[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                         LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                    H.R. 4278; H.R. 196; H.R. 4461;
                  H.R. 3504; H.R. 2733; AND H.R. 4225

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-24
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-083                    WASHINGTON : 2024                      


                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 
    American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MIKE LEVIN, California
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana   CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina    SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida               Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO, 
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas                   Pennsylvania
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona                DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas                    GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois

                       Jon Clark, Staff Director
                  Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

               JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia, Chairwoman

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana, Ranking 
    American Samoa                       Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana   SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
                                         Florida

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

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jennifer A. Kiggans, Chairwoman....................     1
The Honorable Chris Pappas, Acting Ranking Member................     3
The Honorable Mike Bost, Chairman, Full Committee................     4
The Honorable Matthew M. Rosendale...............................     5
The Honorable Frank J. Mrvan, Ranking Member.....................    12

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel 1

Mr. Lewis Ratchford, Chief Security Officer, Office of Human 
  Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and 
  Preparedness, Department of Veterans Affairs...................     6

        Accompanied by:

    Mr. Rondy Waye, Executive Director, Human Capital Programs, 
        Office of Human Resources and Administration/Operations, 
        Security, and Preparedness, Department of Veterans 
        Affairs

    Mr. Ray Tellez, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Automated 
        Benefits Delivery, Veterans Benefits Administration, 
        Department of Veterans Affairs

    Ms. Angela Billups, Ph.D., Executive Director, Office of 
        Acquisition and Logistics, Office of Acquisition, 
        Logistics, and Construction, Department of Veterans 
        Affairs

Mr. David Case, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector 
  General, Department of Veterans Affairs........................     8

                                Panel 2

Mr. Joshua Hastings, Veterans Benefits Policy Analyst, The 
  American Legion................................................    22

Mr. Patrick Murray, Director, National Legislative Service, 
  Veterans of Foreign Wars.......................................    24

Mr. Clint Romesha, SSG (ret), Board of Director, Emeritus, 
  America's Warrior Partnership..................................    25

Ms. Terry Gerton, President and Chief Executive Officer, National 
  Academy of Public Administration...............................    27

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

Mr. Lewis Ratchford Prepared Statement...........................    39
Mr. David Case Prepared Statement................................    44
Mr. Joshua Hastings Prepared Statement...........................    48
Mr. Patrick Murray Prepared Statement............................    58
Mr. Clint Romesha, SSG (ret) Prepared Statement..................    59
Ms. Terry Gerton Prepared Statement..............................    61

                          APPENDIX--continued
                       Statements For The Record

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.............    67
Concerned Veterans for America...................................    73
Dr. Donald F. Kettl..............................................    77
National Federation of Federal Employees.........................    82
Partnership for Public Services..................................    89
Senior for Executives Association................................   103
United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care 
  Professionals..................................................   106

 
                         LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                    H.R. 4278; H.R. 196; H.R. 4461;
                  H.R. 3504; H.R. 2733; AND H.R. 4225

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023

              U.S. House of Representatives
       Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
                             Committee on Veterans' Affairs
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in 
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jen Kiggans 
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Kiggans, Bergman, Rosendale, 
Mrvan, and Pappas.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, CHAIRWOMAN

    Ms. Kiggans. Good afternoon. Thank you to our witnesses, 
first and foremost, for being here today. In today's hearing, 
we will examine a variety of bills impacting the VA's 
disciplinary authorities, disability claims processing, medical 
center security, acquisition process, and whistleblower 
training. I would like to thank Representative Pappas for 
sitting in for Ranking Member Mrvan, who will be joining us 
during the hearing.
    I will begin with my bill, H.R. 3504, the VA Medical Center 
Security Report Act. My legislation requires the VA to survey 
each of their medical centers annually on the status of their 
police force and report that data to Congress. VA operates 144 
police units at VA medical centers and has approximately 6,000 
police officers, chiefs of police, deputy chiefs of police and 
physical security specialists nationwide.
    Unfortunately, violent crime has been on the rise at VA 
medical centers. In Fiscal Year 2018, 3,141 violent crimes were 
committed. By Fiscal Year 2021, that number more than doubled 
to 6,505. Not only are VA medical centers becoming more 
dangerous for employees and veterans, but they are also 
becoming less safe for VA police officers. Medical centers 
across the country are experiencing high turnover and staffing 
shortages in their police departments. I understand that VA 
police have recently made large strides to fix some of these 
troubling issues. However, Congress still needs a better 
picture of the specific challenges that each medical center 
faces, as well as the broader issues plaguing VA policing so 
that we can determine if further congressional action is 
needed.
    My bill will help Congress and the VA understand these 
challenges better by requiring the VA to gather information on 
the type and frequency of criminal activity at the medical 
center over the past 12 months, the number of vacant positions 
for department police officers at each medical facility, all 
identified security weaknesses, and much more.
    While they are not here, I would like to thank the American 
Federation of Government Employees and its National Veterans 
Affairs Council, as well as the National Federation of Federal 
Employees for endorsing the VA Medical Security Report Act. I 
look forward to discussing my bill with the witnesses here 
today.
    Now, I will turn to Chairman Bost's bill, H.R. 4278, the 
Restore VA Accountability Act, which I cosponsor. In 2017, the 
VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act was signed 
into law by President Trump. The bill passed Congress with 
broad bipartisan support and was endorsed by over a dozen 
Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs). Two of which, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and 
American Legion are testifying here today in support of the 
Restore VA Accountability Act. In the 2017 Accountability Act, 
Congress gave the VA Secretary authority to expedite the 
removal, demotion, or suspension of VA employees based on 
misconduct or substandard performance. Unfortunately, decisions 
from the Federal Circuit, the Federal Labor Relations 
Authority, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, defied 
congressional intent, rendering the authority provided in the 
2017 Accountability Act unusable for most of the VA workforce. 
In April of this year, the VA stopped using this authority 
altogether, as courts have made it too weak and complex to be 
effective. The Restore VA Accountability Act would make sure 
the VA has the authorities it needs to remove poor performing 
employees and deliver the high-quality benefits and care that 
veterans deserve. After Representative Pappas's opening 
statement, I will recognize Chairman Bost to deliver some 
remarks about how his bill will restore accountability at the 
VA.
    Next on the agenda is H.R. 196, the Expediting Temporary 
Ratings for Veterans Act, sponsored by Representative 
Rosendale. The Inspector General has documented widespread 
errors with the VA's temporary disability rating process. 
Veterans are often not receiving the ratings they are due, 
receiving them late, or being underpaid or overpaid. I am eager 
to hear more from representative Rosendale and our witnesses 
about how H.R. 196 can help eliminate errors and delays that 
harm veterans.
    The next bill we will be considering today is H.R. 4461, 
the Modernizing Department of Veterans Affairs Disability 
Benefit Questionnaires Act, sponsored by Representative 
Luttrell. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, which would 
improve disability benefit questionnaires, or DBQs, which are a 
critical part of the disability compensation claims process. 
Current practice does not require VA contractors who perform 
disability exams to submit DBQs in a format that can be easily 
processed by VA's claims automation software. This leads to 
backlogs and delays that could be avoided through 
standardization that allows the VA to process and adjudicate 
claims faster. As the VA moves forward with automation, A 
standardized DBQ process will be crucial to timing and accurate 
claims processing.
    To close out our agenda, we will be considering H.R. 2733, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General 
Training Act, sponsored by Representative Underwood, and H.R. 
4225, the VA Acquisition Review Board Act, sponsored by Ranking 
Member Mrvan.
    I again want to thank our witnesses for being here today, 
and I look forward to our discussion. I now recognize 
Representative Pappas for his opening remarks.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, ACTING RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kiggans, and I 
am looking forward to the conversation today about a number of 
bills on the agenda, but I want to keep my remarks brief and 
just focused on one issue at the outset. One of my primary 
interests here is to better understand the potential effects of 
Chairman Bost's bill, H.R. 4278, the Restore VA Accountability 
Act.
    Now, in 2017, Congress passed the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. It was 
based on well-publicized problems. At the time, Congress 
believed then that VA needed new authorities to hold bad actors 
accountable. Over the last 6 years, VA's implementation of the 
law has been repeatedly challenged in cases before the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Merit Systems 
Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. I 
believe Chairman Bost's intent with H.R. 4278 is to address the 
issues that have caused the courts and Merit Systems Protection 
Board (MSPB) to overturn disciplinary actions.
    However, based on VA's testimony and some of the statements 
for the record provided for this hearing today, I am not 
confident that H.R. 4278 will have the intended effect of 
reducing the number of disciplinary actions that are overturned 
or that it will lead to more timely disciplinary actions being 
taken when warranted.
    Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 
statements from the Partnership for Public Service, the Senior 
Executives Association, the American Federation of Government 
Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and 
Dr. Donald Kettl, as well, be entered into the record for 
today's hearing.
    Ms. Kiggans. Without objection.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you. VA, in its testimony, raises 
concerns that H.R. 4278, if implemented, would be subject to 
extensive litigation and constitutional due process challenges, 
making the Department no better off than it is now with the 
original 2017 law. As is suggested in the testimony from the 
National Academy for Public Administration, and in statements 
for the record from the Partnership for Public Service, the 
Senior Executives Association, and Professor Donald Kettl, here 
are many other facets to accountability and performance. For 
example, VA's overall performance and accountability may also 
be strengthened by better ensuring the right employee is hired 
for the right job. Improving performance management processes, 
growing professional development and training programs for 
managers, rethinking the Department's organizational structure, 
and improving leadership stability.
    I hope this hearing will shed light on these and other 
issues, so that this committee can ensure we are focusing our 
attention on the greatest areas of need and as we commit to 
working together in a bipartisan and bicameral manner, always 
with a focus on strengthening VA's accountability. I want to 
thank you again, Chairwoman Kiggans, for allowing me to sub-in 
here, and I look forward to engaging with the witnesses, and I 
yield back my time.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. I now recognize 
Chairman Bost to speak on his bill, the Restore VA 
Accountability Act.
    Mr. Bost. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans. I appreciate 
you holding this legislative hearing and including my bill, the 
Restore the VA Accountability Act.
    Now, I have been in Congress for not as long as some, but I 
have been around for a while. I have been here long enough to 
know that this town has a very, did I say very? Very short 
memory. In 2017, Congress made a very, very powerful statement 
when it passed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protection Act. Back then, Republicans had control of the 
House, Senate, and the White House. Before President Trump 
signed it into law, we passed that bill by voice vote in the 
Senate, and with 368 yay votes in the House.
    Congress was united in this because veterans and the 
American people were fed up with bad VA employees not being 
held accountable. They demanded that Congress act, and we did. 
We gave the VA Secretary more power to remove, demote, and 
suspend any VA employee for poor performance or misconduct. You 
know what? The law started moving the needle. The 2017 
Accountability Act led to a 50 percent increase in removal 
actions, which in part, led to veterans VA-wide trust scores 
increasing from an abysmal 59 percent in 2016, to an 80 percent 
in 2020. Veterans were at the core of VA's mission, not 
bureaucrats. Let me say it again. Veterans were at the core of 
the mission, not bureaucrats.
    However, starting 2018, the administrative courts began 
chipping away at the law's effectiveness, ruling contrary to 
Congress's intent. Congress's intent was clear, I remember. I 
remember because I was there. VA agreed and appealed a number 
of these decisions, but the time that VA was spending in court 
to justify their use of disciplinary authorities in the 2017 
Accountability Act was unworkable.
    Earlier this year, VA announced that because of these legal 
headaches, they would stop using the authority in the 2017 
Accountability Act altogether. Remember when I said that this 
town had a short memory. Now, we are right back where we were 6 
years ago. We cannot afford to backslide and wait for the same 
tragedies that occurred in Phoenix VA hospital and drove the 
popular bipartisan support behind the 2017 Accountability Act 
to repeat themselves before we act.
    Congress needs to restore the accountability at the VA. My 
bill will make changes and improvements to the 2017 law to make 
Congress's intent even clearer. This will allow the Secretary 
to be able to remove the small percentage, and I say that, a 
small percentage of employees who are hurting veterans in weeks 
or months rather than years. We owe it to the hard-working VA 
employees and our veterans to hold those at the VA not doing 
the right thing accountable. I look forward to the discussion 
here on my bill today and listening to witnesses here today. 
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Chairman Bost. I now recognize 
Representative Rosendale to speak on his bill, the Expediting 
Temporary Ratings for Veterans Act.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much Chairwoman Kiggans for 
holding this hearing. My legislation H.R. 196, the Expediting 
Temporary Ratings for Veterans Act would directly help some of 
the sickest veterans who depend most on VA disability 
compensation benefits.
    When a veteran is hospitalized for at least 21 days for a 
service-connected condition or illness, current law grants them 
a temporary increase in their disability rating to 100 percent. 
The problem is those rating increases may not be granted before 
the veteran leaves the hospital, or granted in the right 
amount, or granted at all. The Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) has documented widespread errors in a 2020 report. In 
their sample audit, 42 percent of eligible veterans had their 
benefits adjusted incorrectly or their claims improperly 
processed.
    When the VA makes a mistake and overpays the veteran, that 
overpayment is sometimes collected as a debt. That is 
unacceptable. The VA should not be hassling ailing veterans for 
the VA's own errors. The good news is we have everything that 
we need to solve this problem. The VA already has all the 
medical records information it needs to determine who is 
hospitalized. That is in an existing Electronic Health Record 
(EHR) system that is functioning. It is called Vista.
    The VA has been conducting a limited pilot program to 
automate these temporary total disability claims for certain 
veterans with cancer. My legislation would expand this 
successful pilot in 1 year to speed up claims processing for 
veterans hospitalized with all illnesses or conditions. Of all 
the VA benefits claims processes, I think this one is the best 
candidate for automation. Speed is critical, and the existing 
manual process tends to lag.
    It is also a relatively simple eligibility criteria that a 
computer is capable of handling. I want to point out what it is 
not. It is not the machines taking over. VA employees will 
continue to make every eligibility determination. They will 
always decide whether to accept or reject what the automation 
software proposes. It is also not automation of every claim. 
There will still be situations where the available medical 
evidence is not sufficient or that information is not 
compatible. Employees will process those claims manually.
    I think this is an idea whose time has come. We can use IT 
to make veterans' benefits more timely, accurate, and 
consistent. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Representative Rosendale. Before we 
get to testimony, I will introduce the witnesses on both 
panels. On the first panel, we have Mr. Lewis Ratchford, Chief 
Security Officer for the Office of Operations, Security and 
Preparedness at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is 
accompanied by Mr. Rondy Waye, Executive Director for Human 
Capital Programs at the Office of the Chief Human Capital 
Officer. Mr. Ray Tellez, Acting Assistant Deputy Under 
Secretary for Automated Benefits Delivery, and Angela Billups, 
Executive Director for the Office of Acquisition and Logistics. 
Also on the first panel, we have Mr. David Case, Deputy 
Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    On the second panel, we have Mr. Joshua Hastings, Veterans 
Benefits Policy Analyst for the American Legion, Mr. Patrick 
Murray, Director of the National Legislative Service for the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Clint Romesha, retired army staff 
sergeant, Medal of Honor recipient, an emeritus board member of 
America's Warrior's Partnership, and Ms. Terry Gerton, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Academy 
of Public Administration.
    I ask witnesses on the first panel to please stand and 
raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn]
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record 
reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    Mr. Ratchford, we will start with you. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes to provide your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF LEWIS RATCHFORD

    Mr. Ratchford. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking 
Member of Mrvan, Mr. Pappas, and other members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us here today to present 
our views on several bills that would affect VA programs and 
services. Joining me today are my--is Mr. Ray Tellez, Acting 
Deputy Under Secretary for Automated Benefits Delivery. Dr. 
Angela Billups, Executive Director, Office of Acquisition and 
Logistics, and Mr. Rondy Waye, Executive Director Human Capital 
Programs.
    Bills on the agenda today include those on expediting 
temporary ratings for veterans with service-connected 
disability that requires hospital treatment or observation more 
than 21 days; mandatory awareness training for VA employees on 
reporting and cooperating with the Office of the Inspector 
General; and annual security report regarding medical center 
police services and personnel.
    Additional bills on the agenda include the establishment of 
an acquisition review board for all major acquisition programs; 
amendments to Section 713 and 714 of Title 38 of the United 
States Code; and finally, a requirement that disability 
benefits questionnaires' results from non-VA clinicians are 
transmitted to VA in a machine-readable format.
    First, as it relates to H.R. 196, Expediting Temporary 
Ratings for Veterans Act, VA cites concerns with this bill, as 
the current automated information technology framework does not 
support automation of ratings. Due to the significant level of 
human adjudicated discretion needed for this type of medical 
association, a programmatic determination with technology 
solutions could lead to incorrect benefit determinations. 
Additionally, the bill requires modification to information 
technology solutions within 1 year of enactment. However, VA 
anticipates approximately 2 years to fully implement this act.
    The second bill, H.R. 2733, Department of Veterans Affairs 
Office of the Inspector General Training Act of 2023, would 
require OIG to develop training for VA employees. While VA 
appreciates the support of these efforts to train and educate 
employees and reporting misconduct fraud, waste, and abuse, the 
proposed legislation is redundant to existing VA mandatory 
training currently provided to all VA employees.
    Third, H.R. 3504, VA Medical Center Security Report Act of 
2023 would require an annual security survey to be completed by 
medical center police personnel and a report provided to both 
committees that address multiple components of VA law 
enforcement and security programs, relationships with local law 
enforcement organizations, and efforts to address criminal 
activity at or near the medical centers. VA is committed to 
providing a safe and secure environment for our workforce, 
veterans, and all who engage with the VA in our facilities. As 
such, VA supports this bill, subject to necessary 
appropriations, as a measure to complement the current police 
inspection program.
    Fourth, H.R. 4225, VA Acquisition Review Board Act of 2023, 
would amend 38 USC by directing VA to establish an acquisition 
review board for all major acquisition programs. The bill will 
establish a program management framework for all major 
acquisitions and non-major acquisitions at the discretion of 
the Deputy Secretary. VA supports this bill if amended and 
subject to appropriations.
    Fifth, H.R. 4278, Restore Department of Veterans Affairs 
Accountability Act would amend Section 713 and 714 of Title 38 
USC, codified, for the VA Accountability and Whistleblower's 
Protection Act of 2017. VA does not support this bill. A part 
of ensuring veterans have trust and confidence in the VA is 
holding employees accountable for misconduct and poor 
performance. We are confident that the authorities currently 
available to the VA are sufficient to hold employees 
accountable for misconduct and poor performance.
    Last, Modernizing Department of Veterans Affairs Disability 
Benefit Questionnaires Act would require the transmission of 
Disability Benefit Questionnaires, results from non-VA 
clinicians to VA in a machine-readable format within 180 of 
enactment. VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to 
the availability of appropriations. The bill will help further 
VA's automation initiatives, and it would enable VA to identify 
instances of fraud and ensure the completeness of the 
questionnaires.
    Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to present 
VA's views on the draft bills. This concludes my statement and 
I would be happy to answer any of your questions members of the 
committee may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Lewis Ratchford Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. The written statement of Mr. Ratchford will be 
entered into the hearing record. Mr. Case, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes to provide your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID CASE

