short, VA touches every Congressional district in a way that is
unique among Federal agencies. From the conception to the opening of
Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC), to the status of VA's effort
to eliminate the disability compensation claims backlog, to providing
information on VA's successful home loan program that kept Veterans in
danger of foreclosure in their homes, to technical assistance to
Members of Congress on their draft legislation, our office both
proactively provides and responds to a broad swath of requests for
information from Congress. Each week, VA also sends several e-mail
communications to Washington, D.C. and district contacts in 541 Member
offices and congressional committees, containing information on VA
policies, programs, and funding announcements such as VA grants to
community organizations providing services to homeless and at-risk
Veterans and their families.
Just within VA central office, OCLA provides a large amount of
information to Congress. During the last three fiscal years and through
August 2013 OCLA has provided or responded to over 80,000 congressional
requests. Those include: VA officials testifying at over 260
congressional hearings; conducting over 2,000 congressional briefings
or meetings; responding to over 4,700 questions for the record;
processing over 75,000 Member inquiries - separate from casework done
by local congressional offices with VA's regional offices, medical
facilities, and cemeteries; and managing nearly 300 GAO engagements,
leading to 175 draft and 98 final reports.
Since the office began collecting data on formal policy-related
requests for information, during the last one and one half fiscal years
VA has responded to over 4,700 of such requests. During the first six
months of Fiscal Year 2013, VA responded to over 2,000 formal requests
for policy-related information and technical assistance requests on
legislation.
In recent years, VA has begun receiving oversight requests from
this and other committees for e-mail records of VA employees. These are
a new type of congressional request for information for VA and require
a very labor and resource-intensive process. For example, this
Committee's request for e-mails and documents related to the VA's
Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor (PPV) contract required the review of
hundreds of thousands of e-mails and documents and resulted in over
34,500 relevant e-mails and documents being delivered to the Committee.
In fulfilling this data request, VA dedicated a team of employees that
worked for over 2300 hours to complete the task. For a request for
another committee, to date, VA provided over 34,900 e-mails and
documents related to the 2011 VA Human Resources Training Conferences
in Orlando, Florida. A team of employees has been dedicated to this
work for significant portions of the last year and this data pull
effort continues.
While the above information captures much of the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs' functions, so as to provide a
full picture of our work, including those areas where data is not
collected or applicable, let me also describe our areas of
responsibility. They include:
Managing technical feedback to draft legislation proposed
or being considered by all congressional offices, and especially the
authorizing committees;
Managing all hearings before Congress, including field
hearings;
Responding to requests for information (including phone,
e-mail, walk-ins), meetings, and briefings from Members, staff and
committees on many subjects;
Managing select congressional casework requests;
Notifying congressional offices and committees of changes
in VA policy, local and national announcements and related information;
Managing departmental congressionally mandated reports;
Developing VA's legislative proposals;
Leading engagements with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) including the management of reports requested by Congress
each year;
Coordinating congressional oversight travel to VA
facilities across the country;
Organizing and holding training for congressional staff
working Veterans' policy matter as well as casework;
Organizing and holding educational briefings for
congressional staff on a rotating series of topics related to VA health
care, benefits, and services;
Supporting VA officials in their meetings with Congress;
and
Leading the confirmation process for presidential
nominees requiring Senate confirmation.
In OCLA, our customer base is also broad. In addition to our
authorizing committees there are many congressional entities we engage
with and a number of committees that conduct Veteran - related hearings
and oversight work. Our customers include 541 Member offices; House and
Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs; GAO; Congressional Research
Service; Congressional Budget Office; and other congressional
committees including Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; House
and Senate Armed Services Committees; House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Affairs; House and Senate Budget Committees and many other House and
Senate committees.
I endeavor to meet regularly with each of the Staff Directors of
the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs, majority and
minority, to provide an opportunity to engage and speak about important
issues, review or prioritize outstanding items, and discuss
developments in the Congress and in the Department. These interactions
are in addition to communications over the phone or e-mail. I am
personally committed, as is the Department, to work collaboratively
with Congress. This is reflected in the efforts to engage, meet with
and respond to Members of Congress and staff by all VA employees here
in central office in Washington and those at our medical centers,
CBOCs, benefits regional offices and cemeteries nationwide.
In conclusion, VA and Congress share the same goal: to do
everything we can to improve the health care, benefits and other
services delivered to our Nation's Veterans, their families, and
Survivors. That is what guides our work in providing an incredible
volume of information to Congress on a daily basis.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and am prepared to answer
any questions you may have.
