[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRAILS IN TRANSPARENCY II: IS VA
RESPONDING TO CONGRESSIONAL
REQUESTS IN A TIMELY MANNER?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
87-676 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DAVID JOLLY, Florida
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Nancy Dolan, Democratic Staff Director
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
----------
Page
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Trails in Transparency II: Is VA Responding to Congressional
Requests in a Timely Manner?................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman....................................... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Hon. Mike Michaud, Ranking Minority Member....................... 2
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
WITNESS
Sloan D. Gibson, Deputy Secretary................................ 5
Prepared Statement of Solan D. Gibson........................ 31
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions For the Record......................................... 33
Questions and Responses From VA.................................. 33
TRIALS IN TRANSPARENCY II: IS VA RESPONDING TO CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS
IN A TIMELY MANNER?
----------
Thursday, April 3, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Roe,
Runyan, Benishek, Huelskamp, Coffman, Wenstrup, Cook, Jolly,
Michaud, Brown, Brownley, Titus, Kirkpatrick, Negrete-McLeod,
O'Rourke, and Walz
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER
The Chairman. Good morning, and the hearing will now come
to order. As the title of today's hearing suggests, we are
going to conduct our constitutional oversight duties. VA needs
to respond in a timely manner to our requests for us to be able
to get our job done.
With us today is Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson.
I want to note for the record and for the Members of this
committee, we invited Assistant Secretary Joan Mooney to
testify since she is by title the assistant secretary for
Congressional and Legislative Affairs and as a presidential
appointee, she agreed to testify before Congress whenever she
was called to do so.
My office received a communication from her just a little
while ago. First of all, I am shocked she is not in the room.
Second of all, she sent a communication telling us what you,
Mr. Secretary, were prepared to answer when she was told
exactly what we were going to be inquiring about.
We do not want a 30,000 foot view in testimony in
responding to our questions. We have already done this once.
She did a very poor job that day in the hearing and has since
done a very poor job. And I think her absence today continues
to show her lack of respect to this committee.
Her constant lateness with providing information that is
vital to our constitutional obligation and responsibility, I
think, is an affront to this committee. It is an affront to the
veterans that she purports to support, and I hope that you will
take back to her our personal displeasure of her trying to
direct where the questions of this committee should go. The
fact that we want to get into the weeds on some things is
critical because, as you well know, the weeds have grown very
tall over the last year or more.
So suffice it to say I am not happy. For the second time we
are gathered to hear how we can improve a process that too
often results in frustration and delay for every Member of this
committee.
I want to start with the positives because there are
positives. Since our last hearing, VA has improved its
submission of testimony on time. So that is an area where
progress has been made. I mean, until this progress there were
many times that we did not receive testimony until the night
before, sometimes the morning of committee hearings.
I would also like to recognize what I view as a positive
tone in your testimony as we have read about improving the
timely response to the requests that this committee makes. You
are totally correct in the fact that the Veterans' Affairs
committees and the VA have a common duty to ensure that we meet
the Nation's commitment to its veterans.
Unfortunately, long delayed responses for information,
documents, or questions continue to plague us. As of Tuesday,
the average days pending for all 96 requests was 143 with 66
pending over 60 days and 50 over 100 days. In fact, we have
three requests pending since 2012. And our oldest outstanding
request is 666 days pending.
The last time we visited this subject with Assistant
Secretary Mooney, she testified regarding the literally
thousands of inquiries that VA receives from Capitol Hill.
And, look, I understand the reality. We all understand the
realities. But I have to continue the committee's active
oversight of the department. That is our job.
As they should, Members of the House and Senate take great
interest in VA and its programs because of the missions that it
performs and that is not going to change on my watch. I
understand there are a lot of moving parts involving responses
to our requests. Many are outside of VA's control.
But in the end, it is VA's responsibility to provide
Congress with complete, accurate, and timely answers
regardless. Perhaps moving the issue up the chain of command
will help improve VA's performance in this area.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your friendship. I thank you
for being here to testify today.
And I want to recognize my good friend, the ranking member,
Mr. Michaud, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Jeff Miller appears in
the Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE MICHAUD, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing today.
This hearing is about accountability for individual
congressional requests and also an opportunity to discuss what
can be done to improve the relationship between the VA and this
committee.
Mr. Gibson, congratulations, first of all, on your recent
appointment as deputy secretary for the Department of Veterans
Affairs and we appreciate that you are here today as well.
And I am encouraged by the shift in tone conveyed by your
participation in your written testimony. For the first time,
the department has clearly, concisely, and publicly indicated
that the status quo must change. Thank you for that open and
honest acknowledgment.
Also from your written testimony and our recent
conversation, it appears you as the deputy secretary and the
chief operating officer are taking on the challenge from the
department perspective. I think that will be a significant
improvement and I look forward to working with you in a
collaborative and constructive manner.
As I have laid out in my discussions with the secretary, I
have three basic expectations of the VA about customer service.
My first expectation is that VA is responsive to
congressional inquiries. While I recognize that our founding
fathers' construct of the separation of powers, I also
recognize their construct of checks and balances between these
separate powers.