    Mr. Case. Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and 
subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 
the need for H.R. 2733. This bill would greatly enhance OIG 
oversight by requiring new VA employees to receive training 
within 1 year that focuses on their responsibilities to 
promptly report crimes and serious wrongdoing to the OIG and to 
cooperatively engage with its staff. It also allows the 
Inspector General to send at least two messages annually 
through VA's email system to all personnel to enable direct 
communications.
    We thank Representatives Underwood, Womack, Pappas, and 
Dave Joyce for introducing this very important bill. We also 
gratefully acknowledge that in September 2021, Secretary 
McDonough required current and incoming employees to complete 
one time OIG training within a year. An important step in 
improving VA's culture of accountability. The OIG has not 
always had this level of support and cooperation. That is why 
legislation is still needed to make certain the training 
mandate is institutionalized and not reliant on the decisions 
of future VA secretaries.
    The OIG is aware that the Senate is considering changes to 
S1096, the Senate companion bill, and we do not object to the 
changes. Through the IG Act, Congress authorized the OIG to 
request any information or assistance from the Department 
necessary to carry out its duties which includes prompt access 
to employees, facilities, systems, and equipment. While the 
vast majority of the OIG's interactions with VA personnel are 
positive, some employees have been given direction contrary to 
the IG Act, such as being told that they cannot share 
information with OIG staff without first clearing it through 
supervisors.
    In other instances, VA personnel have provided incomplete, 
significantly delayed, or misleading information. For example, 
on a project related to the efficacy of the user training on 
the new electronic health record system, the OIG team 
repeatedly asked for raw data but received summarized 
information that was incorrect. It was leaders' carelessness, 
though unintentional, that produced far more favorable 
statistics on training outcomes than was accurate. If not 
detected, may have been reported by the OIG to Congress and the 
public.
    VA employees' prompt and accurate reporting of a suspected 
wrongdoing will save lives. For instance, a former Arkansas 
pathologist worked while impaired for years before a medical 
facility employee reported him to an OIG inspector onsite for a 
routine review. An intensive OIG criminal investigation led to 
the pathologist receiving a 20-year prison sentence for actions 
leading to the misdiagnosis of approximately 3,000 patients 
with three related deaths.
    VA personnel at every level and in any position can 
identify and address the misuse and waste of millions of 
dollars each year by knowing how and what to report to the OIG. 
In one case, a purchasing agent uncovered a fraud scheme 
involving a medical facility chief steering a contract that 
resulted in more than half a million dollars in losses for VA. 
A senior VA leader thwarted a vendor trying to sell more than 
800 million dollars of non-existent face masks and ventilators 
to VA during the pandemic by reporting suspicions to the OIG.
    There are more examples of missing opportunities to protect 
veterans and VA resources with one common denominator. Many VA 
personnel did not promptly report potential crimes or problems 
with systems that affect the quality of services and care to 
veterans because they lack information on when and how to do 
so. That can change. As of June 26, 2023, over 385,000 VA 
personnel have taken the OIG developed one time training that 
VA Secretary McDonough mandated. Only about 1.6 percent 
surveyed after the training disagreed or strongly disagreed 
that it was useful. That effort must continue as VA ramps up 
its hiring of new employees.
    In closing, the OIG appreciates the support this committee, 
and the full House demonstrated in passing similar legislation 
in the 117th Congress. H.R. 2733 would educate all VA employees 
on the OIG, an independent oversight agency outside VA 
reporting lines. We strongly believe that this training will 
empower VA staff to contact the OIG when they encounter 
potential instances of fraud, waste, abuse, or gross 
mismanagement. Chairwoman Kiggans, I would be happy to answer 
any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may 
have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of David Case Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Case. The written statement of 
Mr. Case will be entered into the hearing record. We will now 
turn questions, and I would like to recognize Mr. Takano first 
for his remarks and questions for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you so much, Chair Kiggans, for your 
courtesy. Chairman Bost, it was a wonderful delight to spend 
some time with you over the break. My first question is for Mr. 
Waye. With the ongoing implementation of the Honoring our PACT 
Act, VA needs all the help it can get to fully staff its 
workforce. Are you concerned that H.R. 4278 by limiting civil 
service protections could deter applicants from seeking 
employment at VA or discourage qualified individuals from 
taking on supervisory or leadership roles within the 
Department?
    Mr. Waye. Good afternoon. Thank you for the question. Yes, 
I am. I specifically say that because the Act, Section 712, 
talks about applying to all supervisors. Sometimes when we talk 
about supervisors or leadership positions, we have a tendency 
to think that we are talking about senior executive service 
(SES) members, maybe GS-15s, GS-14s. In this case, we are 
talking about all supervisors. Within the VA, we have roughly 
47,000 supervisors, approximately 35,000 or so would be covered 
by Section 712. Many of these supervisors we are talking about 
wage grade supervisors ranging from WS-1 to WS-16, and also 
supervisors in grades as low as GS-5, and obviously up to GS-
15.
    Number one, we are talking about accountability. We are 
talking about lower-level employees. One, I think this it would 
deter current employees from being interested in fleeting up to 
supervisory positions and also deter employees from outside the 
VA coming to the VA knowing that they have limited appeal 
rights.
    Mr. Takano. Just to kind of clarify, I mean, a lot of 
members of the public do not understand, GS, this or that, but 
we can think of people who are like majors, colonels, all up to 
general, and but we are talking about often case people who 
might be non-commissioned officers at the sergeant level, 
right? If you think of VA is not a uniformed service----
    Mr. Waye. That is correct.
    Mr. Takano [continuing]. but to give some idea, then we 
talk about 40,000 supervisors out there, they are--sometimes 
are very. This legislation, help us understand the way in which 
it would disincentivize or discourage people, discourage 
qualified people, kind of unpack that a little more for me, 
just what--why would someone not want to step forward to be a 
supervisor under this proposed law?
    Mr. Waye. Well, I guess if you think about it like this, 
and first, you are absolutely right in in terms of your follow 
up. We would be talking about lower-level employees on the GS 
and civilian side, which would be equivalent to enlisted 
personnel, for example, E-4, E-5, E-6 in the military.
    Specifically, what I am referring to here is essentially 
these employees would be treated very similar to the way senior 
executive service members are treated right now under the 
current act, which is 713, which basically means they would 
have, you know, limited appeal rights, inability go to the 
Merit System Protection Board, you know, et cetera. For them to 
look at that and say, hey, I am coming in, I am losing rights 
that maybe I would have right now or entitlements I would have 
in serving in another position at another location in the 
Federal Government, I would not have that, you know, were I to 
take a job with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Mr. Takano. How many employees currently covered under 
Section 714 of Title 38 stand to see their civil service 
protections severely limited if H.R. 4278 is enacted? Do you 
have an idea, the numbers?
    Mr. Waye. Well, right now we are talking about for, if we 
do the carve out for their supervisors, we are talking about a 
number of let us say about 35,000 for a carve out of 
supervisors. Obviously the 714 overall, you know, applies to a 
larger group. 712, approximately 35,000 supervisors.
    Mr. Takano. Well, essentially, they become at will almost 
because at will employees, fired at will, because they lack the 
protections that they currently have and that is kind of what 
we see at the senior executive level is people that are more 
easily dismissed. Is that correct?
    Mr. Waye. Well, certainly more easily in terms of one, 
there would be a lower level of evidence required, substantial 
versus----
    Mr. Takano. All right, it is not quite at will, I mean, 
that would be----
    Mr. Waye. Right, right.
    Mr. Takano. Yes.
    Mr. Waye. It would be a lower level of evidence required. 
We would go from preponderance of the evidence to substantial 
evidence. Then we are talking about limited appeal rights in 
terms of--so, we are talking about the overall due process 
would be different for them than other Federal employees.
    Mr. Takano. Well, Mr. Waye, my time has run out. I 
certainly appreciate the chair's courtesy again and thank you.
    Mr. Waye. Thank you.
    Mr. Takano. I yield.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you very much, Mr. Takano. Now I will 
yield 5 minutes to myself for questions. Mr. Ratchford, I am 
glad to hear that the VA supports the VA Medical Center Report 
Act. You, your team, and the VA police officers across the 
country are the ones keeping VA employees and veterans safe. My 
hope is that my bill will give Congress more insight into the 
unique situation at each medical center so we can help you and 
your team do your job. Can you explain to me the importance of 
understanding the recruiting, training, and security challenges 
that are unique to each medical center?
    Mr. Ratchford. Thank you for that question. The men and 
women of the Department of Veterans Affairs protect our medical 
centers as special agents as police officers as inspectors, and 
canine handlers, work very hard every day. The challenges we 
have right now is across the portfolio when you look at law 
enforcement across the country, right now in this date and 
time, law enforcement across the United States, perhaps the 
globe, is facing very hard situations as far as retaining 
personnel and adapting to the new environment.
    Just as our local medical centers are seeing increases in 
violence, so are the communities in which we belong to are also 
seeing these same increases in violence. Working with partners 
such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), other 
international law enforcement organizations, advocate 
organizations, we are able to work together to share practices 
and share trends that we are identifying to create better 
recruitment models to identify what we need in the current 
environment to improve policing, and to make sure that we have 
the adequate number of personnel protecting our facilities, 
veterans, and all located on those grounds.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. It sounds like your 3-year 
inspection cycle is focused on external evaluations, and my 
bill would require medical centers to self-report their 
security and police report status. Does your office currently 
collect and track self-reported data?
    Mr. Ratchford. Yes, we do. Not in a formal process of a 
formal survey, such as this bill is suggesting, but we do 
collect data from individual officers informally throughout the 
reporting process.
    Ms. Kiggans. Just nothing formally.
    Mr. Ratchford. That is correct, ma'am.
    Ms. Kiggans. A key component of my bill is reporting from 
the medical centers on police vacancies. Earlier this year, I 
visited the Hampton VA Medical Center and I was told at that 
time they did not have a chief or deputy chief of police. I 
understand that recruiting is difficult, but how often do 
medical centers have vacancies, especially in senior leadership 
positions?
    Mr. Ratchford. It varies, ma'am. It varies from location to 
location. We currently have 139 police services across the 
United States, and they all are unique in their recruitment 
challenges as it pertains not only to their senior positions, 
but also to their junior ranks as well.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. Mr. Tellez, what efforts is the VA 
currently taking to make the review of DBQs submitted by non-VA 
clinicians more efficient?
    Mr. Tellez. Thank you, chairwoman, for your question. One 
of the things that we are doing to make them more efficient is 
we accepted them in paper. We are scanning them, digitizing 
them, and we are scraping the data looking for some of the data 
elements to track for anomalies, activities, for fraud, such as 
that. Connecting, you know, where a veteran lives to where they 
may have seen a provider. That is an area that we are focused 
on right now with that.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member 
Mrvan for his opening remarks and 5 minutes of questions.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF FRANK J. MRVAN, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans. I am pleased the 
subcommittee is considering my legislation H.R. 4225, the VA 
Acquisition Review Board Act of 2023. This bill is based on 
numerous oversight hearings I chaired last Congress which 
focused on several struggling IT modernization projects at the 
VA. No matter the project, whether it is electronic health 
records, supply chain system, human resource system, or 
financial management system, VA has been trying unsuccessfully 
for decades to modernize key IT systems. The common thread 
between these projects and their lack of progress has been the 
lack of acquisition, accountability, and management.
    As we discovered with the VA's recent decision to abandon 
the Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support (DMLSS) supply 
chain modernization project, all of the authority to pause or 
cancel a program that is not meeting requirements at VA lies 
solely with the Secretary. Programs have been allowed to 
flounder, go off task, lag in schedule, and result in cost 
overruns because there have been no formal checks and balances 
within the VA. This legislation will provide a structure for 
those checks and balances. It creates a formal acquisition 
review board chaired by the Deputy Secretary and will require 
meetings and decision points to determine whether the 
Department has considered the essential cost, schedule, and 
scope information to begin and proceed with each major 
acquisition.
    The board will track the progress in major acquisitions and 
ensure that programs remain on time and on budget. If not, 
there will be the ability to pause, fix, or cancel a program. 
VA is currently undertaking billions of dollars in 
modernization efforts across the Department. This includes the 
Veteran Benefits Management System. We were able to achieve 
something historic last Congress with the passage of the PACT 
Act.
    My bill H.R. 4225 will help ensure that IT modernization 
for delivery of those benefits is done effectively. Toxic 
exposed veterans do not have decades to wait for VA to figure 
out a solution to modernizing Veterans Benefits Management 
System (VBMS) and we should do everything in our power to 
ensure it is done right the first time. Veterans, employees, 
and taxpayers deserve better. Not only are these failures 
incredibly expensive, but we are doing veterans a disservice by 
not providing them better access to care and benefits.
    I know my colleagues across the aisle are just as 
interested as I am in efficient and effective government and 
providing better results to veterans. Knowing that VA has put 
the work in and has adequate justification for these 
acquisitions will give Congress confidence to make necessary 
investments because we must modernize our IT systems. This 
legislation is a good first step, and I hope my colleagues will 
support it. I, of course, look forward to discussing the other 
bills on today's agenda, including Chairman Bost's H.R. 4278, 
the Restore the VA Accountability Act, which seeks to clarify 
authorities to discipline VA employees that were originally 
established in 2017.
    Since I was not yet serving in Congress when the original 
VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act was enacted, 
I am glad Ranking Member Takano was able to join us today to 
share with his perspective on the Congress's intent with the 
original law. I understand VA and the stakeholders have raised 
a number of concerns about H.R. 4278, so I hope the 
subcommittee can fully consider those today. I know our union 
partners are very concerned about the impact a bill like this 
will have, not only on its supervisors, but in all VA 
employees, to include police officers. Before we advance 
legislation like this, I feel we need to fully understand how 
it will impact rank and file employees. The last thing VA needs 
is for Congress to create further barriers to recruiting and 
retaining highly qualified employees. With that Chairwoman 
Kiggans, I will yield back. I do.
    Ms. Billups, I appreciate VA supporting the acquisition 
review board legislation, and appreciate the comments provided. 
Can you explain for the committee how this legislation will 
support your ongoing efforts to improve acquisition at VA? 
Specifically, can you speak to the work that you are already 
working on implementing?
    Ms. Billups. Thank you for the question and good afternoon, 
everyone. Yes, some of the things that we are working on at VA 
is actually building an acquisition life cycle framework and 
building that for the purposes of modernizing acquisition 
management at the VA. The acquisition life cycle framework, it 
starts from the budget and whoever the executive is that owns 
that vision for that new program or that mission area. Some of 
the things that we found that was missing, which was one of the 
reasons why we really appreciate this legislation, is because 
anytime you get ready to spend appropriated fund dollars for 
the purposes of a program, someone has to start that business 
case. Someone has to present that in a way so that the 
leadership, meaning the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary, 
really understands how these programs are going to impact VA 
and the overall VA mission.
    For that reason, this piece of legislation is really 
filling a critical gap that we have right now. We do have the 
acquisition life cycle framework which started with the chief 
acquisition officer as the approver, and now this is moving 
back to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary. That is 
something in my estimation that is needed. It is also something 
that was recommended by Government Accountability Office (GAO). 
GAO recently did a study on VA major acquisition programs and 
non-major acquisition programs, and even though they said that 
the acquisition life cycle framework that we have developed, it 
is going well, but they did not feel like VA had enough 
structure there to support the acquisition lifecycle framework. 
With this legislation, I think we have a complete picture, it 
is something that we can start working on right away, and it 
will be something that will improve acquisition management 
throughout the entire Department.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. Can you let the committee know why 
this is an important initiative for your office, given the 
years of frustrating results, we have seen with large 
acquisitions at VA?
    Ms. Billups. I think it is really because this legislation 
from my perspective, it gets back to the heart of where these 
programs start and who is that real executive that is in 
charge. A lot of times, we go to Federal Acquisition Certified 
(FAC) certified program and project managers. Those individuals 
are not the ones that own the mission area. They are not the 
one that sets the vision for the mission area. They are not the 
one that set objectives for the mission areas. Those executives 
who own these mission areas, they need to be a part of that 
process and not just at the beginning, but throughout the 
process, because that is one of the reasons why the programs, 
and it is not just at VA, but this is one of the reasons why 
programs fail because a lot of times people say, you know, this 
person is a FAC certified program manager. Someone has to own 
this, someone has to know what happens in the program for 
suicide preventions when those objectives are not being met.
    Someone has to be focusing on the big picture at all times 
with support from those individuals that are a part of the 
acquisition workforce with support from the Chief Financial 
Officer (CFO), the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and 
everyone that is a part of the programs. This particular 
legislation will allow us to build a structure that we are 
calling an enterprise program management structure that will be 
used for both major and non-major programs. Like I said, it 
will fill a critical gap. I know it would make a difference 
simply because we have examples now of how, where that 
executive who is in charge of these programs is not there at 
the table and the stakeholders are not understood, and that is 
another reason why some of these programs are failing.
    Mr. Mrvan. I see that you have also emphasized the need for 
more resources to implement this bill, which I think are 
appropriate. Could you please explain how not fully resourcing 
this effort and the current acquisition reform efforts in your 
office will impact your ability to adequately monitor and 
oversee large acquisitions.
    Ms. Billups. One of the things that we have now, there are 
some skill gaps at the VA. One of the things that we are doing, 
we are assessing the current skills because what I found is 
that people are used to working the way that they have worked, 
but with the results that we are seeing, it is fully understood 
that some of the things that people have been doing is not 
working.
    There are skills that are missing at the VA, and so that is 
one of the things that it will fill. We also need to look at, 
get training to the executives who own these missions, I call 
them non-acquisition professionals, but they are definitely 
part of the acquisition community simply because they are the 
ones that make the decisions about the programs. They have the 
funding. They make a decision from a life cycle perspective. 
Are they going to use Federal employees to get the work done 
for the program? Are they going to do a grant? Or are they 
going to look at a sister agency for a shared service? Or are 
they going to go to industry, which is where the acquisition 
process really begins. It is many, many types of skill sets 
that we need as well as to train that community from an 
acquisition community perspective and not just the acquisition 
workforce.
    Mr. Mrvan. Ms. Billups, I thank you very much. With that, I 
yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Bost, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Waye, what evidence 
do you have to prove that VA's current availability authorities 
are sufficient to hold employees accountable for misconduct or 
poor performance?
    Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. When assessing the 
situation, we look at when we think of accountability, we look 
at a holistic approach in terms of actions taken across our 
entire population. From Fiscal Year 2016 to the present, we 
have taken approximately 39,000 actions against VA employees, 
roughly, you know, 4,900 to 5,000 a year on average. We have 
been consistent, you know, with that number prior to the 
Accountability Act and up until this point. Again, we believe 
we have the tools necessary to take action against employees.
    Mr. Bost. Maybe you can explain since you gave those dates. 
Can you explain to me why there is such a huge hit dip in your 
disciplinary actions before the VA had passed the 
Accountability Act and now after they quit using it?
    Mr. Waye. Well----
    Mr. Bost. I mean, the charts are clear.
    Mr. Waye. Okay. There was an initial uptick and again I am 
talking about an average overall during that period of time. 
There was an initial uptick with the Accountability Act and 
there was a significant focus during that time in terms of 
holding employees accountable. One, we think over time, we do a 
better job of bringing in high quality employees that do not 
require disciplinary action.
    Mr. Bost. Yes.
    Mr. Waye. We only take action when it is necessary to 
address misconduct and/or poor performance.
    Mr. Bost. Let me ask this. The VA's position then is that 
we do not need or want the authorities in Section 714, 38, 
right? You do not need or want them.
    Mr. Waye. No. What we are saying is, and keep in mind, we 
are saying we are satisfied with the authorities that we have 
tied to the Accountability Act. We are still using 713, as you 
know, but we do not need----
    Mr. Bost. 714, 38.
    Mr. Waye. Right. That is correct.
    Mr. Bost. When Representative Takano asked you about 714, 
38, and that you used it, he said that you were using it, but 
you have not been using it for some time. Is that correct?
    Mr. Waye. 714?
    Mr. Bost. 714.
    Mr. Waye. We paused 714, that is correct.
    Mr. Bost. That is not using it. Correct.
    Mr. Waye. Right.
    Mr. Bost. Yes.
    Mr. Waye. We paused that back in April, that is correct.
    Mr. Bost. All right. Just so you know, I have been 
investigating a situation in Southern California where an 
incredibly problematic employee could not be removed, by the 
way he is a GS-7, under traditional authorities. I was informed 
by a senior VA official that that VA--that the VA should have 
used Section 714 to remove that individual. Do you agree with 
that?
    Mr. Waye. I would have to--a couple of things. One, I 
think, you know, every situation we look at on a case-by-case 
basis. Our position is this. You know, we know that there are 
cases from time to time that maybe are highlighted saying it 
takes too long to take action or remove an employee. Our 
position is, that is not due to lack of authority to take 
action. We have the full authorities that we need----
    Mr. Bost. You are just choosing not to take action?
    Mr. Waye. No, sir. What I am saying is this is that most of 
the time that there appears to be a delay in taking action, is 
on the front end. In other words, typically when there is 
misconduct, we have to conduct an investigation. The more 
significant the charges are, the more egregious the case, 
typically, the longer the investigation takes. Certainly, I 
think all understand that it is necessary to do a thorough 
investigation in order to support any action that we take in 
the future. That delay on the front end would be there whether 
we are using 714, 713, or Title 5.
    Mr. Bost. Because I am running out of time and I do not 
want to run out of time. I really do want to get to these 
questions.
    Mr. Waye. Sure.
    Mr. Bost. The VA's written testimony had said that the VA 
is concerned about the bill defining which factors the 
Department could consider when deciding whether to discipline 
an employee. However, VA's testimony, it does not list a single 
additional factor that they would believe they should be 
considered. Now, I am always willing to listen, that is why we 
do this. Nobody has given me any suggestions of what you should 
add to the list, nor have you said that. You said, no, never 
mind, we do not want this. Now, what do you think that looks 
like to the veterans, and the people who know that there are 
people. Look, you have bad employees everywhere. That is just 
the way life is.
    Mr. Waye. Sure.
    Mr. Bost. Okay? I am not anti-union, believe me I was a 
union firefighter. Something your agency then needs to get back 
to us so that we can help you straighten out the problems that 
exist in the VA that we hear about from our veterans, that we 
hear about from the employees that you just said, you said, oh, 
this goes all the way down to lower-level employees. Well, you 
know what, some of the people that are talking about this are 
the lower-level employees saying how frustrated with the VA not 
being able to discipline and get rid of bad employees. That is 
a problem. I would love to hear your suggestions.
    Mr. Waye. Well, a couple of things. As I said earlier, sir, 
whenever there is a delay, I can assure you it is not we do not 
have the authority to take action. Typically, again, it is an 
investigation. Once an investigation is completed, of course, 
we have to go through due process, which includes a proposal, 
an opportunity to respond, and then the deciding official 
assessing that information and making an appropriate 
determination. The outcome is not always removal. I mean, that 
is the purpose of due process is to, you know, look at the 
charges and the specifications, and for a deciding official to 
make an appropriate determination. That is obviously a 
fundamental part of due process.
    What I can assure you is that, you know, when there are 
egregious actions and they warrant removal, we have the 
authorities to affect those actions and to successfully defend 
them as needed.
    Mr. Bost. My time has run out, but I am going to say this.
    Mr. Waye. Sure.
    Mr. Bost. I will always protect the veteran over a 
bureaucrat. Always know that. The frustration that we are 
feeling with the reports we are getting back is why we are 
pushing forward with this. I would love your input to say, 
Okay, maybe we should do this or do that. It was working. It 
was working for 2 years it worked very well, and then the 
others got involved. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Waye. Thank you.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Chairman Bost. I now recognize 
Representative Pappas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pappas. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 
testimony of the panel here today, and Mr. Case, I wanted to 
start with you. I really appreciate the value that the Office 
of Inspector General adds and obviously plays a critical role 
in helping to identify waste, fraud, and abuse at VA.
    I have heard from many VA employees in New Hampshire where 
I am from who are unaware of the role of the Inspector General. 
It is one of the reasons why I was proud to help reintroduce 
along with Representative Underwood, the VA OIG Training Act, 
which requires all VA employees to complete training developed 
by OIG that is focused on reporting to and cooperating with 
OIG. The requirements set forth in the bill go a long way to 
increasing awareness of VA's OIG Services. It reassures VA 
employees that they will be protected if they report 
wrongdoing. It returns that investment back to VA by protecting 
both our veterans and taxpayer dollars.
    While VA issued a directive in 2021, which was a positive 
step forward that requires VA employees to complete training 
within their first year. Without the training requirement 
signed into law, it could easily be rolled back at some point 
in the future. Mr. Case, you alluded to this in your testimony, 
the need to memorialize this in law. I am just wondering if you 
could comment a little bit further on the bill, VA says that 
this is unnecessary and redundant. Do you see it that way? 
Could you speak to the importance of this training moving 
forward?
    Mr. Case. I would be happy to. First, let me again thank 
Secretary McDonough for his support of the training that is in 
existence now. We believe strongly that this legislation is 
necessary and critical so that the training can be 
institutionalized. Future secretaries who may have different 
priorities, different approaches cannot change the mandate. 
That is the critical reason for having this training.
    As to its redundancy, VA employees who have taken the 
current training would not have to take it again. The provision 
in the training, 2F, that has caused some confusion simply 
underscores that the OIG's independence is impaired if its own 
training is not distinct from internal VA offices, such as 
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP).
    Now, we will continue to work with the VA's education team 
to ensure the training is kept current and accounts for the 
survey responses of those who have taken the training and their 
feedback. We do not believe there is a redundancy here that in 
fact there is an importance to having the training memorialized 
so that VA leaders in the future who do have or may have 
different priorities do not alter the mandate.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you. I agree with that premise, which is 
why I have helped introduce this legislation and hope we can 
get a positive result in this Congress. I am wondering you 
mentioned the OAWP training for instance, there is a lot of 
training out there. Could you talk about how the OIG training 
differs from say the training by OAWP?
    Mr. Case. Again, I would be happy to. The OIG training that 
is in existence is specific to our independent oversight 
function. By having the separate training from internal VA 
offices like OAWP, it is clear to those taking the training 
that the OIG handles complaints outside the VA reporting lines. 
Moreover, the OIG has a broader mandate than OAWP and the other 
VA offices. The best example is that the OIG investigates 
potential crimes and has broader powers.
    Our training references, as they currently exist, the VA 
offices where appropriate, but our training, the OIG training 
is complimentary not duplicative of that other training.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for those comments. I am going to 
pivot to another issue. I want to thank Chairwoman Kiggans for 
her leadership in drafting the VA Medical Center Security 
Report Act, which I was happy to cosponsor. As a former chair 
of this subcommittee, I appreciate the intent of this bill, 
which is to ensure that our VA police officers have the 
resources they need to protect veterans at our VA facilities. 
The bill focuses on medical centers, and I know from my own 
district that we have got community-based outpatient clinics, a 
regional Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) office. Mr. 
Ratchford, I am wondering if you could talk about just the 
security profile across VA facilities and whether it might be 
worthwhile expanding the scope of this legislation to fully 
capture the security needs that are out there among a variety 
of different VA facilities?
    Mr. Ratchford. Thank you for that question. VA police 
officers are committed to not only protecting VA medical 
centers, are protecting all VA properties to include the 
national cemeteries, as well as our outpatient clinics. We have 
a protection scheme for all of our resources across all the 
administrations that fall within that category of VA property. 
We will welcome any support we can get to beef up the ability 
we have to provide a security blanket, as well as the agility 
to respond quickly.
    As you know, many facilities within VA are spread across 
vast numbers of miles from other facilities, where the medical 
center is the hub. That is where our police officers operate 
from. That is where our police stations are located. Often they 
have to drive a very long way to get to those other facilities 
that we are committed to protecting. Representative Pappas, 
anything that you can provide or suggest or the subcommittee 
could provide to help us and give us the agility and capability 
we need to be more efficient, we will welcome.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you. I believe the reporting in 
this bill is absolutely essential to move forward and 
appreciate those comments. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. The chair now 
recognizes Representative Bergman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. I--number one, 
thanks to all of you for being here. When we have these kind of 
get togethers, sometimes we have to ask tough questions and we 
expect to get tough answers, because what we are talking about 
here is more than a little complex. As I look at all your name 
tags and your job description, if I was to boil it down, we got 
security, we got human capital, we got automated benefits 
delivery, acquisition, logistics, and IG represented. You all 
have uniquely different, you know, missions in what you have to 
accomplish.
    Mr. Case, as the IG, nobody wants to hear from the IG. I 
can remember that from my military days. If the IG's calling 
you, it is usually not a good day. Even if they are calling you 
for a reference on one of the people under your command. How 
long does the disciplinary process for VA employees using your 
existing authorities take? I guess maybe if, you know, human 
capital plays a role in this too, but you have to do the 
investigation, you have to do all of that. Has that time pretty 
much stayed steady over time, or has it increased? What are 
your thoughts?
    Mr. Case. Yes, General, from the OIG perspective, we 
investigate fraud, waste, and abuse. In that process, we will 
sometimes find problematic employees. Our reports typically, 
when we find that, we will detail what the issues are, what the 
problems have been. We do not have the power to actually 
discipline ourselves. That is within the purview of the VA. We 
will provide those reports to the VA, typically with the 
recommendation that they consider the----
    Mr. Bergman. Let me ask you a question, because we get----
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. would you like to see that 
process shortened and could it be done?
    Mr. Case. Well, our process we move as fast as we can.
    Mr. Bergman. Yes.
    Mr. Case. How VA moves against employees or considers it--
--
    Mr. Bergman. I am not trying to ask you to get into 
others----
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. but and you are good to go with 
how you do your piece of that pie.
    Mr. Case. We are.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Then in that case, you know Dr. Billups, 
as human capital, do you believe that a disciplinary process 
that is plagued with delays----
    Ms. Billups. Human capital is Mr. Waye.
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. and non-action has any impact on 
recruiting? Did I get that right?
    Ms. Billups. Yes, human capital is Mr. Waye.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Maybe I got my names wrong then. Let me 
see. Got it. No, no, no. Who is from--oh, I am sorry, you are 
right. You know another perfect day down the tube. I made it 
until what time, 3:30? Damn. Okay. Let me try this again.
    Mr. Waye, same question. Do you believe that basically 
disciplinary process, because of the length of time, does it 
hurt--does it have an impact on recruiting and retention?
    Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. Well, first, the 
timeframe, you know, when we think about the timeframe for 
disciplinary adverse action, they are actually quite similar 
under 714 and Chapter 75. For example----
    Mr. Bergman. Yes.
    Mr. Waye [continuing]. 714----
    Mr. Bergman. My question is, does as all the numbers you 
give me----
    Mr. Waye. Sure.
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. and all the processes, does it 
have an impact on recruiting and retention? Regardless of what 
numbers we are talking about, does it have an impact? Now that 
I think I have got your job title right----
    Mr. Waye. Correct.
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. you are the guy that tries to get 
good people hired.
    Mr. Waye. That is correct.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Does it have an impact, because things 
take so long, on your ability to recruit and retain?
    Mr. Waye. Well----
    Mr. Bergman. Yes or no? I mean, bottom line is could be no.
    Mr. Waye. I guess it could impact it. It could have an 
impact.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Then, let me kind of transition here 
because my time is running out. You know, one of the goals of 
the Modernizing VA Disability Benefits Questionnaires Act, boy, 
we need to shorten that one is to shorten how long it takes a 
veteran to get disability benefits that they rate, you know, by 
facilitating the automatic processing of the DBOs. We will 
shorten that up. How do technical hurdles like DBOs that cannot 
be automatically processed as well as accidental errors, how 
does that contribute to the backlog?
    Mr. Waye. I am just trying to get to clarify the question, 
sir. The----
    Mr. Bergman. I tell you what, I can give it to you and you 
can----
    Mr. Waye. How does discipline----
    Mr. Bergman [continuing]. take it for the record. Bottom 
line is you are trying to--the Disability Benefits 
Questionnaires Act, we are trying to automate things.
    Mr. Ratchford. I think that is a question for Ray.
    Mr. Waye. Yes, I believe that may be a question for----
    Mr. Ratchford. Yes.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Which one does that fall under?
    Mr. Waye. Automated benefits are Mr. Tellez.
    Mr. Bergman. Of course. Okay. You know, could we simplify 
the--I see my time is up. I am not going to waste anybody's 
time. I am easily confused. It is hard enough to figure out and 
navigate what is going on at the VA. Think of the veteran, the 
average marine, which Mr. Bost and I, are, you know, we have 
all the challenges we can, so we are trying to figure out ways 
to help from this dais to get those veterans, the benefits, in 
the expeditious nature. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you very much, Mr. Bergman. 
Representative Rosendale, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. 
Ratchford, in your testimony, you stated that we are confident 
that the authorities are sufficient to hold employees 
accountable for misconduct and poor performance. We do not 
believe any legislation is necessary right now to ensure 
accountability. Then why is the VA not holding bad employees 
accountable quickly if you have the authority? I do not know if 
this is better for Mr. Waye or you, either.
    Mr. Waye. Yes, thank you for the question. We absolutely 
are holding bad employees accountable whenever misconduct 
occurs or there is poor performance. We are doing that using 
our existing authorities, including Title 5, Chapter 75 or and 
Chapter 43.
    Mr. Rosendale. One of the things that I do not understand 
is if that, the existing process, I think it is 714 was the new 
Accountability Act that had been passed, does not give you any 
additional ability to hold poor performers accountable, then 
why everybody is pushing back so hard against it? Why are we 
just ignoring it? That is not--that is just a rhetorical 
question. I do not understand why we are pushing so hard 
against it if it does not have any impact, because I can tell 
you if something does not have any impact on me, I do not worry 
about it too much. It just seems awful strange.
    As I hold a report here that was done on Fort Harrison just 
recently, what I will tell you is we have a tough time getting 
rid of bad apples. We really do. I am just going to read a 
couple of statements from this report because it has not been 
all put into the record yet and made public. Senior leadership, 
senior leadership decided to hire this employee despite 
multiple national provider data bank reports, medical license 
restrictions, and a significant malpractice settlement, which 
represents an error in judgment by multiple senior leaders. The 
former employee at Fort Harrison failed to meet standards of 
care on multiple occasions. Exceeded their clinical privileges 
and exceeded the scope of care, the scope of care provided at 
Ford Harrison. There was no ongoing professional practice 
evaluation for the former employee during their tenure at Fort 
Harrison. Then we have the statement that really concerns me, 
and I know that Fort Harrison is not unique to this experience. 
That is, we found violations of the VHA policy and a 
significant risk to public health and safety related to the 
previous employee practice and oversight of programs intended 
to ensure continued competence of credentialed and privileged 
providers.
    Do not tell me that you are doing enough with the previous 
legislation. You are putting veterans' health at risk. We have 
got reports that say so. To try and turn back the clocks of 
time, and not give us the tools that are available to make sure 
that the veterans get the benefits that they deserve, and the 
healthcare, the highest quality healthcare that they have 
earned, is absolutely appalling. It is appalling. It upsets 
everybody on this panel.
    In 2017, the Accountability Act led to a 50 percent 
increase in removal actions, which contributed to veterans VA-
wide trust scores increasing from 59 percent in 2016 to 80 
percent in 2020. The Biden administration has decided to stop 
enforcing this bipartisan law.
    I was very proud to cosponsor Chairman Bost's Restore the 
VA Accountability Act. I am very concerned that if we do not 
pass this bill, it will result in trust scores going down. 
Veterans support this legislation. Veterans support this 
legislation. That is what we are concerned with. We are here to 
protect the veterans, not the Veterans Administration. No 
offense intended. What concrete steps are you taking to ensure 
that the VA-wide trust scores do not decrease?
    Mr. Waye. Well, thank you for the question. A couple of 
things. One, we, regarding the action that the case that you 
spoke of earlier, again, I can assure you that if there is a 
situation that needs to be addressed, it can be addressed under 
existing laws, rules, and has the potential----
    Mr. Rosendale. As Chairman Bost said, well then why are not 
you because it is not being taken care of.
    Mr. Waye. We are certainly happy to, you know, discuss 
offline in terms of the specific individual case, but overall, 
we do have the authorities that we need. I will say this, we 
used 714, really, as long as we could. As you know, our reason 
for pausing 714 is because of the ongoing case decisions that 
we received from the various administrative tribunals and the 
courts. You know, we got to a point where that it was really 
not usable for the majority of our workforce. It only applied 
to about 75,000. Our concern now is that if we go back and try 
to revise the legislation that we will spend the next few years 
addressing some of the same court cases.
    Mr. Rosendale. Well, we will spend the next several years 
getting rid of the bad apples, and that is going to create a 
big backlog. Goodness gracious. Madam Chair, I see my time has 
expired, I would yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. Thank you again to 
our panel of witnesses, and you all are excused from the 
witness table. We welcome the second set of witnesses to come 
forward.
    I would now like to welcome the witnesses on our second 
panel to the witness table, and I ask you all to please stand 
and raise your right hands.
    [Witnesses sworn]
    Thank you, you may be seated. Let the record reflect that 
all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hastings, 
you are now recognized for 5 minutes to provide your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF JOSHUA HASTINGS