Statement For The Record
Response Letter From: Hon. Joan M. Mooney, To: Hon. Bill Flores'
Hearing Question
September 24, 2013
The Honorable Jeff Miller
Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Upon reviewing the hearing video recording and the unofficial
transcript from the September 19 full Committee hearing, I am writing
to clarify a response I gave to a question from Congressman Flores.
Senior VA leadership are ultimately responsible for, and have the final
say on, correspondence sent to Congress. However, there are occasions
when VA may consult with other executive branch entities, including the
White House, on some correspondence such as letters which concern
interagency matters, transmission of official views on legislation,
responses to letters on the President's behalf and letters on some
administration policy priorities. I would ask that this letter be made
an official part of the record and I appreciate the opportunity to
provide this information.
Sincerely,
Joan M. Mooney
cc:
The Honorable Michael M. Michaud
The Honorable Bill Flores
Questions For The Record
Questions and Responses From HVAC, To: Department of Veterans Affairs
Questions for the Record from Chairman Jeff Miller
Question 1: On Jan 18, 2013, the Committee asked for documentation,
including emails regarding the legionella outbreak and as of today,
very little has been provided, including no emails. Yet, it is clear
from news reports that media received emails regarding the outbreak
through the Freedom of Information Act. Why is the media receiving
access but not the Committee? Please provide the Committee with a
schedule of when the information will be received.
VA Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) strives to
provide Congress with accurate and timely responses to requests for
information. On October 28, 2013 VA delivered the requested e-mails
regarding the Legionella outbreak at VA Pittsburgh to the Committee. In
recent years, VA has begun receiving oversight requests from this and
other committees for e-mail records of VA employees. These are a new
type of congressional request for information for VA and require a very
labor and resource-intensive process and impact the ability to process
other requests.
VA has been forthcoming in providing Congress with information on
the outbreak of Legionella at VA Pittsburgh. VA received the first
request for information in late November 2012. Since early December
2012, VA has made 4 notifications regarding Legionella at VA Pittsburgh
to its congressional oversight committees and the Pittsburgh area
congressional delegation, provided responses to 33 separate requests
for information from Members of Congress and committee staff that
included responses to 79 questions and numerous documents. VA has also
conducted 18 briefings on the subject to Members of Congress or
congressional staff and testified at two House Veterans' Affairs
Committee (HVAC) hearings. Of the 79 questions responded to and 18
briefings provided, 51 questions were from HVAC and 9 briefings were to
HVAC committee staff.
In regards to media receiving information on Legionella through the
Freedom of Information Act, these requests were made by local media and
processed and responded to by Pittsburgh HCS.
Question 2: On January 19, 2013, this Committee requested
information regarding the Veteran Canteen Service. As of today, no
information has been received. Please provide the Committee with a
schedule of when the information will be received.
VA Response: On October 31, 2013, VA provided information regarding
the Veteran Canteen Service to the Committee.
Question 3: On May 14, 2013, O&I requested all documents and e-
mails related to VA's Office of Information and Technology Authority to
Operate (ATO), including waivers of automated information systems from
January 2010 to present. As of today, no information has been provided.
Please provide the Committee with a schedule of when the information
will be received.
VA Response: As stated in question 1, in recent years, VA has begun
receiving oversight requests from this and other committees for e-mail
records of VA employees. These are a new type of congressional requests
for information for VA and require a very labor and resource-intensive
process and impact the ability to process other requests. The request
for e-mails and documents related to Authorities to Operate was
transmitted to VA through an e-mail from committee staff to VA staff.
This project is underway. VA will continue to work with the
Committee on this issue to ensure transparency and collaboration with
Congress.
Question 4: It is well-known that the Assistant Secretary for OCLA
either personally read or had others read every piece of information
leaving your department before it is submitted to the committee. This
likely accounts for tremendous delays in responding to Congress. Why do
you feel that such scrutiny is necessary?
VA Response: VA's goal is to provide accurate and timely responses
that represent the most up to date information and an enterprise
perspective so that the information being provided is complete. There
have been instances in the past where information being provided to
Congress was not complete or responsive to the request. It is also
important to ensure that other offices in VA that may work on the
subject in question have had an opportunity to provide input. The
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) ensures, to the
greatest extent possible, that that review and input occurs. OCLA's
review does not significantly contribute to the time it takes to
assemble information for Congress.
Question 5: In other Departments in the government, the offices of
Public and Intergovernmental Affairs and of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs are under the direction of one Assistant Secretary.
Please provide an assessment of the merits of this proposal.