    Mr. Hastings. Today, I come before you, a service-connected 
combat veteran, VA patient, and proud Legionnaire. I receive 
all of my care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
I personally, like many others, experience frustrations 
obtaining an appointment, confusion navigating the system, and 
difficulty receiving appropriate care. Chairwoman Kiggans, 
Ranking Member Mrvan, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee, on behalf of our National Commander Vincent 
Troiola, and our more than 1.6 million dues paying members, we 
thank you for inviting the American Legion to testify today.
    In 2017, Congress passed the VA Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act to increase staff accountability 
and improve protection for whistleblowers. In August 2021, it 
was found that VA misinterpreted this Act by the United States 
Court of Appeals. One of the protections assumed in this 
legislation was to mitigate the involvement of the U.S. Merit 
Systems Protection Board in certain decisions surrounding the 
employee. However, there was nothing written in the law to do 
so. This lack of clarity has allowed courts to dilute the VA 
Secretary's authority to hold employees accountable, protect 
whistleblowers, and keep veterans safe. Veterans deserve a 
process that delivers swift accountability for frontline 
workers and middle managers and even senior executives. We must 
ensure VA leaders possess the tools necessary to hold bad 
actors accountable and protect those seeking a more productive 
and safer work environment.
    The processing of temporary disability ratings has been 
identified as a backlog barrier for more than a decade. 
Processing issues have led to substantial financial errors and 
contributed to unreasonable delays. The time it takes VA to 
grant such ratings ranges from a couple weeks to a couple 
months. There is no consistency. Veterans should receive their 
benefits in a consistent and timely manner. The American Legion 
believes increased automation can help reduce the claims 
backlog and deliver these benefits more efficiently.
    Regarding acquisitions, the VA has a crucial mandate to 
ensure that the procurement of goods and services is optimized 
to meet our Nation's veterans. A 2022 GAO report highlighted 
the VA's approach to acquisitions was varied and 
unstandardized, leading to oversight difficulties and subpar 
acquisition outcomes. Moreover, the VA's Electronic Health 
Record Modernization (EHRM) program mirrors this chaotic 
nature. In the wake of mismanagement and delayed problem 
resolutions, its deployment has been stalled since June 2022 
with costs escalating to an exorbitant 59.12 billion dollars.
    Creating a standardized and transparent framework for 
managing major VA acquisitions would heighten accountability 
and contribute to a more uniform acquisition process, boosting 
the efficiency of VA procurement, and ultimately enhancing the 
provision of care for veterans. This legislation would also 
help to facilitate VA's ongoing efforts to modernize EHRM 
system by ensuring the effective implementation of a single 
system across VA and bidirectional connectivity to the 
Department of Defense. The American Legion believes this is 
essential for reducing further delays and unnecessary 
expenditures.
    The American Legion has also grown increasingly concerned 
that safety of our veterans, staff, and patients at VA 
facilities is in decline. A recent OIG report highlighted 
severe understaffing, a lack of proper training, and various 
security vulnerabilities. This includes an unsettling 33 
percent average vacancy rate in officer positions across 70 
medical facilities. In some cases, this rate soared to over 60 
percent. This has led to multiple serious incidents, including 
a bomb threat, and firearms being discharged.
    The American Legion firmly supports legislation that 
ensures the safety of our veterans extends beyond providing 
quality medical care. We must do more to improve oversight of 
VA policing and set a foundation for enhanced safety protocols 
and more effective staffing strategies.
    I would like to conclude by thanking Chairwoman Kiggans, 
Ranking Member Mrvan, and this subcommittee for your incredible 
leadership, and for always keeping veterans at the forefront of 
your mission. It is my privilege to represent the American 
Legion before the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering 
any questions you may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Joshua Hastings Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. The written statement 
of Mr. Hastings will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. 
Murray, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to provide your 
testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY

    Mr. Murray. Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member, Mrvan, and 
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its 
auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our remarks 
on legislation pending before this subcommittee.
    The VFW supports H.R. 2733, Department of Veterans Affairs 
Office of Inspector General Training Act to require each 
Department employee to receive training developed by the VA 
Office of Inspector General for reporting of wrongdoing, 
responding to requests, and cooperating with the OIG.
    The VFW believes the OIG performs a critical role in 
overseeing and investigating the practice of VA and a vital 
component of this role is employee input. Training the 
employees on the role, responsibilities, and legal authority of 
the Inspector General, and the duty of employees for engaging 
with OIG is important to accomplishing its mission. This 
training would also empower the employees to identify the 
circumstances and mechanisms for reporting fraud, waste, and 
abuse, including making confidential complaints. It would help 
protect the men and women who aid our service members, 
veterans, and families every single day.
    The VFW also supports H.R. 4278, the Restore Department of 
Veterans Affairs Accountability Act, to streamline authorities 
to suspend, demote, or fire VA employees that have been 
determined to warrant such actions. The VFW, along with a broad 
bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators, supported the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protection Act of 2017, because the VFW and others had seen 
examples of VA's inability to hold certain employees 
accountable. The situation at that time was untenable, and 
broad agreement was something needed to be done.
    Earlier this year, VA Secretary Dennis McDonough stated VA 
was no longer using the authority enacted in the 2017 law, as 
it was creating more administrative and legal problems than was 
initially known. Well intentioned laws that cannot be legally 
enforced, hinder VA's ability to perform its vital functions. 
This important bill includes strong accountability reform for 
VA employees who do not live up to the standards that veterans 
deserve. Almost 6 years after the passage of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection 
Act of 2017, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs still lacks the 
proper authority to swiftly terminate workers who do not 
deserve to work at VA.
    The Restore VA Accountability Act would improve the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Authority to discipline and 
remove employees who commit malfeasance. This proposal would 
restore the original intent of the law that had gaps and was 
not implemented effectively. The VFW believes that VA and 
Congress must ensure the Secretary has the authority to quickly 
hold employees accountable for wrongdoing that may endanger the 
lives of veterans. That is why we support this important 
legislation.
    However, whenever we are discussing VA workforce issues, we 
feel it is also important to stay vigilant about VA hiring. We 
believe that it is just as important to make sure that we get 
rid of the bad apples as we refill those ranks as quickly as 
possible. We urge the committee to continue working with VA to 
provide them all the tools to also hire and retain high quality 
employees who serve our veterans every day.
    Chairwoman Kiggans, this concludes my testimony. Again, the 
VFW, thanks you and Ranking Member Mrvan for the opportunity to 
testify on these important issues before this subcommittee. I 
am prepared to take any questions you or the subcommittee 
members may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Patrick Murray Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Murray. The written statement 
of Mr. Murray will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. 
Romesha, you are recognized for 5 minutes to provide your 
testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF CLINT ROMESHA

    Mr. Romesha. Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to 
come speak and testify here today. I am here today on behalf of 
America's Warrior Partnership as an emeritus board member. 
However, I am really here to fulfill my duty. It is the same 
responsibility I had when I served in the military you look out 
for those you served with. For those on your left and right, I 
am here for them. For those who you served with in the 
military, you were given a great task. You are held accountable 
and responsible for things that are not done right, because in 
the future, you may need to be dependent upon to save your 
friends' lives. Lives are at stake.
    The VA should be no different, period. Lives are at stake, 
and those working for the VA must have the trust, must be 
trusted and dependable. Yet everyone hears the horror stories 
on the news of the VA employees misbehaving or abusing their 
authority. The question is, why we cannot just get rid of these 
employees? Instead, it must be focused on what is happening in 
these workplaces to create an environment that allows these 
things to happen. When discipline is gone and a culture of 
responsibility and accountability are not in force, standards 
and training disappear. This has a devastating ripple effect. 
First, on morale in the VA, and the great employees in the VA 
that sees what is happening around them. They either give up on 
trying to do their best or they move on and leave.
    Next, it causes a loss of trust. For those who went to the 
VA for help, were not treated well, were not seen, and could 
not be heard, find the VA is no longer trustworthy or 
dependable. Finally, when you develop the reputation for a lack 
of discipline and accountability, you have a hard time bringing 
in new employees and talent. If bad employees are tough to 
discipline and nearly impossible to remove, how can the VA 
expect to change its culture?
    Working for the Federal Government on behalf of the 
American people to help our veterans is an honor. It is also a 
privilege that should be removed for not meeting the standards 
and expectations. Thankfully, Congress has passed the VA 
Accountability Act and trust in the VA increased. Employee 
satisfaction with senior leaders' honesty and integrity 
increased from 45 percent in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. 
Veterans' trust in the VA increased from 59 percent in 2016 to 
80 percent in 2020.
    However, despite the VA's Accountability Act being law, it 
is no longer being enforced. Putting aside how a Federal agency 
can unilaterally decide not to follow the law, or how a small 
employee protection board by Congress can claim to overrule 
popular law, why would anybody oppose this in the first--oppose 
this accountability bill in the first place?
    The answer, sadly, is that money and jobs are at stake. 
Some in the VA--some see the VA as a major job provider, and a 
taxpayer funded cash machine with a soaring budget. The VA is 
not a jobs program. This must stop. The VA cannot focus on 
protecting jobs and focus on helping our veterans. The unions 
and the Merit System Protection Board and others must choose. 
The VA must only have one focus. I firmly believe the VA's sole 
mission and directive from this government is to take care of 
those who served our Nation.
    All veterans feel the same way. In fact, Mission Roll Call 
did a recent poll of 16,000 veterans, and the poll simply asked 
the veterans do they believe the VA should continue to follow 
the accountability law? Eighty nine percent said yes and 
roughly 11 percent said no.
    Accordingly, I am proud to fully support H.R. 4278, the 
Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accounting Act. I am 
thankful for this committee's efforts and the efforts of your 
colleagues in the Senate. Importantly, this legislation 
empowers the VA to make a decision without worry to the MSPB 
interfering or collective bargaining agreements and will apply 
to supervisors and managers too. Just as they did with the SES 
employees previously. These employees are working for the 
veterans and the American people, not the other way around.
    In short, oversight and reform at the VA is needed since 
the same issues are plaguing the VA, and they have been around 
for decades despite the diligent work of this committee. Things 
need to change and holding the VA accountable for a lack of 
progress is a good beginning. I thank you. I look forward to 
your questions, and I yield back my time.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Clint Romesha Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Romesha. The written statement 
of Mr. Romesha will be entered into the hearing record. Ms. 
Gerton, you are recognized for 5 minutes to provide your 
testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF TERRY GERTON

    Ms. Gerton. Chair Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and 
members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify today. I am a fellow of the National Academy of Public 
Administration and have served as its president since 2017. I 
am pleased to offer our perspective on the issues captured in 
the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2023 legislation before 
you today. Our congressional charter precludes the organization 
itself from taking an official position on proposed 
legislation. My testimony will reflect the Academy's history on 
these topics and our general recommendations. The Academy has 
deep expertise in Federal human resource management topics. 
Over 50 of our fellows have experience in Federal HR, and many 
of them were themselves Federal chief human capital officers.
    Across our history, many Federal agencies have directly 
engaged the Academy and our fellows for assistance in 
addressing organizational and individual performance and 
accountability. The Academy has long held the position that a 
professional merit based civil service is essential to 
effective delivery of government programs. We also endorse an 
accurate and intentional deployment of the term accountability. 
In some recent policy debates, accountability has become a 
euphemism for making it easier to fire public employees.
    The system surely needs more flexibility and poor 
performers should not be retained in public service positions, 
but accountability means much more than that. It is a time-
honored principle that government should be responsible for 
serving the public interest. Although we certainly need greater 
accountability in public service, what we most need is system 
that holds administrators accountable for results. How well 
government employees accomplish the government's mission, and 
what principles are pursued in doing so are the key issues.
    Over the past 5 years, we have worked with the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of 
Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General, the U.S. 
Merchant Marine Academy, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on 
matters of organizational culture and performance. In 2017 and 
2018, we completed two papers, No Time to Wait, Parts One and 
Two, outlining a fundamentally new vision for the Federal civil 
service that is mission focused, merit based, and publicly 
accountable. Taken together, these reports offer a roadmap for 
building an organization where a central focus on and 
understanding of mission drives performance at every level.
    We find that four general principles emerge in successful 
organizations. First, organizational culture impacts employee 
performance. Second, strategic workforce planning that links 
performance to mission enables effective performance 
management. Third, clear communication and consistent 
application of performance standards are essential, and fourth, 
there is no substitute for effective leadership. These 
principles in practice mean that across every branch, division, 
level, and rank, leaders clearly communicate and consistently 
enforce expectations. Systems are in place to compile and 
analyze data to inform workforce planning and management 
decisions so that decisions are evidence not anecdote based. 
Leaders are trained and tuned to manage a diverse workforce and 
provide clear guidance and feedback on performance 
expectations. The agency plans for and invests in training 
aligned to mission objectives, and employees feel valued and 
prepared for the critical missions to which they are assigned.
    One other Academy study is particularly relevant to today's 
conversation. In 2021, we delivered our congressionally 
directed assessment of the Office of Personnel Management. As 
one of many findings in that report, the panel observed that 
the complex web of legislation and regulation that has accreted 
around the topic of Federal civilian personnel management makes 
it simultaneously challenging for managers and leaders to 
understand exactly what rules they are supposed to be 
following, easy to find loopholes that might be interpreted to 
permit otherwise unintended behavior, and simplest and safest 
to follow a path focused on compliance rather than innovation.
    All of this brings us back to the central topics of 
performance and accountability. The system surely needs more 
flexibility and poor performers should not be retained in 
public service positions. At the VA particularly, our veterans 
deserve the highest quality, service, and care. As I 
highlighted earlier, viewing accountability through the narrow 
lens of firing employees does the debate and the country no 
good. The ability to fire individuals for poor performance is 
no substitute for good leadership, an elusive quality that is 
impossible to legislate. It is far better to build 
organizations where mission and performance are aligned from 
the beginning, where systems are designed and implemented to 
provide evidence that can inform consistent and strategic 
decisions and where investment in training provides a strong 
scaffold upon which to build individual competency. Then, an 
organization can be truly accountable to those who matter most, 
those they are created and funded to serve.
    Chair Kiggans, that concludes my statement, and I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you or the committee members 
may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Terry Gerton Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Ms. Gerton. The written statement 
of Ms. Gerton will be entered into the hearing record. We will 
now turn to questions, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
    I just wanted to briefly speak that the common theme in 
listening to you all speak about accountability, I mean, I 
could not agree with more and that it is kind of a dual sided 
problem, not just accountability for those who currently work 
for the VA, but how are we recruiting new providers, new 
employees in that process. We have heard that before. This is 
not the first time and we just spoke earlier about when are we 
going to--when is Congress going to act on those changes so 
that we can expedite that hiring process?
    I certainly hear you, and it is a work in progress, but 
thank you for adding your comments as well.
    Mr. Hastings, as an American Legion member myself in 
Virginia, I appreciate the American Legion's support for the VA 
Medical Center Report Act. Could you talk more about the safety 
concerns you are hearing from your membership?
    Mr. Hastings. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. One 
of the main concerns of our membership is the lack of security 
officers and the vacancies in place. This is a safety issue 
that not only affects veterans but affects the VA staff. We 
need to ensure that there are people in those positions, and 
not only that, but we need to ensure that the people in those 
positions are adequately trained to deal with a veteran that 
may come in there with a mental health crisis or something of 
that nature.
    Ms. Kiggans. Mr. Murray, I appreciate the VFW's support for 
my bill as well. What sort of safety concerns are you hearing 
from your members when they visit the VA?
    Mr. Murray. Thank you, ma'am. Oftentimes VA police are some 
of the first folks who interact with VA patients. We want to 
make sure that there are enough of them to be able to handle 
the job appropriately, and that they are trained effectively. 
Unfortunately, sometimes they are that first interaction with a 
veteran in crisis. We need to make sure that there are enough 
of them and they are properly trained to do so effectively.
    Ms. Kiggans. I would agree, and also on the civilian side, 
same issue with just supporting patients in our community that 
have similar interactions with law enforcement. Mr. Romesha, 
thank you for your thoughtful words on the importance of 
accountability at the VA, particularly, focused on creating an 
environment that fosters accountability. I know you have some 
experience with accountability and with leading organizations. 
Can you talk a little bit more about upholding standards within 
an organization and how that leads to better results?
    Mr. Romesha. You know, it is that cultural mindset. When 
you hold accountability, you bring in the talent that wants to 
gravitate to that. That is like any leadership position. When 
it is not there, you continue to hear the same things when I 
talk to VA employees like the hardest thing to do in the VA is 
hire and fire. When you have that talks toxicity that continues 
to grow and be infested in there, it is easy for the talent to 
want to leave and go somewhere else.
    As we continue to move forward, we have got to look at 
that, we have got to look at those things. It is not how do we 
just get rid of someone. How do we build a new culture that 
people want to come to? Veterans want to be part of, that do 
not want to continue to sit there and show up and be told, 
look, as a VA employee, I do not want to see you as a veteran. 
A veteran does not get the choice to say I had a bad incident 
with a VA employee. I cannot leave them, but they can kick me 
out.
    This is a culture, the mindset, just as a general 
leadership as veterans that have served in all branches of the 
military, you get ingrained, that you must build that culture 
of trust accountability, responsibility, and hold to a standard 
and keep the standard. You cannot continue to lower it just to 
make numbers or just to employ people because that feels good. 
The one purpose, the only purpose of the VA should be that 
veteran at the end of the day. That is the end user. That is 
who we are here for. That is what this country is built upon.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. I know even Ms. Gerton spoke about, 
you know, we cannot legislate leadership and just that culture 
and the climate at the VA. We will continue to work on that. I 
hear you though.
    Mr. Romesha, and then how does the lack of discipline in an 
accountability in an organization make it difficult to recruit 
and retain good people? I know you briefly spoke about it, but 
could you expand?
    Mr. Romesha. When you have that lack of discipline and 
there is no accountability, it is hard to get good talent in 
there that wants to stay and be part of something. They are 
going to find better places to gravitate toward. When you 
continue to lower that standard, do not have that discipline, 
you are attracting less talented people that are just showing 
up to collect a paycheck instead of showing up to understand 
what it means to serve this country by serving our veterans.
    Ms. Kiggans. I believe I heard you say that the VA is not a 
jobs program. I thought that was an interesting comment. Mr. 
Hastings, your testimony mentions issues at medical centers 
uncovered through the Legion's System Worth Saving Program. Can 
you explain what these issues are and explain how you think 
increased accountability would have prevented them?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes, thank you for the question. A recent 
System Worth Saving visit to Atlanta, Georgia highlighted 
numerous adverse patient safety events. This included weapons 
in the emergency department, medication mismanagement, both 
inpatient and outpatient, and surgical delays. It is not enough 
to say I am sorry when a veteran is hurt due to negligence or 
incompetence or even wilful disregard of the law. We need to 
ensure that the VA has the ability to remove poor actors 
immediately who are harming an otherwise excellent VA 
healthcare system.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you very much, and I will now recognize 
Mr. Mrvan for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Ms. Gerton, given your experience reporting on 
agencies across the Federal Government, are there best 
practices you have seen that would contribute to a culture of 
accountability and improved performance, which do not solely 
focus on firing or disciplining employees? Also, I share the 
concern expressed in your testimony about accountability having 
become code for making it easier to fire public employees. What 
are some other ways we can help VA perform better for veterans?
    Ms. Gerton. Sir, thank you for the question, and your point 
is exactly right. We see these kinds of issues across Federal 
agencies and culture change takes time. I think there are a 
couple of conditions at the VA that I would highlight initially 
that make performance management even more challenging. The 
fact that they have tens of thousands of vacancies puts 
extraordinary stress on the current employees. Anytime that 
managers or employees are under stress, that opens the 
opportunity for bad behavior and it reduces the opportunity for 
intentional performance management. To Chair Kiggan's earlier 
point, addressing hiring at the VA is crucial to improving 
overall performance and culture at the VA.
    Second, the performance management systems are really 
complicated, and they are not designed to be personal, even 
though the impacts are personal. Managers are not trained on 
all the complexities of performance management. An investment 
in training for the senior leaders and managers across the 
organization in the current processes for performance 
management, for progressive discipline, and ultimately for 
taking decisive action to remove an employee can help managers 
address the fear factor that often prohibits or inhibits them 
from taking action to address employee misconduct. Just off the 
top, those couple of things would be critical, but more 
importantly clear and consistent administration of disciplinary 
processes is essential to building confidence and trust in the 
employees across the organization.
    Mr. Mrvan. Ms. Gerton, in your testimony, you state that 
there is no substitute for effective leadership. Is it possible 
VA would benefit from a thorough, independent review of its 
leadership, culture, performance management systems, 
professional development, management, and leadership training 
programs, and so forth?
    Ms. Gerton. That is certainly something that as a 
congressionally chartered organization you could address to the 
National Academy of Public Administration. As I mentioned in my 
testimony, we have fellows from across the Federal Government 
with extraordinary experience and expertise and we have worked 
with a number of Federal agencies, including the FBI, the 
Secret Service, the Department of Justice who have documented 
similar sorts of challenges in terms of leadership and 
performance management. We would be honored to bring that 
expertise to the VA if that would suit this committee's 
objectives.
    Mr. Mrvan. For my own clarification, can you concisely and 
quickly define performance management so I have an 
understanding of it?
    Ms. Gerton. I think of it as getting the best from your 
employees, ensuring that they are trained, that they are led, 
that they are assigned, that the tasks in front of them are 
clear. They understand and they are equipped to accomplish 
those tasks. Then managing their performance against clear and 
measurable performance objectives and communicating their 
feedback.
    Mr. Mrvan. Okay, thank you. Mr. Murray, in your testimony, 
you state that in addition to empowering VA and to hold 
employees accountable for wrongdoing, it is also important to 
ensure VA can quickly fill vacancies and retain high quality 
employees. I am concerned that the certain provisions in H.R. 
4278 would eliminate rank and file employees' rights to be put 
on performance plans and to bar VA from considering employees' 
past disciplinary records before firing or demoting employees. 
Do you have any concern about this, especially given that so 
many VA employees are veterans themselves? What specific 
provisions of H.R. 4278 would act as safeguards against the 
employees being removed for political, retaliatory, or 
discriminatory reasons?
    Mr. Murray. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. We believe the 
substantial threshold is what we think should be that first 
line to make sure that if an employee, you know, is deemed to 
cross that substantial threshold, that should be enough that if 
either the Merit Systems Protection Board or a judge sees that 
they can overturn it if there is not a substantial level of 
evidence for the suspension, the firing, or the demotion.
    I completely agree that building a culture is critical to 
making this good. I have been privileged to be a manager and a 
leader. You manage things, you lead people, and not only at the 
VFW, but also in my previous position at Turner Construction. 
Even with the best efforts, you still need a tool just in case 
something does not work to make sure that through the best 
efforts possible that VA can try to build that great culture, 
there is still some bad apples that should need to go. This is 
something that we believe is necessary as that fallback.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. With that I yield back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan, the chair now recognizes 
Congressman Bergman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Romesha, 
thank you for your very committed military service and also, 
for traveling to be with us today. Can you discuss how the 
teams you have worked with have been a success?
    Mr. Romesha. You know, the teams I have worked with found 
success is, again, by building that culture. To understand that 
you need to depend on each other. When you tell someone you are 
going to do something, you are going to do it. This should be a 
result driven idea that our mission is this, this is what we 
need to accomplish. The VA's mission is taking care of that 
veteran. If we put that first and foremost, everything else 
will fall in line.
    If you look at the data that we have seen over the last few 
years, the trust in the VA increased when we had the VA 
Accountability Act implemented. It went up with employees and 
veterans. It has proven to work. There is the data right there 
and as your team you can see that. You can see where your 
investment pays off. That is that culture that we can get set 
in there and then implemented to show time and time again that 
it comes from that trust. I used to tell people, duty will get 
your guys to do their job, but when you build that loyalty and 
trust, they will charge into a hail of bullets for you. That is 
what I would like to see our VA become.
    Mr. Bergman. I think I can then interpolate how you would 
answer, you know, do you think VA employees who care for 
veterans should be held to the highest of standards? I think 
that would be a simple yes. Lead by example, you know, as, you 
know, lead down manage up. You are always going to have the 
manure coming from on down on high that a good leader will 
deflect off their shoulders so it does not go on to those under 
their charge. That is what leaders do.
    Mr. Romesha. When leadership takes blame and gives credit, 
that is when you got true leadership.
    Mr. Bergman. Absolutely. Mr. Hastings, talk to me about the 
Modernizing VA Disability Benefits Questionnaires Act, which I 
said is too long an acronym before. Why is this standardization 
so important?
    Mr. Hastings. Thank you so much for the question. It is 
very important to standardize our DBQs, our Disability 
Questionnaires. The process needs to be automated, because 
really what we are seeing through our Regional Office Action 
Review (ROAR) visits and our System Worth Saving site visits is 
many of our VA claims raters are overwhelmed, especially with 
the passage of the PACT Act. There is a lot of new regulations, 
and it is kind of a perfect storm of an increasing workload 
with increasing confusion.
    Anything that we can do to help automate processes, to help 
take some stuff off of their plate, to help with their work 
life balance, or even add time for necessary training to get up 
to speed on some of these issues, I think is absolutely 
necessary.
    Mr. Bergman. How do the claims backlog and the overall, 
overly complicated process to obtain the disability benefits, 
how does that lead veterans to seek assistance through 
organizations such as the American Legion?
    Mr. Hastings. Well, thank you for the question. I think the 
frustration of the backlog, I think is what drives people to 
us. One of the things that separates the American Legion, from 
other organizations that might do claims is we will take the 
claim from start to finish. We are not just throwing an initial 
claim out there. We will walk you through the initial claim, 
but then we are also right there next to you when you need an 
appeal or something like that. We take it all the way to the 
finish line.
    Mr. Bergman. There are several organizations that do that 
around the country, VSOs, and, you know, being a life member of 
the VFW and long-time member of the American Legion and 
countless number of Marine Corps League detachments, all of 
those, which accept my dues gratefully. The point is, veterans 
are looking for solutions, and they, in the end, they are going 
to go to the best place, regardless. Some might be free, some 
may--whatever works for them. Is that the kind of environment 
we are trying to create?
    Mr. Hastings. We want to make sure that veterans are being 
taken care of appropriately.
    Mr. Bergman. Yes. There is no one entity that has the be 
all end all to serve to help veterans because different parts 
of the country, different capabilities, individual, and 
collectively, whatever it happens to be, but in the end, the VA 
has too complicated a system when it comes to that veteran just 
kind of navigating the waters themselves. Whatever we can do to 
make sure that veteran gets the benefits they rate, then that 
should be a suggested set of solutions. Fair enough?
    Mr. Hastings. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I you back.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Bergman. The chair now 
recognizes Representative Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Romesha, I am 
sure that you heard earlier that the 2017 Accountability Act 
led to a 50 percent increase in removal actions, which 
contributed to Veterans VA-wide trust scores increasing from 59 
percent in 2016 to up to 80 percent in 2020. We had a lot of 
discussion earlier about what the impact of that was since this 
we have had this pause on the Accountability Act. Do you 
believe that passage of 4278 will help us rebuild that team 
environment, that you are talking about and help rebuild that 
trust?
    Mr. Romesha. I absolutely do. I think it will pull out some 
of the obstacles that are frustrating our VA and keeping those 
good employees motivated to continue to help the veteran. I 
think it is a no brainer. It has been proven in the past. Why 
are we sitting here today still talking about something that we 
have already seen work?
    Mr. Rosendale. In your experience, have you seen that if 
you have got a bad employee that it does not just impact the 
productivity of that individual, that it actually impacts the 
productivity of the individuals that are working with or around 
that person as well?
    Mr. Romesha. You know, in the military, when you would have 
that one soldier that would come up short, always be the guy in 
trouble, he was normally the one that would get put on Kitchen 
Patrol (KP) or stay back in the rear and never have to go on 
patrol. The guys that were always depended upon that could be 
counted on had to go out there and be the forefront. That 
mentality sometimes gets well, if I am doing the right thing 
all the time, why am I out here getting shot at when I could be 
less than ideal and setting in the talk in the air 
conditioning.
    Mr. Rosendale. The expression iron sharpens iron?
    Mr. Romesha. Yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. The better you are, the better the team is, 
then everyone performs at a much higher level?
    Mr. Romesha. Everybody elevates.
    Mr. Rosendale. Would you say? Very good. I appreciate that. 
How does the result--how does this result in worse care for 
veterans when we have that type of a situation? Because we are 
not in the field, we cannot take an employee and hide them back 
in the kitchen necessarily?
    Mr. Romesha. Well, it just spills over with what you see 
when you go there as a veteran. I mean, my first experience in 
the VA was my last year in the army I went to go get my medical 
records. I made sure everything I had all my ducks were in a 
row and the day I got out and I showed up for my first VA 
appointment, I realized I had to start over from day one 
because none of those records transferred over. Right there 
from day one it is a very frustrating thing to be a veteran in 
realize this is the system I am about to come into. It is hard 
and it is a battle of attrition. There is a lot of a lot of men 
and women that go through the VA have come to realize. Then you 
meet that employee that does not want to be there that day that 
has that less-than-ideal attitude just let me check the block. 
Let me get out of here. Let me just ask you a questionnaire and 
not let me get to know who Staff Sergeant Romesha was. You do 
not want to go back. There is many, many men and women that 
will have that first experience and will never go back. How 
many veterans do we not have in the VA system that has earned 
that right, just because of a bad experience with a bad 
employee.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. Mr. Hastings, thanks 
for testifying today. I appreciate the American Legion's 
support of my legislation. You mentioned that increased 
automation can help reduce the claims backlog and deliver 
benefits more efficiently. Can you expand on that just a bit?
    Mr. Hastings. Well, absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you so 
much for the question. As I said earlier, you know, increasing 
the automation, not only are we improving the process by 
eliminating things to an extent like human error and things 
like that, but by improving the automation, we are taking 
things off of like I said the raters' plates and giving them 
more bandwidth to deal with claims and issues more 
appropriately, and really take their time. This is not a 
numbers game. It is not quantity over quality. We want to 
ensure that we are always pursuing quality and I think 
automating some of the processes is the best way to do that.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. What are some of the real-life 
impacts, Okay? You are dealing with the veterans every day, 
they come into the legion. What are some of the real-life 
impacts of the delay or incorrect payments that the veterans 
are receiving because of this, because of this system?
    Mr. Hastings. Well, I can tell you one of the most nerve-
wracking thing you could ever get from the VA is an 
overpayment. Really these claims when the VA comes after you 
for things like overpayments and things, it is extremely 
stressful and puts a lot of pressure on the veteran. It is hard 
enough getting the benefits that you deserve without having to 
worry about overpayments and things that are really on the VA's 
responsibility or errors.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. Thank you very much and thank you 
all for coming out and testifying today.
    Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale, and thank you again 
to our witnesses for being here. I think it is just the start 
of a longer discussion. I think some VAs out there are doing a 
great job. I would like to thank them on behalf, I am sure we 
all have positive stories we could share too. We are here to 
try to implement good change and meaningful change and 
everything from electronic charting, I mean, I hear you about 
walking in the door and understanding that frustration as I am 
a nurse practitioner by trade. That electronic charting piece, 
just understanding all components of healthcare when that 
person walks in the door so important.
    You know, I remember when I was at my--I was a helicopter 
pilot in my squadron, I was a legal officer. I loved that job 
because one of the things I did was to apply to Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) and kick people out of the Navy, who--
my Navy--who did not deserve to be there. It is kind of a 
similar story with the VA, especially in my second career field 
as a nurse practitioner, I just, you know, I want my veteran as 
a veteran, as a healthcare provider, them to receive the best 
quality of care they can. It frustrates me but I want to work 
super hard to do that same thing to people that will not take 
care of my veterans, you know, I do not need them on my team. 
That loyalty piece is so important to me in every single thing 
I do in life, as a Navy pilot, as a nurse practitioner, and as 
a Member of Congress.
    I think we all share and just really wanting to again 
implement good change and meaningful change, so we really 
appreciate your time, the travel that you made to be here with 
us today, and your thoughts. Thank you so much.
    I ask for unanimous consent that all members shall have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include any extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so 
ordered, this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

?

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
=======================================================================


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

=======================================================================


                    Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                 Prepared Statement of Lewis Ratchford

    Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan and other Members of the 
Subcommittee: thank you for inviting us here today to present our views 
on several bills that would affect VA programs and services. Joining me 
today are Mr. Ray Tellez, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Automated 
Benefits Delivery (ABD), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); Dr. 
Angela Billups, Ph.D., Executive Director, Office of Acquisition and 
Logistics (OAL), Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction 
(OALC); and Mr. Rondy Waye, Executive Director, Human Capital Programs, 
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources 
and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness (HRA/OSP).

H.R. 196   Expediting Temporary Ratings for Veterans Act

    This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to modify 
the information technology systems of the Department to provide for the 
automatic processing of claims for temporary disability compensation 
ratings for Veterans with a service-connected disability that requires 
hospital treatment or observation in a VA or other approved hospital 
for a period in excess of 21 days.

VA cites concerns with this bill.

    The current information technology framework does not support the 
automation of generating ratings - particularly because of the 
challenges associating the Veteran's treated diagnoses to service-
connected disability(ies). This type of medical association often 
involves a significant level of human adjudicative discretion. The 
development of a programmatic determination removes the human 
adjudicative discretion and requires a technology solution that would 
most likely be dependent on natural language processing and machine 
learning capabilities that could incorrectly associate or disassociate 
the treated diagnoses and service-connected conditions, leading to 
incorrect benefit determinations.
    The bill would require VA to modify its information technology 
systems to provide for the automatic processing of certain disability 
ratings within one year of enactment. However, VA anticipates it will 
take approximately two fiscal years to modify its information 
technology systems to fully implement this act. In the interim, VBA is 
working on automating certain temporary disability ratings, beginning 
with medical conditions that have defined parameters. For example, 
Veterans with a service-connected knee condition could be afforded a 
total temporary evaluation for one year following implantation of the 
prosthesis, regardless of the length of hospitalization.
    Currently, VA is looking to accelerate its use of automation tools 
and processes to keep pace with its increased workload. As part of its 
five-year modernization plan as prescribed under section 701(b) of the 
PACT Act, VBA and the Office of Information Technology are piloting 
automation technology to expedite claims processing ensuring Veterans 
and their families receive their benefits in a timely manner. While VA 
appreciates the intent of this legislation, it may unintentionally 
delay planned functionality delivery contained within VA's current 
plan.
    Based on the costs of the Modern Claims Processing Contract 
starting in FY 2023, five-year and ten-year General Operating Expense 
(GOE) costs for this bill are estimated at $32.9 million. Additionally, 
based on OIT's initial exploratory work, it will require approximately 
$3.5M in IT costs over two years to fully implement the bill. This 
funding will enable the establishment of an integration framework 
within VA's current claims processing system; OIT also anticipates 
approximately $200k annually for future sustainment costs. No mandatory 
costs are associated with this bill.