VA Response: Congress is an essential VA stakeholder and requires
individual attention within the Department. Combining the VA offices of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs would not be
the best approach for Congress or for VA. We are not aware of other
Cabinet-level departments organized in this manner. We share the
Committee's concern with media receiving information prior to Congress.
We strive to ensure that does not happen. However, when it does occur,
it is usually at the local level. OCLA is responsible for ensuring
Congress receives timely and accurate information that reflects an
enterprise perspective from the Department. The Committee would be
unable to perform proper oversight of the Department without this
focus.
Question 6: According to VA's 2012 Performance and Accountability
Report, the department set a strategic target of 90% for the percentage
of responses to pre and post hearing questions that are submitted to
Congress within the required time frame. What is your success for
achieving that target in FY2013? How will you meet it in the future?
VA Response: During fiscal year (FY) 2013, VA provided Congress
with a great deal of information on VA programs and policies. During
the year, VA witnesses testified at 62 hearings and VA subject matter
experts provided 999 information briefs to Members of Congress and/or
Congressional staff. VA also answered over 3,540 requests for
information, a 29 percent increase from FY2012. The Department's
strategic target for the submission of pre and post hearing questions
is for 90 percent of the sets of questions to be submitted to Congress
on time. For FY2013, the Department submitted 36 percent of the 22 sets
of questions for the record within the requested timeframe along with 8
additional submissions of completed budget hearings' questions for the
record (477 total questions for the record). While the Department did
not meet its target goal in FY2013 because of work volume and
priorities, the Department will focus its efforts in FY2014 to produce
timely responses to questions for the record.
Question 7: According to VA's 2012 Performance and Accountability
Report, the department set a strategic target of 90% for the percentage
of testimony submitted to Congress within the required timeframe. What
is your success for achieving that target in FY2013? How will you meet
it in the future?
VA Response: VA witnesses testified at 62 hearings during FY2013.
The Department's strategic target for the submission of testimony is 90
percent for the percentage of testimony submitted to Congress within
the required timeframe. For FY2013, the Department submitted 75 percent
of its testimony to Congress on time. In FY2014, the Department will
re-double its efforts to produce responsive testimony.
Question 8: According to VA's 2012 Performance and Accountability
Report, the department set a strategic target of 85% for the percentage
of title 38 reports that are submitted to Congress within the required
time frame. What is your success for achieving that target in FY2013?
How will you meet it in the future?
VA Response: The Department's strategic target for the submission
of title 38 reports is 85 percent for the percentage of title 38
reports that are submitted to Congress within the required time frame.
For FY2013, the Department submitted 24 percent of its title 38 reports
within the prescribed time frame. During FY2013, the employee
responsible for tracking title 38 reports was activated and served with
the U.S. Army in the Middle East for the last ten months of the fiscal
year. While the employee was deployed, another employee assumed this
duty as a collateral duty in addition to normal duties and
responsibilities. For 2014, the Department has assigned this
responsibility to an employee as a full time duty and will continue to
focus its efforts to ensure timely delivery of congressionally mandated
reports.
Question 9: What are OCLA's responsibilities and duties to the
Department and to Congress?
VA Response: OCLA coordinates the Department's activities with
Congress. The office is the Department's focal point for interactions
and engagements with all Members of Congress, authorization and
oversight committees, and personal staff. Additionally, OCLA is the
Department's liaison with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
OCLA's duties and responsibilities include:
Coordinates the Department of Veterans Affairs' relations and
activities with Congress:
Maintains responsive communications with Congress through
briefings, hearings, reports, site visits, responses to requests for
information, and other requested services from Members of Congress.
Develops and executes the Department's legislative
strategy.
Manages the Department's involvement in congressional
hearings.
Leads the preparation for hearings and briefings on
policy, oversight matters, and legislation.
Provides advice, prepares and accompanies VA personnel in
meetings with Members of Congress, congressional committees or staff.
Coordinating congressional oversight travel to VA
facilities across the country.
Develops legislative priorities and monitors and champions them
before Congress:
Lead office coordinating the development of Veteran
legislation to benefit Veterans and improve the operations and
efficiency of the Department.
Coordinates requests for the views and technical support
of the Department on pending or proposed legislation.
Manages the Department's Title 38 congressionally
mandated reports process.
Advises VA senior leadership, in coordination with
program office and legal staff, on legislative matters.
Provides congressional liaison support to Members of Congress and
staff:
Maintains liaison offices in Senate and House office
buildings to answer operational questions about VA and proactively
communicate news to Congress.
Receives and processes Member requests for assistance
with constituent and policy inquiries.