H.R. 2733   Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General 
Training Act of 2023

    The Department is confident that the current Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) mandatory training, required for all VA employees, 
provides sufficient training and education on reporting wrongdoing and 
fraud, waste and abuse as well as responding to requests from and 
cooperating with the OIG.
    Section 2(a) would require OIG to develop training for new VA 
employees on how to report wrongdoing to the OIG and how to respond to 
and cooperate with requests from the OIG. This requirement is 
duplicative of the mandatory training already provided to VA employees, 
which was developed, approved, and issued by OIG.
    Section 2(b) would require that the training occur within one year 
of beginning VA employment. VA already requires that current OIG 
mandatory training be delivered upon entry on duty for all VA 
employees.
    Section 2(c) would establish content elements for the training. The 
elements in this section are already included in the current annual 
training requirement.
    Section 2(d) would require that the Inspector General design and 
update the training required by section 2(a). Subject matter experts 
within the Department developed the current training, which VA views as 
sufficient for educating VA employees on how to report wrongdoing and 
cooperate with OIG requests.
    Section 2(e) would require that the training be delivered via VA's 
talent management system. OIG has issued approved mandatory training 
(Talent Management System Course #VA 39390, VA Office of Inspector 
General Training) that addresses the proposed requirements in the bill 
to all VA employees.
    While VA appreciates the support of its efforts to train and 
educate employees in reporting misconduct, fraud, waste, and abuse, the 
proposed legislation is redundant to existing mandatory training 
practices and not necessary.

H.R. 3504   VA Medical Center Security Report Act of 2023

    VA is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for our 
workforce, Veterans, and all who engage with VA in our facilities. The 
men and women who serve in various law enforcement roles serve as the 
foundation upon which VA establishes this safe and secure environment. 
This bill would require an annual security survey of covered medical 
center police service personnel. The survey would cover criminal 
activity, police unit vacancies, status of law enforcement equipment, 
law enforcement training, security weaknesses, analysis of the 
relationship with local law enforcement, efforts to address and reduce 
criminal activity at or near the medical center and recommendations to 
better address and reduce criminal activity at or near the medical 
centers. The bill would also require an annual report to the Veterans' 
Affairs Committees of the House and Senate, to include a VA-wide 
evaluation and analysis of the survey results as well as a plan of 
action to address identified security weaknesses. Additionally, the 
bill would require a list of vacant Chief and Deputy Chief of Police 
positions, including the number of days vacant. These efforts, coupled 
with ongoing work led by VA's law enforcement community, would further 
ensure our ability to maintain a safe and secure environment at our 
medical centers.

VA supports this bill, subject to necessary appropriations.

    The Office of Security and Law Enforcement (OS&LE) oversees VA 
Police with written policy and police program inspections to ensure 
compliance with law, policy and guidelines established by the 
Department.
    VA Police Services at each medical center are inspected on a three-
year cycle. Late last year, unannounced site visits were implemented to 
obtain a snapshot of on-the-ground security conditions at VA 
facilities. The goal of the unannounced site visits is to identify 
deficiencies or weaknesses and give VA leaders an opportunity to 
correct issues before their scheduled police program comprehensive 
review. While onsite, Special Agents review a sampling of documents 
relating to training, firearms, evidence, operations, physical security 
and staffing. They also observe police patrol patterns, patrol 
presence, physical security measures in place, and general crime 
prevention and detection efforts. VA conducts predictive analysis of 
crime patterns, and takes appropriate action (e.g., adjust patrols or 
investigations capability) to prevent and respond more effectively to 
potential crimes.
    Site inspections are conducted using a guide containing a 
comprehensive list of 169 policy requirements. The Inspection Guide is 
revised annually to reflect policy or regulatory changes or the need to 
address systemic issues that have been identified through the 
inspection process. Several of the items the Inspection Teams assess 
directly correlate with items from the VA Medical Center Report Act of 
2023.
    While onsite, OS&LE special agents evaluate staffing and duties 
assigned to VA Police. Sustaining a sufficient number of police 
officers on duty to maintain law and order and provide protection to 
persons and property is a key part of enhancing security.
    Inspectors review the maintenance, accountability and wear of 
uniforms, ballistic vests, vehicles, and firearms. They also review 
officer training, training documentation, and training plans, to 
include ensuring adequate space is available for the various training 
requirements. Additionally, agents review and evaluate physical 
security surveys, alarm checks and vulnerability assessments conducted 
by VA Police at the facility.
    Relationships with local authorities are inspected by ensuring the 
facility Chief of Police has current support agreements for responses 
to crimes, VA Police Officer-involved shootings, and crisis 
intervention training. Collaboration with Federal, State and local law 
enforcement entities enhance security at VA medical centers.
    VA currently maintains a three-year inspection cycle. To survey and 
report annually as this bill proposes, VA would require minor 
modifications to our current processes. In order to meet resource 
requirements associated with current and future obligations VA would 
require an additional ten positions. These positions have been 
substantiated through an internal manpower study, as well as being a 
deficiency documented in the VA Office of the Inspector General report 
(22-03770-49) dated February 22, 2023. Out of the ten required 
positions, VA has already included five in the President's Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2024 budget request. The total estimated cost is $1.205 million 
for FY 2024 and an additional $1.178 million for FY 2025. The total 
ongoing cost for all ten positions to be added to our base budget would 
be $2.383 million. This estimated cost is based on actual expenditures 
to date. Being fully resourced would allow us to fully implement this 
legislation in continued support of Veteran, staff and visitor safety.

H.R. 4225   VA Acquisition Review Board Act of 2023

    This bill would amend 38 U.S. Code Chapter 81 by adding a new 
Subchapter VI, which directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
establish an Acquisition Review Board (ARB) for all major acquisition 
programs, defined as ``...program[s] of the Department to acquire 
property, assets, supplies, services, or a combination thereof, with an 
estimated life-cycle cost of $250,000,000 or more, as determined by the 
Secretary.'' Non-major acquisition programs would consist of programs 
similarly defined with an estimated life-cycle cost of less than $250 
million as determined by the Secretary.
    The proposed bill mandates the composition of the Acquisition 
Review Board (including CAO, CFO, VEO, CIO, OEI, and other relevant 
officials within VHA, VBA and NCA). It also prescribes when ARBs should 
convene and the requirement to appoint a manager responsible for 
administering programs within 30 days of program establishment. 
Responsibilities of the manager include establishing a program 
baseline, defining acquisition phases and providing estimates of the 
cost, schedule and performance across the entire life cycle of the 
program. Other duties include assessing and managing risk and other 
common functions of a program manager such as establishing a workforce 
for the program that is qualified, ensuring adequate technology and 
production capacity and securing requisite funding.

VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to appropriations.

    The bill would establish a program management framework for all 
major acquisitions, and for non-major acquisitions at the discretion of 
the Deputy Secretary. The legislation is not specific on how the 
framework would apply to acquisition programs established prior to 
enactment. However, VA is currently planning an Enterprise Program 
Management (EPM) Structure - a collaboration between OEI, OIT, OALC and 
other VA entities as appropriate - that is consistent with the intent 
of the ARB bill. In addition, VA has already developed an Acquisition 
Lifecycle Framework, which includes criteria for acquisition program 
management and review that match the requirements described in the 
legislation.
    VA will develop an Enterprise definition of program/project and 
identify major/non-major acquisition programs within one year.
    In addition, VA recommends the dollar value for major acquisition 
programs be increased to $1 billion in life-cycle costs to focus effort 
on VA's largest acquisition programs. Hiring and obtaining properly 
trained and certified program managers (PM) will present a challenge 
since the billet structure must be established once these programs are 
officially designated as ``major acquisition programs.'' Once 
successfully implemented, this threshold can be reduced to the desired 
$250 million to achieve the desired program management culture.
    VA anticipates that implementation of this bill would require the 
establishment of at least ten GS-15 program manager billets in FY 2024 
as well as additional billets for program support, which is currently 
staffed by contracted expertise or non-existent. VA estimates this bill 
would require $25 million in FY 2024 to assure the proper training and 
hiring of employees who possess the requisite skills and competencies 
to ensure a quality and enabled Acquisition Community, which includes 
Mission Area Owners/Appointed Program Managers in the Administrations 
and VA Central Offices as well as VA's Acquisition Workforce - i.e., 
Federal Acquisition Certified Program/Project Managers, contracting 
Professionals and Contracting Officer Representatives.

H.R. 4278   Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act

    While we appreciate the efforts of Committee staff to amend 
sections 713 and 714 of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), 
codified from the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 
2017 (The Act).

VA does not support this bill.

    We are confident that the authorities currently available to the VA 
are sufficient to hold employees accountable for misconduct and poor 
performance. We do not believe any legislation is necessary right now 
to ensure accountability. VA has legal concerns regarding some of the 
language in the draft bill. Specifically, VA is concerned this language 
will continue to be the subject of extensive litigation and 
constitutional challenges, creating uncertainty and potentially leading 
to a continued pattern of overturned disciplinary actions. VA's 
position is informed by the experience of utilizing these authorities 
over the past six years.
    Section 2 would give VA another authority with its own set of 
procedures to remove, demote or suspend supervisors and management 
officials for performance or misconduct. This section would essentially 
require VA to treat all supervisors, regardless of grade and salary 
level, the same as members of the senior executive service when 
carrying out disciplinary and performance-based adverse actions. Under 
this authority, supervisors would not be entitled to review by the 
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the statute sets limits on 
the information that agency officials may consider when selecting the 
penalty.
    While VA appreciates the Committee's efforts, VA does not support 
this section, as the other authorities available to address performance 
and conduct deficiencies (e.g., 5 U.S.C. Chapters 43 and 75) are 
sufficient to take action against supervisory personnel when warranted. 
This includes being subject to mandatory proposed penalties for certain 
types of misconduct related to whistleblower retaliation or other 
prohibited personnel actions pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  731 and 5 
U.S.C. Sec.  7515.
    When such action is warranted, it is important that VA take action 
that withstands legal challenge. VA is equipped to successfully employ 
existing authorities to hold its supervisors accountable for their 
deficiencies. Having multiple authorities for taking action against 
employees, each with its own unique procedures and requirements for 
addressing performance and conduct deficiencies, has led to confusion 
regarding their administration and application and adds additional risk 
to taking legally defensible actions. Adding this new authority may 
create further confusion.
    Furthermore, this new authority will likely deter talented 
individuals from seeking employment with VA in supervisory or 
managerial positions and may discourage current well-qualified VA 
employees from seeking upward mobility to supervisory or managerial 
positions due to their limited due process and appeal rights. 
Specifically, supervisors and managers will not be entitled to 
consideration of the same mitigating factors as other VA employees and 
employees in the same grade and salary level at other federal agencies. 
These employees will also not be entitled to appeal the action to the 
MSPB.
    Section 3 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  713 to establish that the VA 
official's burden of proof when taking an action under this authority 
would be substantial evidence. This section also sets forth exclusive 
factors to be considered when determining the appropriate penalty. The 
amendments also limit the scope of judicial review of VA's chosen 
penalty such that a court cannot review the penalty except when a 
constitutional issue is presented. They also establish that the 
amendments would apply retroactively to the date of enactment of the 
Act.
    VA identified significant legal concerns with portions of these 
legislative amendments related to meeting minimum constitutional due 
process requirements. Those specific concerns are as follows:

      Substantial evidence as the statutory standard of proof 
is at significant risk of being found unconstitutional, even with 
express statutory language, given the Federal Circuit's discussion of 
the inappropriateness of that standard for administrative decisions. 
The Court noted that there is no precedent for such a standard, citing 
Supreme Court jurisprudence.

      The limitations on the factors that VA officials can 
consider when determining a penalty will raise concerns regarding 
whether employees were provided a meaningful opportunity to respond to 
the action and invoke the discretion of the deciding official.

      The limitations on judicial review of the penalty (other 
than constitutional challenges) poses a lesser risk, but VA does not 
believe the limitation is necessary, as judicial review standards have 
not previously been an impediment to VA actions and such challenges are 
likely to be constitutional.

      The retroactivity clause is likely to face challenges 
both as to its scope or applicability and the constitutionality of the 
change. When such clauses impact substantive rights, which the Federal 
Circuit has already opined that section 714 does, they must further a 
legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means (and cannot 
be harsh/oppressive or arbitrary/irrational) to meet due process 
requirements.

    Section 4(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  714 to address the 
limitations imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit, MSPB and the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which have 
significantly reduced the differences between section 714 and pre-
existing title 5 disciplinary authorities. The amendments clarify that 
hybrid title 38 employees are covered by this authority, establish that 
the VA official's burden of proof when taking an action under this 
authority is substantial evidence and set forth exclusive factors to be 
considered when determining the appropriate penalty. The amendments 
establish that VA is not required to place a covered employee on a 
performance improvement plan (PIP) prior to carrying out a performance-
based action under section 714. The amendments also limit the scope of 
judicial review of VA's chosen penalty to only constitutional 
challenges; state that the authorities, as amended, would apply 
retroactively to the date of initial enactment of the Act; and clarify 
that the procedures of the entire section, rather than subsection (c), 
supersede any collective bargaining agreement if it is inconsistent 
with the authority.
    VA has the same legal concerns with section 4 as identified in 
section 3, relating to (1) the substantial evidence standard of proof; 
(2) limiting factors for VA officials to consider when determining the 
penalty; (3) precluding judicial review of the penalty except for 
constitutional challenges; and (4) retroactive application of the 
authorities, as amended. VA has other legal concerns as well, including 
the effectiveness of the proposed language superseding collective 
bargaining agreements.
    In summary, while VA appreciates the support of its efforts to hold 
employees accountable, this bill is unnecessary. Moreover, it is 
potentially detrimental to VA in the form of legal risk, uncertainty 
and further litigation, potentially resulting in overturned adverse 
actions and substantial monetary damages, which VA experienced in its 
implementation of section 714. The enactment of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  712 as 
well as the proposed amendments to 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  713 and 714 
will likely face the same gamut of legal challenges. VA recommends that 
disciplinary action continue to be taken under applicable existing 
authorities, providing certainty and minimizing legal risk to VA.

H.R. XXXX   Modernizing Department of Veterans Affairs Disability 
Benefit Questionnaires Act

    This bill would require the transmission of disability benefits 
questionnaire (DBQ) results from non-VA clinicians to VA in a machine-
readable format within 180 days of enactment. VA would be required to 
issue standards for such transmission within 90 days of enactment; to 
ensure that DBQ updates are made in a manner that allows for the data 
collected under the questionnaires to be in a machine-readable format; 
to notify examiners of any DBQ updates not later than 60 days before 
they go into effect; to submit a plan to Congress within 180 days of 
enactment for information technology system modifications necessary to 
support machine-readable DBQ data transmission; and to make publicly 
available on the VA website (i) the standards for DBQ data transmission 
and (ii) the IT system modification plan listed above.

VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to the availability of 
appropriations.

    The transmission of DBQ information in this type of standard 
structured format will enable non-VA clinicians to provide complete and 
thorough DBQs that can be used by VA claims processors to effectively 
evaluate the severity of claimed conditions in alignment with the 
VASRD. The bill would help further VA's automation initiatives, and it 
would enable VA to identify instances of fraud and ensure the 
completeness of DBQs. By enforcing a data-driven approach to non-VA 
DBQs, VA would be better equipped to identify trends and associate DBQ 
submissions with licensed clinicians. This will help to quickly 
identify unusual patterns of non-VA DBQ submissions.
    However, VA notes the bill does not address what action VA should 
take if a non-machine readable DBQ is received after the passage of 
this bill. VA requests that Congress amend the bill to clarify what 
action should be taken if a Veteran or non-VA clinician submits a non-
machine readable DBQ. Otherwise, there is a moderate litigation risk 
for VA from Veterans who submit non-VA DBQs that do not comply with the 
machine-readable format.
    The bill requires VA to collect all DBQ data submitted from non-VA 
clinicians in a machine-readable format within 180 days after enactment 
of this bill. However, the 180-day timeline for implementation does not 
seem feasible. Publishing a machine-readable DBQ requires schema 
definition and integration into Information Exchange Packet 
Documentation for roughly 40 DBQs that do not currently have defined 
schemas. Moreover, a process needs to be created to support 
noncontract-examination, third party medical professionals submitting 
electronic data.
    VA also has concerns with the language in Section 2(a)(3)(B) 
regarding a requirement for VA to notify the persons conducting medical 
disability examinations (or the entities employing such persons) 
described in such paragraph of such updates not later than 60 days 
before an update goes into effect. VA would oppose any such language 
directed to VA Contract Examination Vendors, as the contract already 
contains language which addresses DBQ updates, including the technical 
specifications. When DBQ changes are made due to VASRD regulatory 
changes, previewing or posting DBQ updates 60 days before a final would 
most often be impossible; VASRD final rules are generally posted only 
30 days before they take effect. VA has previously been instructed not 
to publish VASRD-impacted DBQs until the final rule has become 
effective. Therefore, VA opposes this specific new language in the 
bill.
    The General Operating Expense (GOE) cost estimate for this bill for 
FY 2023 is $12 million. Five-year GOE costs are estimated at $44.1 
million and 10-year costs at $63.2 million. These costs include managed 
services contract costs of approximately $12 million dollars per year 
for three years to create and manage a web-based external-facing DBQ 
portal, ensuring that a scalable solution is created to securely 
deliver documents. Separately, OIT sustainment and maintenance of the 
managed services will rise from approximately $3.6 million in FY 2026 
to $3.9 million by 2032. Additionally, OIT estimates roughly $4.4 
million in costs over two years followed by approximately $200k 
annually for future sustainment costs to fully implement the publishing 
of a machine-readable DBQ, which includes creating a submission 
service, business validation, and a DBQ submission portal.

Conclusion

    This concludes my statement. We appreciate the Committee's 
continued support of programs that serve the Nation's Veterans and look 
forward to working together to further enhance the delivery of benefits 
and services to Veterans and their families.
                                 ______
                                 

                    Prepared Statement of David Case

    Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and Subcommittee Members, 
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 
need for H.R. 2733, which would require all new VA employees to receive 
training on their responsibilities to report crimes and serious 
wrongdoing to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and cooperatively 
engage with its oversight staff. My statement provides an analysis of 
this measure and why it would help ensure VA employees properly and 
promptly report suspected wrongdoing; risks to patient safety; and 
misconduct affecting VA's programs, benefits, and services. By 
providing training on reporting wrongdoing and opportunities to 
improve, we believe that it will ultimately improve the quality and 
timing of services and benefits received by veterans, their families, 
caregivers, and survivors. The OIG thanks Representatives Underwood, 
Womack, Pappas, and Joyce (OH) for introducing H.R. 2733 in April.

H.R. 2733 - DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
TRAINING ACT OF 2023

    H.R. 2733 mandates that all new VA employees receive training 
during their first year of employment at VA on how to engage with the 
OIG. In addition, the bill would allow the inspector general to send at 
least two messages a year through VA's email system to all personnel in 
the VA directory on matters related to interacting with OIG personnel 
and how to report matters to its hotline. These matters not only 
involve potential crimes, patient safety concerns, waste of VA 
resources, and abuse of VA authority, but also issues that compromise 
the effectiveness and efficiency of VA programs and operations.
    The OIG is grateful that Secretary McDonough mandated in September 
2021 that all employees complete training within one year--an important 
step in improving VA's culture of accountability. However, legislation 
mandating the training is still needed. Mandated training developed by 
VA's independent oversight body should not be dependent on the 
individual serving as VA Secretary at any given time, or on the OIG's 
ability to periodically communicate with all VA employees if needed to 
advance oversight efforts.
    The Senate is considering some additions to the language of the 
bill introduced in the House. The additions reinforce that VA employees 
have a duty to cooperate with the OIG and should be fully informed of 
whistleblowers' rights, including the right to report wrongdoing to 
Congress as well. The Senate language also reiterates the authority of 
the inspector general to subpoena the attendance and testimony of 
witnesses, including former VA employees, as needed to carry out the 
duties of the office.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This authority is pursuant to the provisions of section 312 of 
title 38 of the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OIG has no objections to these changes.

The OIG's Right to All VA Records and Accurate Information

    While the vast majority of the OIG's interactions with VA personnel 
are positive and appropriate, there have been instances in which the VA 
personnel have been told that they cannot share information with OIG 
staff without first clearing it through supervisors or leaders--
contrary to the Inspector General Act of 1978 (the IG Act), as amended. 
Under that authority, VA employees at all levels have a duty to 
cooperate with OIG personnel, including providing information and 
assistance in a timely manner. The OIG must have prompt access to all 
requested VA records, reports, audits, reviews, recommendations, or 
other material available to the Department relating to its programs and 
operations. More broadly, the IG Act authorizes the OIG to request any 
information or assistance necessary to carry out its duties, which may 
include access to employees, facilities, systems, and equipment.
    In several other instances, VA personnel have provided incomplete, 
significantly delayed, or potentially misleading information to the 
OIG. One example is the OIG's healthcare inspection released in 2021 
examining training that VA employees received on the new electronic 
health record system.\2\ In that inspection, the then Office of 
Electronic Health Record Management's Change Management group initially 
provided what appeared to be inaccurate and possibly misleading 
summaries of data instead of the underlying raw data the OIG had 
repeatedly requested. The OIG investigated the circumstances of VA's 
response to the OIG's information requests. The investigators 
determined that although Change Management leaders overseeing the 
training did not intentionally seek to mislead OIG staff, the leaders' 
carelessness resulted in delayed and inaccurate information being 
submitted that impeded oversight efforts.\3\ The training the OIG has 
developed and that would be required by H.R. 2733 might have prevented 
the issue by making VA employees acutely aware of their duties and 
responsibilities to provide timely, accurate, and complete information 
in response to OIG requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ VA OIG, Training Deficiencies with VA's New Electronic Health 
Record System at the Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, 
Washington, July 8, 2021.
    \3\ VA OIG, Senior Staff Gave Inaccurate Information to OIG 
Reviewers of Electronic Health Record Training, July 14, 2022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of the Impact of Improving Reporting and Engagement

    Effective oversight depends on VA employees promptly reporting 
suspected wrongdoing to the OIG and cooperating with OIG staff. Early 
and effective reporting can save lives, recover or avoid waste of 
millions of dollars each year for VA, and help ensure veterans are 
receiving the benefits and services for which they are eligible.
    As an example, hospital staff at a VA facility in Fayetteville, 
Arkansas, had concerns about potential substance abuse by the chief of 
pathology that were not heard and promptly acted on by local 
leadership, which allowed him to work while impaired for years.\4\ He 
misdiagnosed about 3,000 patients, with errors resulting in death or 
serious harm, and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.\5\ 
The OIG found a culture in which staff did not report serious concerns 
about the chief pathologist, in part, because they assumed that others 
had reported him, or they were concerned about reprisal. At the VA 
facility in Chillicothe, Ohio, a patient eloped from a community living 
center and was fatally struck by a car.\6\ Staff had not properly 
managed the veteran's care, and they failed to report to facility 
safety staff numerous prior elopements. Facility safety staff also 
failed to take actions after other reported elopements by the same 
patient. Because indicators of a problem went unreported and then were 
unaddressed over an extended period of time after notifications were 
made, the consequences were devastating. Simply stated, early and 
honest reporting to the OIG can save lives and improve the quality of 
care provided to veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ VA OIG, Pathology Oversight Failures at the Veterans Health 
Care System of the Ozarks in Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 2, 2021.
    \5\ US Department of Justice, ``Fayetteville Doctor Sentenced to 20 
Years in federal Prison for Mail Fraud and Involuntary Manslaughter,'' 
press release, January 22, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdar/pr/
fayetteville-doctor-sentenced-20-years-Federal-prison-mail-fraud-and-
involuntary.
    \6\ VA OIG, Deficiencies in Community Living Center Practices and 
the Death of a Patient Following Elopement from the Chillicothe VA 
Medical Center in Ohio, May 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyone can be key to reporting--whether it is the person cleaning a 
VA facility, checking in patients, or providing VA care and services. 
For example, a purchasing agent uncovered a fraud scheme that involved 
a chief at a medical facility steering a contract that resulted in more 
than a half-million dollars in losses for VA. Also, a member of the VA 
police department reported that VA Puget Sound Health Care System staff 
discovered that bronchoscopes valued at over $100,000 were missing from 
the facility. Three ventilators valued at around $30,000 each were also 
missing, and some of the items were found on a then-VA employee's eBay 
account. That individual was imprisoned for the thefts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ US Department of Justice, ``Veterans Affairs Respiratory 
Therapist Sentenced to Prison for Stealing and Selling Medical 
Supplies,'' press release, January 11, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/
usao-wdwa/pr/veterans-affairs-respiratory-therapist-sentenced-prison-
stealing-and-selling-medical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In prior years, OIG staff have seen personnel in VA medical 
facilities stop reporting that inventory and other supply chain systems 
were not working.\8\ In addition to wasting resources, these systems' 
failures can put patients at risk and make it difficult for staff to do 
their jobs. Failures in information technology systems and poorly 
executed modernization programs are also a persistent problem that can 
put veterans at risk of not receiving benefits, services, and health 
care. The OIG needs early notification of these issues to help VA 
instill a culture of accountability where employees feel empowered to 
effect change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ VA OIG, Critical Deficiencies at the Washington DC VA Medical 
Center, March 7, 2018; Equipment and Supply Mismanagement at the 
Hampton VA Medical Center, Virginia, September 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But the OIG has found that many VA personnel do not report serious 
misconduct, failed systems, and suspected crimes in a timely manner--in 
part because they lack a basic understanding of the OIG's authority and 
their duty to cooperate with the OIG. The OIG also wants to communicate 
with VA employees so they are comfortable reporting suspected 
wrongdoing and can be assured of their confidentiality when they do so. 
The OIG understands that some employees may have the misperception that 
the OIG routinely shares complainants' identities with VA. It does not. 
And there have also been instances when VA employees have mistakenly 
believed they need supervisors' approval to respond to requests for 
data from the OIG, or they have lacked candor or responsiveness when 
speaking with OIG staff. Training mandated by H.R. 2733 would help to 
dispel these misconceptions.
    While VA employees have numerous training requirements, investing 
in OIG training is offset by the lives and the hundreds of millions of 
dollars potentially saved. For example, during the pandemic, 
discussions with a senior VA leader about reporting suspicious activity 
to the OIG resulted in the leader reporting concerns about a vendor 
seeking to sell more than $800 million of nonexistent personal 
protective equipment to VA. The OIG stopped the criminal scheme before 
VA handed over any funds, and the vendor was sentenced to more than 20 
years in prison for this scheme and an unrelated Ponzi scheme.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ US Department of Justice, ``Former Rochester Man Going to 
Prison for More than 20 Years for His Role in Ponzi and COVID-19 Fraud 
Schemes,'' press release, August 10, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/
usao-wdny/pr/former-rochester-man-going-prison-more-20-years-his-role-
ponzi-and-covid-19-fraud.

    H.R. 2733 will help ensure that VA employees know when and how to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
respond to OIG requests and report issues. The training

      details OIG legal authority to oversee all VA operations, 
services, and care;

      tests staffs' knowledge of what misconduct and potential 
crimes to report to the OIG and what to report to other VA entities 
like VA's Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection and 
non-VA entities, such as the Office of Special Counsel;

      advances Congress' commitment to holding VA employees 
accountable as well as protecting whistleblowers and other 
complainants;

      proposes ways for VA staff and OIG personnel to work 
toward improving the effectiveness and efficiency of VA programs and 
services; and

      empowers VA staff to tell veterans, their families, and 
caregivers about when to contact the OIG.

    The proposed additions by the Senate would also ensure VA employees 
are directed to information on the rights of federal whistleblowers to 
report to Congress and on the OIG's authority to compel testimony from 
former VA employees and contractors if certain criteria are followed.
    Following the Secretary's September 2021 memorandum directing VA 
employees to take the training, over 385,000 VA personnel have taken it 
as of June 26, 2023. Post-training survey results indicate that more 
than 74 percent of employees agreed or strongly agreed the training was 
useful, appropriate, and met other measures of satisfaction. Another 
24.4 percent provided neutral responses. Only about 1.6 percent of VA 
employees taking the training disagreed or strongly disagreed with its 
usefulness. The OIG is working with VA's Institute for Learning, 
Education, and Development staff to periodically review course survey 
information to help ensure continuous improvements.

CONCLUSION

    The OIG appreciates the support that the Committee and full House 
demonstrated to the OIG in the 117th Congress with the passage of 
similar legislation to train VA employees on cooperating with and 
reporting to the OIG. The passage of H.R. 2733 would similarly empower 
VA employees to assist the OIG in improving VA's operations and using 
taxpayer dollars to the greatest effect; helping to protect patients 
and improving their care; and ensuring veterans and others receive 
services and benefits for which they are eligible. Chairwoman Kiggans, 
this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions 
you or other members of the Committee may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                 Prepared Statement of Joshua Hastings

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray

    Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and members of the 
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending before this 
subcommittee.

H.R. 196, Expediting Temporary Ratings for Veterans Act

    The VFW supports this legislation that would require the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs to modify Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 
technology systems and create a process to automate temporary 
disability ratings for eligible veterans. The ability to extend 
temporary ratings is critical, especially for veterans who are 
hospitalized, and as the demands on VBA increase due to the enactment 
of the PACT Act.

H.R. 2733, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General 
Training Act of 2023

    The VFW supports this proposal to require each Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) employee to receive training developed by the VA 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the reporting of wrongdoing, 
responding to requests, and cooperating with the OIG. The VFW believes 
the OIG performs a critical role in overseeing and investigating the 
practices of VA, and a vital component of this role is employee input. 
Training employees on the role, responsibilities, and legal authority 
of the inspector general, and the duty of employees for engaging with 
the OIG is important to accomplishing its mission.
    This training would also empower the employees to identify the 
circumstances and mechanisms for reporting fraud, waste, and abuse, 
including making confidential complaints. It would protect the men and 
women who help our service members, veterans, and their families every 
single day.

H.R. 3504, VA Medical Center Security Report Act of 2023

    The VFW supports this common-sense proposal to study and review the 
security posture of VA facilities. The men and women who earned care at 
VA have also earned the right to seek that care in a safe and secure 
environment. We believe the outcomes of these studies and reports would 
also positively affect the dedicated employees who work diligently at 
VA facilities and deserve the same level of safety and support as the 
veterans they treat.

H.R. 4225, VA Acquisition Review Board Act of 2023

    The VFW supports this proposal to update and oversee VA's 
acquisition programs. VA needs to properly vet acquisitions in order to 
fully accomplish its critical mission. The men and women who serve our 
Nation's veterans at VA facilities need the best tools and systems 
available to properly perform their jobs. Additional review of these 
systems is beneficial, and the VFW hopes this proposal is a step toward 
ensuring efficient and effective acquisitions for the entire 
Department.

H.R. 4278, Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act

    The VFW supports this legislation to streamline authorities to 
suspend, demote, or fire VA employees who have been determined to 
warrant such action. We supported the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Public Law 
115-41) because the VFW had seen examples of VA's inability to hold 
certain employees accountable. This proposal would restore the original 
intent of the law that had technical gaps and was not implemented 
effectively.
    This important bill includes strong accountability reform for VA 
employees who do not meet the standards that veterans deserve. Almost 
six years after the passage of the VA Whistleblower Protection Act, the 
Secretary of VA still lacks the proper authority to swiftly terminate 
workers who should not be working at VA. This proposed legislation 
would improve VA's authority to discipline and remove employees who 
commit malfeasance. Earlier this year, VA Secretary Denis McDonough 
stated that VA was no longer using the authority enacted in the 2017 
law as it was creating more administrative and legal problems than were 
initially known. Well-intentioned laws that cannot be legally enforced 
hinder VA's ability to perform its vital functions.
    The VFW believes that VA and Congress must ensure the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs has the authority to quickly hold employees 
accountable for wrongdoing that may endanger the lives of veterans. 
That is why we support this important legislation. However, we also 
believe it is as important to ensure VA can quickly fill vacancies 
within its workforce that are created by removing bad actors. We urge 
the committee to continue working with VA to provide it with all the 
tools to hire and retain high-quality employees to serve our veterans 
each and every day.

H.R. XXX, Modernizing Department of Veteran Affairs Disability Benefit 
Questionnaires Act

    This bill requires VA to modify the necessary technology systems to 
allow Disability Benefit Questionnaires (DBQ) data to be received by VA 
in a machine-readable format. The VFW supports the goal of this 
legislation, but believes the language of the phrase ``by persons other 
than employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs under section 504 
of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-275; 
38 U.S.C. 5101 note)'' needs to be clarified so that private medical 
providers and individual veterans could continue to submit DBQs in the 
same way they are today.
    As VBA moves forward with automation, the nuance of the VA rating 
schedule, not the format of DBQs, is the most substantial issue. VA is 
in the process of updating the Veteran Affairs Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD) with the stated intent of ensuring examination 
information can be transmitted in a manner consistent with principles 
of automation. The greater concern is whether the changes to the VASRD 
will accurately reflect the associated disabilities.
    Chairwoman Kiggans, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW 
thanks you and Ranking Member Mrvan for the opportunity to testify on 
these important issues before this subcommittee. I am prepared to take 
any questions you or the subcommittee members may have.

 Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW 
has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2023, nor has it 
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
    The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign 
governments in the current year or the preceding two calendar years.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Clint Romesha

    Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and Members of the 
Subcommittee - thank you for the invitation to testify before you 
today.
    I'm here today on behalf of America's Warrior Partnership, where I 
am serving as an Emeritus Member of the Board. And while that may be my 
official position, I am really here to fulfill my duty. It's the same 
responsibility I had when I served in the military - and that is to 
look out for those who I served with. Those who are on your right and 
left. While our Nation has a sacred obligation to help those 18 million 
veterans who serve, that same small cohort of the nation's warrior 
class has a special bond to each other. And I am here for them.
    For those who served in the military, you are given tasks and held 
responsible for completing them. And you are held responsible and 
accountable if things are not done right. The reason is simple - 
discipline means lives. You are trained to do the right thing, the 
right way - because lives depend on it. And you are held accountable, 
because in the future you may need to be depended upon when your 
friend's lives are at stake.
    The VA should be no different. Period.
    Every single person at the VA needs to be trained to an exact 
standard. And be held responsible when things are not going right. 
Discipline is important. Because lives are at stake. And those working 
at the VA must be depended upon - and not risk the lives of veterans.
    This has not been the case. There are countless stories and 
problems.

      Whether it was wait-lists in Phoenix in 2014 - where 
senior management collected bonuses and veterans died while waiting for 
care -

      Or the Atlanta VA employee who punched an elderly veteran 
in the face

      Or the West Virginia VA employee who murdered her 
patients

    These are only a few examples. The question for these isn't ``why 
can't we just get rid of these employees?'' Instead, it must focus on 
``What happened in these workplaces to create an environment that 
allows these things to happen?''
    When discipline is gone, and a culture of responsibility and 
accountability is not enforced, training standards disappear. Then 
problems happen.
    This has a devastating ripple effect. First, on morale in the VA. 
The great employees in the VA see what is happening around them, and 
either give up on trying to do their best - or leave the system. The 
brain drain on talent can crush an organization. Next - it causes a 
loss of trust for our nation's veterans. For those who went to the VA 
for help and weren't treated well, or weren't seen, or couldn't be 
heard - they find that the VA is no longer dependable. And we are 
seeing the results of that - as the community care program grows 
exponentially with veterans fleeing the ailing system.
    And finally, when you develop a reputation for a lack of discipline 
and accountability - you have a hard time bringing in good people to 
replace those that are leaving. I've spoken with many individuals at 
the VA, and they all say the same thing: ``The hardest things to do at 
the VA is hire and fire.'' They cannot find good talent to join the 
system. And when they do, they are mired in paperwork for months, 
sometimes losing the qualified applicant. Conversely, it is nearly 
impossible to fire bad employees.
    If bad employees are tough to discipline and nearly impossible to 
remove, how can the VA expect to change its culture?
    Working for the federal government, on behalf of the American 
people, to help our veterans is an honor. And it is also a privilege 
that should be revoked for not meeting standards or expectations.
    Thankfully, Congress has acted in the past, and passed the VA 
Accountability Act. It was the hope of many veterans, and a bipartisan 
groundswell of support in Congress - that the measure could help fix 
some of the many issues about holding federal VA employees accountable.
    In fact, following the passage of the VA Accountability Act, trust 
in the VA increased:

      Employee satisfaction with senior leaders' honesty and 
integrity increased from 45 percent in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020.

      Veterans' VA-Wide trust scores increased from 59 percent 
in 2016 to 80 percent in 2020.

    However, despite clearly putting forward the intent of Congress and 
the executive branch into law - the VA has misused, misapplied, and now 
discarded the law.
    Putting aside how a federal agency can unilaterally decide to not 
follow the law, or how a small employee protection board created by 
Congress can claim to overrule a popular bill signed by the President, 
why would anyone be opposed to an accountability bill in the first 
place?
    The answer, sadly, is that money and jobs are at stake. Some see 
the VA as a major job provider and taxpayer-funded cash machine - with 
a budget that continues to soar. And those same individuals are most 
concerned with ensuring that the VA is a jobs-program, rather than an 
agency that is tasked with helping our nation's veterans.
    This must stop. The VA cannot focus on protecting jobs AND focus on 
helping veterans. And the unions and Merit System Protection Board 
(MSPB) and others must choose. The VA must focus on one, and I firmly 
believe the VA's sole mission and directive from this government is to 
take care of those who served our nation.
    Accordingly, I am thankful for this Committee's efforts, and the 
efforts of your colleagues in the Senate, to strengthen the VA 
Accountability Act. I am proud to fully support H.R. 4278, the Restore 
Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act.
    Importantly, this legislation empowers the VA to make a decision 
without worry of the MSPB interfering. It also makes it clear that 
these actions are supreme over any collective bargaining agreement. 
These employees are working for veterans and the American people, not 
the other way around. Accordingly, the accountability sections will 
also now apply to supervisors and managers, just as they did with the 
SES employees previously.
    In fact, Mission Roll Call did a recent poll of veterans, with 
nearly 16,000 respondents. The poll asked about the VA discontinuing 
the VA Accountability Act, and if veterans thought the VA should 
continue to follow the law. The results:

      Over 14,200 (89 percent) said YES, the VA should continue 
to follow the law and use the VA Accountability Act authorities.

      Roughly 1,700 (11 percent) said NO, the VA should scrap 
the law and wait for Congress.

    In March of this year, I co-authored an article that highlighted 
the need for oversight and reform at the VA, since the same issues 
plaguing the VA have been around for decades. This Committee has been 
working diligently to help the VA, only to have employee 
accountability, wait for health care, VA claims backlog, etc - continue 
to be persistent problems. Things need to change, and holding VA to 
account for the lack of progress is a good beginning.
    This legislation passed by wide margins previously and is still the 
law of the land. It is my hope that all Members of this Committee and 
this Congress can support these common-sense fixes and send this to the 
President for his signature soon.
    Again, thank you to everyone on the Committee for your invaluable 
work. We look forward to working with you all and stand by to assist. 
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
                                 ______
                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Terry Gerton

    Chair Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and members of the Committee, 
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I am a Fellow of the 
National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) and have served 
as its President and Chief Executive Officer since January 2017. In 
addition to my experience leading the Academy, I spent three and a half 
years as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of Labor 
and eight and a half years as a Senior Executive in the Department of 
Defense. I am also a Veteran with 20 years of active Army service, so I 
have personal experience with many of the topics of today's hearing. I 
have been a hiring manager, a Subject Matter Expert reviewer of 
applicant files, a member of Senior Executive hiring and interview 
panels, and a member of the Army's Senior Executive policy board. While 
serving as the Executive Deputy to the Commanding General of Army 
Materiel Command, I was responsible for the strategic management of 
over 80 Senior Executives, one-third of the Army's total allocation, 
along with the oversight of nearly 70,000 civilians in nearly every 
career field stationed around the world. I know how challenging it can 
be to make the federal personnel processes work, especially when it 
comes to holding federal employees to performance standards.
    The Academy also has deep expertise in federal human resource 
management topics. Established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 
1984, the Academy is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan 
organization dedicated to helping government leaders address today's 
most critical and complex challenges. The Academy has a robust 
organizational assessment capacity; a thorough grasp of cutting-edge 
needs and solutions across federal, state, and local governments; and 
unmatched independence, credibility, and expertise. Our organization 
consists of over 950 Fellows--including former cabinet officers, 
Members of Congress, Governors, mayors, and State legislators, as well 
as distinguished scholars, career public administrators, and business 
executives. The Academy has a proven record of improving the quality, 
performance, and accountability of government at all levels.
    Over 50 of our Fellows have experience in federal HR, and of those, 
many were themselves federal Chief Human Capital Officers. These 
Fellows and others join together in the Academy's Standing Panel on the 
Public Service, meeting regularly to research, discuss, and propose 
actions to improve HR practices at the federal level. They also 
contribute their expertise as members of Academy Study Panels, ensuring 
that all of our work includes consideration of strategic human capital 
implications. Across our history, many federal agencies have directly 
engaged the Academy and our Fellows for support in managing and 
modernizing their own HR systems. Supported agencies include the FBI, 
NASA, DOD, FAA, CDC, USAID, the Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. 
Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
    I am pleased to offer our perspective on some of the issues 
captured in the proposed legislation before you today to support the 
mission effectiveness of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
specifically the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2023. Our 
Congressional charter precludes the organization itself from taking an 
official position on legislation, and so my testimony today will 
reflect the Academy's history on these topics and our general 
recommendations.

THE ACADEMY'S PERSPECTIVES ON CIVIL SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS 
AND PRACTICES

    The Academy has long held the position that a professional, merit-
based civil service is essential to effective delivery of government 
programs. Earlier this year, our Fellows who comprise our Standing 
Panel on the Public Service wrote that the merit system should be at 
the core of any reforms agencies make to adapt to fast-changing 
workplace dynamics:

        Hiring based on merit and skill, workforce management, and 
        implementing laws in nonpartisan ways, provide for continuity 
        to deliver key services to the people across presidential 
        administrations. The merit system builds on basic principles: 
        hiring based on what applicants know, not who they know; 
        promotion based on demonstrated competence, not favoritism; 
        stable tenure in office, not mass turnover with each election; 
        access to effective education and training; providing fair and 
        equitable pay; and accountability to the U.S. Constitution, 
        laws, and duly authorized officials, not to political pressure. 
        These principles have stood at the core of American government 
        since enactment of the first laws establishing the civil 
        service 140 years ago, and they have had strong support over 
        the decades from presidents of both political parties.

    We also endorse an accurate and intentional deployment of the term 
``accountability.'' As a Panel of Academy Fellows wrote in a 2017 paper 
with a vision for a modernized federal service, No Time To Wait:

        In some recent policy debates, ``accountability'' has become a 
        euphemism for making it easier to fire public employees. The 
        system surely needs more flexibility, and poor performers 
        should not be retained in public service positions. But 
        ``accountability'' means much more than that. It is a time-
        honored principle that government should be responsible for 
        serving the public interest. Moreover, we believe that public 
        servants should not be viewed as symbols of big government or 
        as problems that need to be eliminated whenever possible. The 
        nation needs to follow the central lesson taught by its leading 
        private corporations: the best managed companies see their 
        employees as their biggest assets, and government should too. 
        Government employees are fundamentally important assets in 
        pursuing government's goals. Although we certainly need greater 
        accountability in public service, what we most need is a system 
        that holds administrators accountable for results. How well 
        government employees accomplish government's mission and what 
        principles are pursued in doing so are the key issues. Viewing 
        ``accountability'' through the narrow lens of ``firing 
        employees'' does the debate and the country no good service. 
        Instead, the focus should be on the creation of a federal human 
        capital system that (1) focuses on how best to achieve the 
        government's mission, (2) fits the core principles of merit to 
        meet the government's new challenges, and (3) redefines 
        accountability through strategies and tactics that meet 
        citizens' needs. What the country does not need is a system 
        preoccupied by--and mired in--process.

RECENT ACADEMY STUDIES THAT INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO CIVIL 
SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS AND PRACTICES

    The Academy has been engaged by several federal agencies over the 
past few years to help them address issues of employee accountability.

Independent Assessment of Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Filed 
Under The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scientific 
Integrity Policy

    In September 2019, NOAA's Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) 
received four complaints of alleged violations of scientific integrity 
filed under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative 
Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity). The allegations related to a 
specific NOAA public statement issued on September 6, 2019 regarding a 
tweet previously issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather 
Forecast Office (WFO) in Birmingham, Alabama, on September 1, 2019. 
NOAA's SIO engaged the Academy to conduct an independent assessment of 
those allegations.
    The Academy was charged to determine, based on a preponderance of 
the evidence, whether individuals within NOAA had violated NOAA's 
Scientific Integrity Policy. The report lays out the specific findings 
and supporting analysis, for action by senior NOAA officials. This 
engagement not only demonstrated the willingness of NOAA leaders to 
discipline subordinate employees if the evidence indicated misconduct. 
In turning to the Academy for an independent, objective assessment of 
the facts, NOAA leaders also demonstrated a willingness to hold 
themselves and the organization accountable to the public in a 
transparent and trustworthy way. Perhaps as important, however, were 
the recommendations to safeguard against future violations of 
scientific integrity, many of which were included in the President's 
Scientific Integrity Task Force report released in January 2022.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General: 
Advancing Change Management Processes

    Between September 2020 and July 2022, the DHS OIG engaged the 
Academy in a multi-phase project to assist with advancing multiple 
change management efforts.