Receives, resolves, and responds to high level Veteran
case inquiries from congressional offices.
Serves as the Department's liaison with the GAO:
Coordinates all GAO engagements within the Department.
Coordinates preparation of responses to GAO draft and
final reports, and ensures responses are provided to GAO in a timely
manner.
Keeps VA leadership apprised of GAO recommendation
implementations.
Question 10: During her testimony, Ms. Mooney distinguished between
OCLA involvement in information requests sent from the Committee to VA,
and ``correspondence'' sent from the Committee to any element of VA.
Please provide OCLA's policy with respect to accountability for both
timely response to information requests and correspondence.
VA Response: OCLA is the office responsible for providing responses
to Congressional Requests for Information (RFI). Within OCLA, the
Congressional Relations Officer with oversight of the topic area is
responsible for ensuring the Department's timely and accurate response.
Upon receipt of a RFI the Congressional Relations Officer tasks the
question to the relevant VA Administration or staff office. The Office
of the Executive Secretary is responsible for replies to congressional
correspondence addressed to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. It is VA
policy to return responses to congressional correspondence as soon as
the appropriate information is obtained.
Question 11: Please provide the Committee with the Department's
internal phone directory.
VA Response: VA no longer produces an internal phone directory in
paper. We are pleased to provide assistance on request.
Questions for the Record from Congressman Mike Coffman
Question 1: On February 13, 2013, Dr. Petzel told me that he would
provide the results of an internal mental health survey by the close of
business that day. As of today, no information has been received. Can
you explain why the survey I requested has not yet been provided?
VA Response: On November 7, 2013 Under Secretary Petzel is
scheduled to provide a briefing to HVAC committee staff which will
include an overview of the results of the survey VA conducted of VA
mental health providers.
Question 2: In a hearing this past March, I asked for release of
the Medical Inspector reports regarding the medical facilities in
Columbia, South Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia prepared by Dr. Pierce
and his staff. The Deputy Under Secretary for Health and Operations and
Management at the VHA committed to look into disclosure for the record.
Nothing to date has been received. Please explain.
VA Response: The Department has been responsive to the Committee's
March 2013 request regarding VA medical appointment and specialty
consult backlogs and delays at the Dorn VA Medical Center in Columbia,
South Carolina and other VA facilities. The Committee was provided a
copy of the Office of the Medical Inspector (OMI) report regarding the
Columbia VAMC on March 19, 2013, which included only the redaction of
two dates directly associated with a Veteran. The report was sent with
a note that an un-redacted report was available, upon a signed request
from the Subcommittee Chairman. The written request was received from
the Subcommittee on September 26, 2013 and the requested un-redacted
copy of the OMI report was delivered on October 29, 2013. In addition,
VA has provided three separate briefings to HVAC staff on this issue -
on March 21, May 2, and September 6, 2013. The September 6, 2013
briefing included an update on VA's response to the Inspector General
report on this topic. The OMI did not conduct an investigation or
complete a report of specialty consult delays in Augusta, GA.
Questions for the Record from Congressman Timothy Walz
Question 1: What is the Department's process for reviewing and
commenting on legislation? In the case of H.R. 1980, what departments
participated in the review process, who finally approved the comments?
VA Response: The Department provides official views and costs on
bills when a Committee holds a legislative hearing on the bill. VA
provides views and costs in the written testimony for legislative
hearings. For those bills VA is not able to address in time for a
legislative hearing, views and costs are provided at a later time in a
letter to the Committee. In the case of H.R 1980, VA did not provide
official views on the bill because it was not on the agenda of a
legislative hearing. However, VA provided technical assistance on the
legislation to Representative Walz's staff on May 7, 2013. In addition,
VA provided a copy of official views for S.935, the Senate companion
bill to H.R. 1980, to Representative Walz's staff on September 17,
2013. S. 935, was part of a 2013 Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
hearing.
Questions for the Record from Congressman Beto O'Rourke
Question 1: I would like to know more about the Congressional
Knowledge Management System, the system VA uses to track Congressional
requests. Ms. Mooney mentioned that the program needs improvements. How
does CKMS work now, what are its flaws, and what is VA doing to improve
it, by when?
VA Response: The Congressional Knowledge Management System (CKMS)
is a commercial off-the shelf software program developed by Dynology
Corporation. The Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA)
licensed the software as a project management tool and an information
repository for Congressional Relations Officers to manage their
workload of congressional requests for information, briefings, and
other requests.
CKMS has been modified to meet the requirements of the office. OCLA
will continue to refine the software to meet specific office
requirements; in particular improving the reports generating capability
of the software.