    Phase One: Strategic Planning

    The Academy worked closely with OIG leaders and senior staff to map 
a comprehensive approach to developing a Strategic Plan for 2022-2026. 
The Strategic Plan set high-level strategic goals and objectives for 
the OIG and identified performance indicators to provide measures of 
progress toward these goals and objectives. The Academy supported the 
development of the Strategic plan by facilitating planning and 
visioning sessions with OIG leaders that identified the agency's values 
and desired organizational outcomes and solicited wider OIG staff 
feedback on proposed goals, objectives, and strategies through a survey 
and focus groups.

    Phase Two: GAO Action Plan and Strategic Workforce Plan

    Following the draft strategic plan submission, the DHS OIG 
contracted the Academy to help develop an implementation plan as well 
as an action plan in response to the Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) 21-316 report recommendations. Additionally, the Academy worked 
with DHS OIG to develop a Strategic Workforce Plan to address GAO's 
human capital related recommendations.

    Phase Three: Human Capital Gap Assessment

    In March 2022, the DHS OIG contracted with the Academy to analyze 
the current state of the DHS OIG's workforce, identify factors that 
contributed to the current State, and provide recommendations for the 
DHS OIG to achieve its desired future state.
    Issues of performance accountability were addressed in both the 
strategic planning and human capital strategic planning phases of the 
work. The Academy provided specific recommendations to the DHS OIG on 
matters of performance management, workforce planning, recruiting and 
retaining talent, and forecasting future workforce requirements.
    This work also demonstrated the power of the Federal Employee 
Viewpoint Survey as both an indicator of organizational culture 
challenges and a measure of the impact of actions taken to better 
engage employees and address accountability concerns.

Comprehensive Assessment of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

    Section 3513 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2020 directed the Secretary of Transportation to enter into 
an agreement with the Academy to conduct an independent study to 
examine a series of matters related to the USMMA.
    Overall, this report includes 67 actionable recommendations in 
chapters 3 through 10. Collectively, the recommendations, if 
implemented, provide a course of action for USMMA and its oversight 
agencies to meet the challenges USMMA presently faces. They also 
provide a tool through which Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, 
and the Maritime Administration can demonstrate accountability to the 
public for the well-being of the young cadets entrusted to their care. 
These challenges span education and training, facilities and 
infrastructure, diversity, institutional culture, Sexual Assault/Sexual 
Harassment response, planning for the future, stakeholder relations, 
institutional-level governance and management, and external governance, 
oversight, and accountability.

An Assessment of Cultural Competence at the United States Coast Guard 
Academy

    Section 8272 of the Coast Guard Academy Improvement Act, part of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2021, required the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to contract with the Academy to conduct 
two discrete one-year studies focusing on the USCGA. The first study 
was an assessment of the cultural competency of the USCGA.
    Cultural competence is a congruent set of behaviors, attitudes, and 
policies that enable a system, agency, or professionals to work 
effectively in cross-cultural situations. ``Culture'' refers to the 
integrated patterns of human behavior that include language, thoughts, 
communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of 
racial, ethnic, religious, and social groups. ``Competence'' implies 
having the capacity to function effectively as individuals and as an 
organization. (Source: Terry L. Cross, Barbara J. Bazron, Karl W. 
Dennis, and Mareasa R. Isaacs, ``Toward a Culturally Competent System 
of Care,''1989)

    This Academy study included:

      A comprehensive assessment of the current cultural 
competency and diversity, equity, and inclusion resources and 
capabilities of the USCGA.

      Analysis of institutional practices, policies, and 
structures, and any other areas of focus deemed appropriate in 
assessing the USCGA's cultural competence.

      Recommendations to enhance USCGA cultural competence, 
which may include outreach and recruitment; modifying structures and 
practices to foster a more diverse cadet corps body, faculty, and staff 
workforce; and modifying policies to foster retention of cadets, 
faculty, and staff.

    The Panel found that at the Coast Guard Academy, more can be done 
to build an infrastructure of coordinated policies, procedures, and 
structures to drive desired outcomes. The USCG subsequently released to 
Congress a comprehensive action memorandum specifying its plan to 
implement the recommendations in the study. This plan includes a Line 
of Effort to hold leaders accountable for Diversity and Inclusion 
performance and progress at the unit level, and a commitment to 
accountability for advancing cultural competence throughout the 
institution.

United States Office of Personnel Management Independent Assessment

    In Section 1112(b) of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense 
Authorization (NDAA) Act, Congress directed the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) to contract with the Academy to conduct a 
comprehensive, independent study that would address a series of 
specific issues surrounding OPM's responsibilities. These included:

      the statutory and non-statutory functions assigned to OPM 
and the challenges associated with executing those mandates;

      the means, options, and recommended course of actions for 
addressing the challenges identified, including feasibility, costs, and 
benefits;

      a timetable for the implementation of identified options 
and recommendations;

      the statutory or regulatory changes needed to execute the 
recommendations;

      the methods for engaging with other Federal entities 
potentially affected by recommendations involving changes to OPM's 
structure, functions, responsibilities, and authorities; and

      the views of identified stakeholders, including federal 
and non-federal entities or organizations representing customers and 
beneficiaries.

    After a year of work, the Academy's Panel of Fellows provided its 
report in March 2021. In conducting this study, the Panel identified 
several cross-cutting challenges affecting OPM's ability to effectively 
deliver on its mission to lead federal human capital management.
    These include various authorities governing federal human capital; 
lack of sustained leadership and priorities given the recurrent 
turnover of directors and deputy directors; limited use of data and 
data analytics to inform policy; outdated information technology 
engendering enterprise and operational risks; and constrained financial 
and staffing resources affecting staff capacity and supporting 
technology and tools.
    Of particular relevance to your discussion today is the study's 
observation that the complex web of legislation and regulation that has 
accreted around the topic of federal civilian personnel management 
makes it simultaneously challenging for managers and leaders to 
understand exactly what rules they are supposed to be following, easy 
to find loopholes that might be interpreted to permit otherwise 
unintended behavior, and simplest and safest to follow a path focused 
on compliance rather than innovation.

LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM 
THE ACADEMY'S WORK

    While the recommendations from each of these studies are particular 
to their subject agencies, general principles for effective employee 
accountability and performance management certainly emerge.

        1. Organizational Culture Impacts Employee Performance

                a. Cultivate an institutional culture in which every 
                community member is respected, valued, and can fulfill 
                her or his maximum potential as a leader of exemplary 
                character.

                b. Remediate breakdowns in governance clearly and 
                publicly, replacing compliance-focused processes with 
                processes that are strategy-and performance-based, to 
                build confidence and trust with employees for the 
                future.

                c. Place greater emphasis across all departments on 
                cultural competence, especially in the processes for 
                hiring and developing senior leaders, including a 
                longer-term human capital strategic plan.

        2. Strategic Workforce Planning That Links Performance to 
        Mission Enables Effective Performance Management

                a. Strategic workforce planning enhances an 
                organization's ability to understand and manage 
                attrition, align skills to mission and invest in 
                appropriate training, set and manage performance 
                standards, and provide guidance and oversight.

                b. Enterprise HRIT systems are essential to provide 
                organizations with the data to manage their workforce 
                (including performance management) effectively and 
                consistently.

                c. Employee viewpoint surveys offer crucial insight 
                into organizational culture and climate issues that may 
                affect or arise from performance issues and provide an 
                important starting point for any strategy of increased 
                employee engagement and accountability.

        3. Clear Communication and Consistent Application of 
        Performance Standards is Essential

                a. Develop and communicate clear guidelines, standards, 
                and policies on expected performance standards for all 
                personnel. Provide examples and scenarios to support 
                understanding.

                b. Require staff-wide training on standards and 
                policies, including signed statements of understanding 
                at completion.

          c. Establish and communicate clear standards and protocols 
        for investigations of performance failures or misconduct. 
        Specify variations in the protocols, if any, based on rank, 
        position, or political appointment.

        4. There Is No Substitute for Effective Leadership

                a. Cultural competence and DEIA should be essential 
                parts of leader and staff performance standards; low 
                evaluations should have consequences.

                b. Clearly defining roles, formalizing procedures, and 
                assigning ownership for critical function areas reduce 
                ad hoc decision making and allows leaders to set 
                organization-wide priorities. These steps also 
                streamline operations and improve organizational 
                efficiency, potentially easing pressure on managers.

    Taken together, these findings offer a roadmap for building an 
organization where a central focus on and understanding of mission 
drives performance at every level. Across every branch, division, 
level, and rank, expectations are clearly communicated and consistently 
enforced. Systems are in place to compile and analyze data to inform 
workforce planning and management decisions. Leaders are trained and 
tuned to manage a diverse workforce and provide clear guidance and 
feedback on performance expectations. The agency plans for and invests 
in training aligned to mission objectives. And, employees feel valued 
and prepared for the critical missions to which they are assigned.
    All of this brings us back to the central topics of performance and 
accountability. The system surely needs more flexibility, and poor 
performers should not be retained in public service positions. At the 
VA particularly, our Veterans deserve the highest quality service and 
care. But, as I highlighted earlier, viewing ``accountability'' through 
the narrow lens of ``firing employees'' does the debate and the country 
no good--the ability to fire individuals for poor performance is no 
substitute for good leadership. It is far better to build organizations 
where mission and performance are aligned from the beginning, where 
systems are designed and implemented to provide evidence that can 
inform consistent and strategic decisions, and where investments in 
training provide a strong scaffold upon which to build individual 
competency. Then, an organization can be truly accountable to those who 
matter most...those they are created and funded to serve.
    Since its establishment in 1967, the Academy has responded to 
requests for assistance from a wide range of agencies and organizations 
and has undertaken numerous studies on issues of interest to Congress 
and the executive branch. With its network of distinguished Fellows and 
an experienced, multi-dimensional professional staff, the Academy is 
uniquely qualified and trusted to provide objective advice and 
practical solutions that help government leaders overcome complex 
challenges and produce positive change.
    Each Academy project is directed and overseen by an expert Panel or 
Expert Advisory Group (EAG) that consists primarily of Fellows. These 
Panels or EAGs provide high-level expertise and knowledge of current 
and emerging best practices. They are supported by a professional Study 
Team of highly qualified project directors, analysts, and researchers 
that ensure our Panels have all the information required to develop 
their recommendations and provide meaningful advice to our client 
organizations.
    I would reiterate that the Academy has many Fellows with deep 
recent experience in federal human capital management. We convene them 
regularly through our Standing Panel on the Public Service and can 
engage them on specific topics as required. We would welcome the 
opportunity to partner with this Committee to develop and evaluate 
options that could lead to a stronger and more effective Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
    Chair Kiggans, that concludes my written statement. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee members may have.

                       Statements for the Record

                              ----------                              


Prepared Statement of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
                                  CIO

    Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) and 
its National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC) appreciate the opportunity 
to submit a statement for the record on today's legislative hearing on 
``Pending Legislation.'' AFGE represents more than 750,000 federal and 
District of Columbia government employees, 291,000 of whom are proud, 
dedicated Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees. These include 
front-line providers at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who 
provide exemplary specialized medical and mental health care to 
veterans, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) workforce 
responsible for the processing veterans' claims, the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals (Board) employees who shepherd veterans' appeals, and the 
National Cemetery Administration Employees (NCA) who honor the memory 
of the nation's fallen veterans every day.
    With this firsthand and front-line perspective, we offer our 
observations on the following bills being considered at today's 
hearing:

H.R. 4278, the ``Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability 
    Act''

    AFGE strongly opposes H.R. 4278, the ``Restore Department of 
Veterans Affairs Accountability Act.'' As AFGE wrote in its statement 
for the record at this subcommittee's March 9, 2023, oversight hearing 
titled ``Accountability at VA: Leadership Decisions Impacting its 
Employees and Veterans,'' AFGE strongly objected to the design and 
implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. Specifically, AFGE has long 
objected to the VA's use of the disciplinary authority in 38 U.S.C. 714 
(Sec. 714) of the law and how it has harmed hardworking and dedicated 
employees. Additionally, through this experience AFGE is also aware of 
the failure of VA leadership to hold managers accountable under other 
provisions of the law. AFGE has supported efforts to amend the law to 
restore fairness to VA employees, including the bi-partisan 
``Protecting VA Employees Act'' (H.R. 6682 in the 117th Congress). 
introduced last Congress.
    Contrary to this, H.R. 4278, the ``Restore Department of Veterans 
Affairs Accountability Act'' will again counterproductively diminish 
the due process and collective bargaining rights of VA employees 
compared federal employees in other agencies, including those in the 
Department of Defense who take care of the nation's active-duty 
military. In particular, the bill's proposed abrogation of collective 
bargaining agreements, reinforcing the use of the ``Substantial 
Evidence Standard,'' restating the prohibition on the Merit Systems 
Protection Board to mitigate penalties, limiting the use of the 
``Douglas Factors,'' and using this bill retroactively go out of their 
way to treat VA employees like second class federal workers, despite 
their noble mission. AFGE strongly opposes the bill.

Background

    Public Law 115-41, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Accountability 
Act or Act), was signed into law on June 23, 2017. At the time of its 
passage, supporters claimed the Act was intended to simplify and 
expedite the disciplinary process at VA so that it could better hold 
bad employees accountable. The Act is divided into two parts, Title I, 
which established the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protections (OAWP) and Title II, which governs Accountability and 
Adverse Actions for Senior Executives, VA Employees, and Supervisors 
disciplinary procedures. Within Title II, the bill enacted 38 U.S.C. 
Sec. 714 which changed the following disciplinary procedures for 
bargaining unit employees (38 U.S.C. Sec. 713 is for managers in the 
Senior Executive Service):

      Required management to make a final decision within 15 
business days of proposing an adverse action (i.e., suspension of more 
than 14 days, demotion, or removal);

      Reduced the time period for an employee to respond to a 
proposed adverse action to 7 business days;

      Reduced the time period for an employee to appeal the 
final adverse action to 10 business days;

      Lowered the standard of proof necessary to sustain an 
adverse action before a third party, such as arbitrators and the Merit 
Systems Protection Board (MSPB), from preponderance of the evidence to 
substantial evidence;

      Prevented third part adjudicators from mitigating 
unreasonable penalties assigned by VA.

Oversight

    Since the Act's enactment, there has been robust oversight over the 
Act's implementation, and its effect on the workforce in multiple 
venues:

        Congressional Oversight

    The House Veterans' Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing in 
July 2018 before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs entitled ``The VA 
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act: One Year Later.'' \1\ 
The committee's goal was to address problems caused by the VA's 
implementation of the Act. In his opening statement, then-Ranking 
Member Mark Takano addressed the VA's penchant to use the Act to 
disproportionately discipline rank and file employees as opposed to 
supervisors and other management officials stating: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act: One 
Year Later: Before the H. Comm. On Veterans Affairs, 115th Congr. 
(2018), https://republicans-veterans.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx'EventID=2212.
    \2\ The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act: One 
Year Later: Before the H. Comm. On Veterans Affairs, 115th Congr. 
(2018) (statement of Mark Takano, ranking member), https://republicans-
veterans.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=2212.

        ``[Of] the 1,086 removals during the first 5 months of 2018, 
        the majority of those fired were housekeeping aides...I also 
        find it hard to believe that there are large numbers of 
        housekeeping aides whose performance is so poor that it cannot 
        be addressed. If that is truly the case, then it stands to 
        reason that there are also management issues behind their poor 
        performance. But of those 1,096 removals, only fifteen were 
        supervisors which is less than 1.4 percent. Firing rank and 
        file employees does nothing to resolve persistent management 
        issues.'' He continued ``it is not possible to fire your way to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        excellence.''

    AFGE also testified at this hearing citing how the law 
disproportionately harmed lower paid federal workers and not the 
managers who supervised them, and also further explained many of the 
structural problems with the law that continue to exist today.\3\ AFGE 
has also commented on the Accountability Act at other House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee hearings including before this subcommittee on May 
19, 2021 at hearing titled ``Protecting Whistleblowers and Promoting 
Accountability: is VA Making Progress?'' \4\ citing the problems with 
the current law and the need to pass reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act: One 
Year Later: Before the H. Comm. On Veterans Affairs, 115th Congr. 
(2018) (statement of then-AFGE National President J. David Cox). 
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108516.
    \4\ Protecting Whistleblowers and Promoting Accountability: is VA 
Making Progress? Before the H. Comm. On Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations, 117th Congr. (2021) (AFGE Statement 
for the Record).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inspector General Investigation

    In response to requests for an investigation from multiple 
legislators, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) highlighted VA's 
failure to properly implement the portion of the Act pertaining to 
whistleblower protection. The OIG issued a report, which explained, 
``in many instances, [OAWP] focused only on finding evidence sufficient 
to substantiate the allegations without attempting to find exculpatory 
or contradictory evidence.''
    Further, while VA front-line employees were being disciplined more 
often and more harshly under Sec. 714 of the Accountability Act, the 
OIG report found that VA ``struggled with implementing the Act's 
authority to hold executives accountable.'' OIG explained that despite 
statements from then-Secretary Shulkin, as of May 22, 2019, VA had only 
removed one covered senior executive employee under 38 U.S.C. 713. 
Further, of thirty-five cases involving senior executives, VA deciding 
officials mitigated the discipline of thirty-two before issuing a final 
decision.
    The OIG investigation revealed unlawful whistleblower retaliation 
by OAWP itself, noting that after an OAWP employee made a whistleblower 
complaint, Executive Director O'Rourke instructed a subordinate to 
remove the employee. Finally, the OIG found that the VA did not comply 
with reporting and training requirements of the Act and failed to 
adequately report to Congress regarding the outcomes of disciplinary 
actions.

        Freedom of Information Act

    In an attempt to learn more about the VA's use of its authorities 
under the Accountability Act, on May 31, 2022, AFGE submitted a Freedom 
of Information Act (FOIA) Request to the VA. This request asked the VA 
to share, without violating the privacy of employees, the VA's use of 
Section 204 of the Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
Protection Act of 2017, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 721, which authorizes the 
Secretary to issue an order, under certain circumstances, directing an 
employee to repay an award or bonus paid to the employee. This request 
covered the period from June 23, 2017, through May 31, 2022. In 
response to the AFGE's request, the VA responded on June 2, 2022, and 
stated that ``This is a recently enacted VA policy and there are no 
responsive records.'' This is evidence that the VA has not utilized all 
of the tools at its disposal to hold employees accountable, and that 
the VA does not need additional tools for accountability. Instead, for 
the last six years, VA abused its authority under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 714 to 
remove thousands of front-line employees and service-connected veterans 
while failing to hold senior executives and management officials to the 
same standard.

Challenges in Federal Court

    Since the enactment of the Accountability Act, several parts of the 
law have been successfully challenged in federal courts, resulting in 
multiple rebukes from the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit or Court) finding that VA violated the 
law and fundamental civil service protections through its abuse of 38 
U.S.C. Sec. 714. One line of cases is related to the restrictions on 
the MSPB or third party adjudicators to consider the reasonableness of 
a penalty or to mitigate that penalty. In Sayers v. Dep't of Veterans 
Affairs, the Federal Circuit determined that, contrary to VA's 
contentions, the MSPB was permitted to review the reasonableness of the 
penalty imposed by deciding officials in light of the facts of a 
particular case under Sec. 714. The Court explained that ``[d]eciding 
that an employee stole a paper clip is not the same as deciding that 
the theft of a paper clip warranted the employee's removal.'' It is 
clear that prior to Sayers, the Agency promoted a limited review and 
harshly disciplined employees under Sec. 714, often for similarly 
trivial acts.
    The perceived inability to consider the reasonableness of VA's 
chosen penalty led judges to affirm decisions where even a single 
charge was proven by substantial evidence. Where the harshest available 
penalty, removal, was used liberally, this led to a loss of employee 
resources for relatively minor infractions. VA's rush to remove 
employees was clear in performance cases as well. As Administrative 
Judges believed they could not consider the reasonableness of the 
penalty in those instances, employees were removed for easily remedied 
performance failures. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Brenner v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 990 F.3d 1313, (Fed. Cir. 
2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another key element of the law examined by the courts is the VA's 
mistaken claim that the Accountability Act eliminated the preponderance 
of the evidence standard at the administrative level and replaced it 
with the new substantial evidence standard that applies to third party 
review. In Rodriguez v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, the Court held that 
the ``preponderance of the evidence, rather than substantial evidence 
was the correct standard for management to apply at the administrative 
level in conduct cases under [Sec. ]714.'' \6\ The Court explained that 
when determining whether conduct justified discipline under Sec. 714, 
preponderance of the evidence was the correct evidentiary burden, and 
the MSPB's standard of review should be substantial evidence. 
Consequently, the Court found that VA had applied the wrong evidentiary 
standard in its Sec. 714 conduct cases. The Court held in August 2021 
that VA and MSPB must apply the Douglas Factors in deciding and 
reviewing the imposed penalty.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Ariel Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290 
(Fed. Cir.) (2021).
    \7\ Stephen Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 
(Fed. Cir.) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By subjecting management's decisions to additional scrutiny, the 
Court demonstrated VA's overreach in its use of the Accountability Act. 
The use of Sec. 714 has proven to have had its greatest impact on 
lower-level employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, 
compounding a chronic staffing crisis while doing little to address 
systemic problems such as inadequate training and hostile managers. 
Thus, while the reviewing arbitrators, Administrative Law Judges, and 
Federal Circuit Judges have done much to curtail VA's broad 
interpretation of the law, the law itself must be amended if it is to 
accomplish its stated goal of improving systemic flaws in the Agency.
    Furthermore, in the recent case Richardson v. Department of 
Veterans Affairs, the MSPB further limited the applicability of the 
law.\8\ In Richardson, the MSPB ruled that an employee appointed under 
38 U.S.C 7401(3), a ``hybrid'' Title 38/Title 5 employee, could not be 
terminated under Sec. 714 as the text of 38 U.S.C. 7403(f)(3) dictated 
its reliance on ``the procedures'' of chapter 75 of Title 5.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Richardson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Docket No. AT-
0714-21-0109-I-1 (MSPB) (2023).
    \9\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result of these and other legal rulings and determinations, 
the VA announced on March 5, 2023, that the VA will prospectively 
``cease using the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  714 to propose new 
adverse actions against employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA), effective April 3, 2023.''

Specific Objections to the ``Restore Department of Veterans Affairs 
    Accountability Act''

    In response to the court rulings since the enactment of the 
Accountability Act, H.R. 4278 the ``Restore Department of Veterans 
Affairs Accountability Act'' was introduced to reverse these decisions 
and expand the powers of the original Accountability Act. AFGE strongly 
objects to several provisions in the bill that will infringe upon the 
rights of VA employees, and harm recruitment and retention:

        Abrogation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

    On Page 14, line 22 of the legislation, the bill states ``[t]he 
procedure in this section shall supersede any collective bargaining 
agreement to the extent that such agreement is inconsistent with such 
procedures.'' The VA workforce is second largest workforce in the 
federal government, second only to the Department of Defense. AFGE is 
proud to represent more than 291,000 bargaining unit employees, making 
the union contract that is scheduled to be signed by AFGE and Secretary 
McDonough on August 8, 2023, the largest collective bargaining 
agreement in the government. To say that any procedures that were 
meticulously negotiated at the bargaining table in this and prior 
contracts are now out the window is grossly unfair, as both parties 
compromised to arrive at this agreement given the state of the law at 
the time. This would also provide the VA the opportunity to cease using 
Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) prior to disciplining an employee 
for performance, which is a common practice within the federal 
workforce. Additionally, while members of both parties proudly support 
rank and file union members at other agencies and in the private 
sector, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, electricians, 
and plumbers, the choice to hold these employees at the VA to a 
standard not used for similarly situated employees at other departments 
is unnecessary, and only serves to dissuade potential employees from 
working at the VA when they could similar if not identical jobs with 
better protections at another agency.

        Reinforcing the Use of the ``Substantial Evidence Standard''

    38 U.S.C. Sec.  714 established by the Accountability Act mandates 
that the MSPB uphold management's decision to remove, demote, or 
suspend an employee if the decision is supported by substantial 
evidence. While not defined in the law, management guidance defined 
substantial evidence as ``relevant evidence that a reasonable person, 
considering the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support 
a conclusion, even though other reasonable persons might disagree, or 
evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion.''
    As discussed in Rodriguez v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, VA 
improperly read Sec. 714 to mean that its burden of proof at the 
administrative level in justifying discipline was lowered to the 
substantial evidence standard. The Federal Circuit disagreed with the 
Agency's position, finding that the Agency conflated burden of proof 
and standard of review. Consequently, the Court found that the VA still 
had to meet the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in its 
decision to discipline for conduct.
    With the proposed text on Page 12, lines four through 10, the bill 
is plainly trying to overturn Rodriguez v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 
and force the VA, even in cases where the balance of evidence favors 
the employee, the opportunity if not obligation to dismiss the 
employee. This is especially prevalent in ``he said, she said'' cases 
based on allegations of misconduct. For example, if 10 individuals were 
witnesses to an incident and seven sided with the employee's story, but 
three sided with the VA's, the VA would meet its burden under 
``Substantial Evidence'' and could dismiss the employee. This is unfair 
and deprives VA employees of the same protections enjoyed in other 
departments in the federal government.

        Restating the MSPB's Inability to Mitigate Unreasonable 
        Penalties

    Under current statute established by the Accountability Act, the 
law provides that where the Agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, the MSPB or an arbitrator may not mitigate the 
penalty. Thus, the MSPB or an arbitrator could only reverse an Agency 
decision it determined was unreasonable. MSPB had an extremely high 
rate of affirming Agency decisions even before the enactment of the 
Accountability Act. MSPB's affirmance rate of VA decisions was 83.7 
percent, of the years recorded since, 2019 was the highest rate of 
affirmance at 89.44 percent. Few cases were mitigated prior to 2017, 
however, mitigation was available to reviewing entities, saving the 
time of sending back a case, causing needless delay.
    The text on page 14, lines seven through 10 of the legislation is a 
doubling down on a bad policy of letting the MSPB or a third-party 
arbitrator from righting obvious abuses by the VA. Not only should this 
provision be stricken, but the ability to mitigate a penalty should be 
restored to the MSPB. This change would ensure fair determinations and 
restore basic notions of due process and fairness to the workforce by 
treating similarly situated employees in a consistent manner.

        Limiting the Use of the Douglas Factors

    Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, spoke to the issue of 
mitigation. In that case, on appeal, the MSPB sustained only one of the 
27 charges against the employee. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the 
Agency argued it need not consider the Douglas Factors in Sec. 714 
proceedings.\10\ In its ruling, the Court ruled that the ``[t]here is 
no basis for the government's argument that the statutory ban on 
penalty mitigation by the Board eliminated the obligation to consider 
and apply the Douglas factors.''-\11\ In response to this, the 
``Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act'' would 
require that only five of the Douglas Factors be considered when 
determining the reasonability of discipline, but goes out of its way to 
actively exclude the other seven Douglas Factors. This is counter to 
the opinion in Connor, where the court referenced Douglas v. Veterans 
Administration and wrote while citing to Douglas ``While not all of the 
factors will be pertinent to every case, the Board in Douglas explained 
that the agency must `consider the relevant factors' and `strike a 
responsible balance' in selecting a penalty.`` \12\ In turn, by 
excluding seven ``Douglas Factors'' the legislation goes out of its way 
exclude reasonable reasons why an employee should have a penalty 
reduced, including the sixth Douglas Factor which considers 
``consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees 
for the same or similar offenses.'' \13\ AFGE urges that every deciding 
official and third party adjudicator have the obligation to consider 
all 12 Douglas Factors that may be relevant, not just the five which 
the bill considers important. Not only should the agency be required to 
use the Douglas factors, but appellate bodies should be able to review 
the agency's appropriate consideration of these factors governing the 
severity of discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Stephen Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 
(Fed. Cir.) (2021).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Stephen Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 
(Fed. Cir.) (2021); Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 
(1981) at 332-33.
    \13\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Retroactive Application of the Bill

    Beyond each of the individual policy objections AFGE has with the 
bill, the text proposed on page 15, lines one through five stating that 
``[t]his section shall apply to any performance or misconduct of a 
covered individual beginning on the date of enactment of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 
2017 (Public Law 115-41).'' Considering the significant discipline and 
litigation that has occurred over the past six years, the idea that old 
disciplinary actions, including the possibility of those already 
resolved could now be subject to new rules after the fact only creates 
more tumult for a workforce that has had its fill. Retroactivity is not 
only unjust but creates chaos and should be stricken.

        H.R. 3504, VA Medical Center Security Report Act

    AFGE supports H.R. 3504, the ``VA Medical Center Security Report 
Act'' and thanks Subcommittee Chairwoman Kiggans (R-VA), Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Pappas (D-NH), and Representative Lee (D-NV) for its bi-
partisan introduction. If enacted, this bill would require an annual 
survey to collect information related to the security of VA Medical 
Centers. Among the many components that are required by this 
prospective survey, AFGE particularly supports the disclosing of ``the 
type and frequency of criminal activity experienced at the medical 
center during the 12 months prior to the date the covered employee 
completes the survey,'' ``the number of vacant positions for Department 
police officers at the medical center, and the number of days each 
vacant position has been vacant,'' and ``the availability and adequacy 
of covered equipment.'' The data gathered here will demonstrate to both 
the VA and the committee on the need to focus on the recruitment and 
retention of VA Police Officers, and the serious, and often time 
dangerous, nature of their job. The results of this report will further 
underscore the need to give VA Police Officers full Law Enforcement 
Officer retirement as would be created with the enactment of H.R. 1322, 
the ``Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act,'' which is co-sponsored by 
nine members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, including 
Chairman Bost (R-IL) and Ranking Member Takano (D-CA), and is endorsed 
by the VA.
    The only technical amendment AFGE would suggest on this legislation 
is to expand its coverage to all VA facilities. AFGE is proud to 
represent employees who work at Community Based Outpatient Clinics, 
Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Offices, National Cemetery 
Administration Facilities, The Board of Veterans Appeals, and other VA 
facilities. This change would better capture the complete operations of 
VA Police work at all VA facilities.

Conclusion

    AFGE thanks the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for the 
opportunity to submit a Statement for the Record for today's hearing. 
AFGE stands ready to work with the committee and the VA to address the 
workforce issues currently facing the department and find solutions 
that will enable VA employees to better serve our Nation's veterans.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of Concerned Veterans for America

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of Donald Kettl

    Thank you for this opportunity to present a statement on H.R. 4278, 
``Restore VA Accountability Act of 2023.''
    I am Professor Emeritus and Former Dean of the University of 
Maryland School of Public Policy, and a Fellow of the National Academy 
of Public Administration. However, in submitting this statement, I am 
speaking only for myself.

Summary

    This proposed legislation is, I believe, a serious mistake that 
would harm the Department of Veterans Affairs and injure the nation's 
effort to care for those who have given so much to it. In summary, 
here's why:

      The legislation misunderstands what accountability means.

      It assumes that we ought to run government more like a 
business. That's precisely what we should do--but we should manage 
government the way the best-managed businesses are led. The proposed 
legislation would not do that.

      The legislation argues that performance in the VA would 
improve by firing poor performers. However, there's no evidence that 
the VA's rate of firing poor performers is lower than in the private 
sector. In fact, it's probably significantly higher.

      The health industry is struggling with a manpower 
crisis--and no expert thinks that the best way to address the problem 
is to 're more employees.

      The act would destabilize the VA, which would only erode 
its performance.

      Good management is impossible to legislate. It's a people 
process. The proposed legislation attempts to mandate good management 
instead of creating the foundation for doing so.

      There are better alternatives to improving the VA's 
performance.

    Let me explore each of these issues in more detail.

We must understand what accountability really means

    Accountability describes many relationships, and it's often used in 
a fuzzy way. In fact, it's often used interchangeably to describe the 
responsiveness of career officials to the policy goals of political 
appointees; the resistance of these career officials to policy 
direction; and the challenge of dealing with poor performers.
    These approaches are not--and should not be considered--
interchangeable. Rather, accountability needs to be understood as a 
relationship: who is accountable to whom, for what? Good management 
needs to begin by specifying this relationship. Focusing on firing 
employees misunderstands how accountability ought to work.

We should manage government like a business--according to the best 
business practices

    We often begin the debate about government reform by arguing that 
it ought to be run more like a business. That's an excellent idea--but 
it requires actually running the government according to the practices 
of the best-run private companies. H.R. 4278 does not bring to the 
government what these best-run companies actually do. No effective 
21st-century company would focus on firing poor performers to improve 
its results.
    The broader debate has been going on for a very long time. For 
example, consider this assertion:

        I seek to run [the government] as any honest man attempts to 
        run his business and to live within my revenue.

    The statement came from a progressive, not a conservative. It came 
85 years ago. And it came from New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Quoted by Philip Bump, ``Trump's idea to run the government 
like a business is an old one in American politics,'' Washington Post 
(March 27, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/
03/27/trumps-idea-to-run-the-government-like-a-business-is-an-old-one-
in-american-politics/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Much of the criticism of the government contends that government 
would be better if it were run more like a business, that it brought 
more accountability to employees, and that the key to improving 
accountability is to make it easier to fire poor performers. As Rep. 
Mike Bost has said in support of this legislation, ``In order to best 
serve veterans, the VA Secretary must have the authority to quickly and 
fairly remove, demote, or suspend bad employees who are undermining the 
quality of services that our veterans have earned.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Quoted by Ripon Advance News Service, ``Bost, Moran unveil 
Restore Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act,'' The Ripon 
Advantage (July 7, 2023), https://riponadvance.com/stories/bost-moran-
unveil-restore-department-of-veterans-affairs-accountability-act/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This, however, is not how the best managers manage in the private 
sector. For example, Paul Zak in the Harvard Business Review concluded, 
based on extensive research, that the keys to effective management are 
``setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it 
through, and then getting out of their way. In short, to boost 
engagement, treat people like responsible adults.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Paul J. Zak, ``The Neuroscience of Trust,'' Harvard Business 
Review (January-February 2017), https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-
neuroscience-of-trust
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, if a manager is concerned about the performance of a 
subordinate, Rebecca Knight wrote in the Harvard Business Review that 
it is essential to consider the root cause of an employee's problems, 
seek input from trusted employees, be transparent with the employee and 
provide an opportunity to improve, consult closely with the human 
resources team, and focus on three or four areas an employee needs to 
work on.\4\ There is no basic guide to good business management that 
elevates firing employees to the first level of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Rebecca Knight, ``How to Decide Whether to Fire Someone,'' 
Harvard Business Review (January 28, 2019), https://hbr.org/2019/01/
how-to-decide-whether-to-fire-someone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firing is a symptom of bad hiring.

There's no evidence that the rate of firing in the VA is lower than in 
    the private sector--in fact, it's probably significantly higher

    The underlying assumption of H.R. 4278 is that the VA needs to 
operate more like the private sector and that the key to doing so is 
firing poor performers. But how do the VA's personnel practices compare 
with the private health industry?
    A precise comparison across the federal and private sectors is 
impossible because the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does not 
tabulate its statistics in that way. However, the following figure 
provides a very useful comparison, based on BLS data (for the private 
sector) and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's FedScope (for the 
VA's Veterans Health Administration).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release: 
Table 3--Total Separations Levels and Rates by Industry  (May 31, 
2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t03.htm; and U.S. Office 
of Personnel Management, FedScope, http://bit.ly/444DGdo

    The comparison between the Veterans Health Administration and the 
entire healthcare industry shows that:

      Separations from the VHA are 2.6 times higher than in the 
healthcare industry overall.

      The rate of employees who quit the VHA is 1.5 times 
higher than the total separation rate in the healthcare industry 
overall.

      The rate of terminations for cause in the VHA is 43 
percent of the total separation rate in the entire healthcare industry. 
We don't know the rate of firing for cause in the private sector. But 
especially given the severe personnel shortages in the overall 
healthcare industry, it is certain that private healthcare employers 
are seeing a very large turnover rate as well. It's a very good bet 
that nearly half of the separations in the private industry are not 
firings for poor performance.

The health industry is struggling with a manpower crisis--and no expert 
thinks that the best way to address the problem is to fire more 
employees

    In a March analysis of the industry, Margaret Lindquist at Oracle 
found, ``Staffing tops the list of healthcare industry challenges'' in 
2023. She continued, ``Workers retired due to burnout or went to work 
for organizations offering higher pay or better work-life balance.'' 
The result was ``substandard patient care'' and ``lower morale.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Margaret Lindquist, ``The Real Costs of Healthcare Staff 
Turnover,'' Oracle (March 22, 2023), https:// www.oracle.com/ human-
capital-management/ cost-employee-turnover-healthcare/ 
#:81:text=In%20This%20Article&text=It's%20no%20wonder 
%3A%20Hospital%20'staff,burden%20on%20finances%20and%20resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To solve the problem, ``organizations must first improve employee 
well-being.'' Five steps, Oracle concluded, show the way:

        1. Be intentional when hiring

        2. Offer flexible work schedules

        3. Prioritize onboarding and training

        4. Provide career development and continuing education

        5. Improve technology

    A thorough analysis of the situation led to a clear conclusion: 
organizations ``need to do all they can to keep people engaged and 
happy in their working lives.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a global study of performance challenges in the healthcare 
industry, McKinsey, the international consulting firm, found that a 
toxic workplace culture was the biggest single predictor of turnover 
during the ``Great Attrition'' in the early 2020's--ten times more 
important, in fact, than compensation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ McKinsey & Company, ``Addressing employee burnout: Are you 
solving the right problem?'' (May 27, 2022), https://www.mckinsey.com/
mhi/our-insights/addressing-employee-burnout-are-you-solving-the-right-
problem
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McKinsey pointed to the importance of ``solving the right 
problem.'' That is not what H.R. 4278 does.
    The single-minded focus on firing in the ``VA Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017'' set the department down the 
wrong road, as the VA's Office of Inspector General found. In fact, the 
office charged with implementing the act ``leaders made avoidable 
mistakes early in its development that created an office culture that 
was sometimes alienating to the very individuals it was meant to 
protect.'' \8\ The VA stumbled in the act's implementation because it 
misinterpreted its statutory authority, pursued inconsistent and biased 
reviews, and failed to follow policies that produced sound decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection: 
Failures Implementing Aspects of the VA Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, Report #18-04968-249 (October 24, 
2019), ii, https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-18-04968-249.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The VA is struggling with many of the same human capital issues as 
the rest of the healthcare industry although, as the figure above 
shows, the problems in the VA are larger, especially with a high rate 
of turnover. McKinsey has this recommendation:

        Employers can and should view high rates of burnout as a 
        powerful warning sign that the organization--not the 
        individuals in the workforce--needs to undergo meaningful 
        systematic change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ McKinsey, ``Addressing Employee Burnout.''

    The implications for the VA are powerfully clear. If there is a 
problem of high turnover--and the VHA's turnover is far higher than in 
the rest of the healthcare industry--performance problems are 
inevitable. The key to solving these problems is to lead fundamental 
strategies for systemic change. Focusing on firing individuals aims at 
the wrong problem and is sure to make things worse. The evidence, from 
experts in the US and around the world, simply could not be clearer on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this point.

The act would destabilize the VA, which would only erode its 
performance

    There was a time in the 1990's when experts hailed the VA as one of 
the most-improved agencies in the entire Federal Government.\10\ In 
2014, however, efforts to hide long wait times for VA appointments 
produced a national scandal. The department has been struggling for 
nearly a decade to find its footing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Charles S. Clark, ``Reinventing Government--Two Decades 
Later,'' GovExec.com (April 26, 2013), https://www.govexec.com/
management/2013/04/what-reinvention-wrought/62836/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No organization can right itself when it's whipsawed by a shifting 
legal foundation. That, sadly, is just what happened with the hurried 
implementation of the ``VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection 
Act of 2017.'' The proposed legislation would create even more 
instability.

    The VA's Inspector General in 2019 found:

         . . . in its first two years of operation, the OAWP [Office of 
        Accountability and Whistleblower Protection) acted in ways that 
        were inconsistent with its statutory authority while it 
        simultaneously foundered in its mission to protect 
        whistleblowers. Even recognizing that organizing the operations 
        of any new office is challenging, OAWP leaders made avoidable 
        mistakes early in its development that created an office 
        culture that was sometimes alienating to the very individuals 
        it was meant to protect. Those leadership failures distracted 
        the OAWP from its core mission and likely diminished the 
        desired confidence of whistleblowers and other potential 
        complainants in the operations of the office.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Office of Inspector General, Office of Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection, ii.

    Creating yet more instability, especially through the process 
envisioned in H.R. 4278, would only disrupt the ongoing effort to 
improve the VA's management and pull the department's strategy further 
out of sync with best management practices.
    Moreover, the VA doesn't actually need more authority to fire poor 
performers. As FactCheck.org found in 2018, ``it was already possible 
for workers to be relieved of their duties'' before the legislation 
passed in 2017.\12\ What the VA does need is a steady platform on which 
to manage the department in the interest of the veterans--and managers 
with the strategy and support to manage well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ D'Angelo Gore, ``VA Could Fire Workers Before Trump Signed 
Law,'' FactCheck.org (July 27, 2018), https://www.factcheck.org/2018/
07/va-could-fire-workers-before-trump-signed-law/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyone who has ever tried to navigate a boat rolling in heavy seas 
knows just how hard it is to move effectively if the deck is constantly 
shifting underneath.

Good management is impossible to legislate--it's a people process

    For at least the last forty years, governments around the world 
have developed a laser-sharp focus on how best to improve their 
performance. Two conclusions come from this effort.
    First, no government anywhere has made firing employees any 
significant part of its strategy.
    Second, no government anywhere has been successful in legislating 
good management. For example, New Zealand's government management 
reforms focused on ``making the managers manage.'' The noted public 
management expert Tom Christensen found instead that ``the country has 
got the worst of both worlds--i.e., poor management and too little 
political control.'' \13\ To correct those problems, New Zealand 
shifted its management strategy to provide managers with more 
flexibility and to focus on achieving outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Tom Christensen, ``Administrative Reform: Changing Leadership 
Roles?'' Governance 14:4 (October 2001), 473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Management in general--and the management of people in particular--
is an intricate process that requires deft interpersonal skills and 
strong political support. The proposed legislation erodes them both, in 
the quest for strategies that either have been rejected elsewhere or 
that have been tried but failed.

There are better alternatives for improving the VA's performance

    The National Academy of Public Administration has developed a game 
plan for improving the government's performance by improving its people 
systems. (This is an effort to which I've contributed.) The strategies 
and tactics laid out in its recommendations suggest a far better 
approach.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ National Academy of Public Administration, No Time To Wait: 
Building a Public Service for the 21st Century, Parts 1 and 2 (July 
2017 and September 2018), https://napawash.org/academy-studies/no-time-
to-wait-part-2-building-a-public-service-for-the-21st-century; and 
``From Academy Fellows: Proposals to Modernize and Reinvigorate the 
Federal Civil Service'' (February 27, 2023), https://napawash.org/
standing-panel-blog/no-time-to-wait-3-the-challenge-of-modernizing-the-
civil-service-2

      Make mission matter most. The foundation of the VA, as is 
the case for all government agencies, is its mission. The VA's motto 
puts it clearly: ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for 
those who have served in our nation's military and for their families, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
caregivers, and survivors.''

      Move from a culture of compliance to performance. 
Process, especially the process of firing employees, should not 
overtake a commitment to results.

      Focus on employees' competencies, not pigeon-holed 
siloes. The changing nature of work calls on smart leaders to build 
teams of effective managers who use their tools to produce strong 
outcomes.

      Focus on fit. Many issues that appear to be matters of 
poor performance are often the product of a poor fit of an employee 
with the job. Improving both human capital planning--to understand the 
needs of a position--and hiring--to match prospective employees with 
that position--are far more important than concentrating on firing 
``poor performers.''

      Accountability builds on performance. An effective 
twenty-first-century government needs to shift its model of 
accountability to discovering how best to accomplish its mission.

      Be flexible, test results, and adopt what works. 
Government management needs to provide managers with the flexibility to 
manage--but to assess carefully what that flexibility produces, discard 
what doesn't, and do more of what works. This, in fact, ought to be the 
new driver of accountability.

      Focus more attention on hiring, not firing. The key to 
developing the most effective workforce lies in hiring well, by 
identifying the skills that the agency needs to accomplish its mission 
and working aggressively to find the employees who best fit the bill.

      Address poor performance problems during the probationary 
period. Allowing new employees to drift through the probationary period 
without guidance and then concluding later that they are performing 
poorly is bad management. Accountability comes from addressing 
performance early and not firing later.

      Create more flexible off-ramps. It is far better to help 
employees who aren't a good match for an organization to find better 
opportunities rather than to fire them precipitously. A focus on firing 
creates morale problems percolating throughout an organization. 
Managing government more like a business means creating the authority 
to use private-sector tools like providing severance packages. That's 
the approach of leading private companies, where their human resource 
managers agree that it's better--for everyone--to encourage poor 
performers to resign rather than to fire them.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Paul Bergeron, ``Resign or Be Fired: Which Is Best?'' (Society 
for Human Resource Management, July 14, 2020), https://www.shrm.org/
resourcesandtools/hr-topics/organizational-and-employee-development/
pages/resign-or-be-fired-which-is-best.aspx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    An expedited removal, demotion, or suspension authority neither 
fits the best practices for accomplishing the VA's mission nor serves 
the needs of the nation's veterans. The nation's overall healthcare 
environment is experiencing the biggest challenges in a generation. The 
federal government's policymakers have an inescapable imperative to 
help the VA tackle these challenges ``to care for those who have 
served.''

     Prepared Statement of National Federation of Federal Employees

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Prepared Statement of Partnership or Public Service

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Prepared Statement of Senior Executives Association

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Prepared Statement of United Nurses Associations of California/Union of 
                       Health Care Professionals

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]