Oversight is a fundamental power provided to Congress and a
fundamental obligation of Congress. Getting the information
from the department is crucial for Congress doing its job. This
is not a civics discussion but directly affects our ability as
a co-equal branch of government to do our job.
VA's responses to congressional inquiries should be
thoughtful, thorough, and complete.
Since my recent conversation with Secretary Shinseki, a set
of standard operating procedures addresses responsiveness
between the committee democratic staff and VA's OCLA has been
agreed to and put in place. These appear to be working well so
far.
I appreciate the VA OCLA's team's willingness to work out
those SOPs and adhere to them and I hold my staff accountable
for adhering to our part of that agreement.
My second expectation is that VA is timely in its response
to congressional inquiries. I recognize that thoughtful,
thorough, and complete responses take time. I also recognize
that, you know, time moves at a different pace in Congress and
the VA. This is not a judgment. It is a statement of
acknowledgment that our work occurs at different speeds.
Reasonable accommodation is somewhat, I believe, in
between. When a response is needed and what can be provided by
that date and when a final response will be forthcoming should
be a frequent routine discussion between our staffs.
Since the last transparency hearing held by this committee
in September 2013, we have seen an improvement in the
timeliness of VA's testimony submissions and response to
congressional inquiries.
However, we continue to see substantial delays from one to
three months on a few individual Members' inquiries tracked by
the committee staff. And I will defer to those Members to
discuss their specific inquiries to you directly.
It is often difficult to get a straight answer on the
reasons for the delay in response. It appears that the lack of
timeliness in VA's response to congressional inquiries may in
part be cumbersome review process that the department has to go
through both internal and external to the organization
preparing the response.
This, Mr. Gibson, is likely the toughest part of your
challenge to improve the process. However, it behooves everyone
involved that the review and approval process to work
collaboratively to change and improve the process.
No one benefits from frustrated, dysfunctional relationship
between an administration and Congress, least of all our
veterans.
And my final expectation that the VA allows congressional
Members and staff direct access to subject matter experts
within the department. This means that the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs to facilitate, not
control, but to facilitate the interaction between the VA
executive and The Hill. For the most part, these interactions
in my opinion, the OCL lay roles, you know, should be
transparent to all of us.
Our staffs hear informally that the VA subject matter
experts want to talk to us. The experts in your department,
they really want to talk to us. They want to share the good
news and the progress they are making. They believe getting
ahead of the bad news is important. They understand that the
trust that you mention in your written testimony begins with an
open, honest communication.
We in Congress understand the need and value that your
message has to be consistent. The way to accomplish this is
through internal department coordination, not a single filter
through OCLA. Politicians know that during a campaign, you try
to control the message. During the governing process that comes
after the election, which we are through, you need to
collaborate around that message. Failing to do so means
failure.
Just recently one of my staff members met a young soldier
at a professional reception. He was there representing a new
army program to help soldiers transition from active duty.
Unable to have a robust discussion about the program at that
reception, the soldier agreed to follow-up with my staff.
Within one week, the soldier and my staff exchanged several
emails, met once, and set up follow-up meetings for other staff
and Members. There was no red tape, no DoD or army legislative
affairs' intervention, no delays, no complications.
That is what I expect from the VA, just a swift, simple,
direct, you know, doing the business that people in the VA, I
know, at that staff level want to do without having to be
filtered through OCLA because that is cumbersome, delays the
process, increase frustrations, and also makes sure that our
veterans do not get the services that they need.
So, Mr. Gibson, I look forward to your testimony today. I
appreciate your testimony and what you had to say in your
testimony and I look forward to hearing what we need to do for
both the Administration and Congress, how we can build that
trust, have that open line of communication, improve our
working relationships because that is what we are here for. I
know that is what you are there for is to do what we can for
our veterans. We do not need an administrative bureaucracy over
at OCLA that filters the process, that inhibits the ability of
the department and this committee to work collaboratively
together. And I look forward to your discussion that we are
having here today on this very important issue.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mike Michaud appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
As I said earlier, the only witness that we have today
before us is Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson, a little bit of
background on Sloan: He graduated in 1975 from West Point and
qualified as both an airborne soldier and a ranger and served
as an infantry officer.
He holds a master's in economics from the University of
Missouri in Kansas City and a master's in public administration
from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. And following 20 years of service in the banking
industry, he served as the president and CEO of the USO for
five years and was confirmed as deputy secretary last February.
Secretary Gibson, welcome, and you are now recognized for
five minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SLOAN GIBSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gibson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I would just like to say that the thoughts
and prayers of all of us at VA are with the families that were
affected by yesterday's tragic events at Fort Hood. In my prior
role, the USO was a critical part of helping that community
recover and heal. And I know they will need a lot of that kind
of support again.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, other
distinguished Members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on VA's ongoing work to provide our
congressional partners with timely information.
Let me also acknowledge representatives of veterans service
organizations in attendance. Our relationship with VSOs is
generally a very positive and productive one. We do not always
agree on every issue, but we work through our differences
enabling us to best serve veterans, their families, and our
survivors.
Just six weeks ago, I was privileged to join Secretary
Shinseki and more than 340,000 men and women, one-third of whom
are veterans themselves, who work hard each day to do their
best for our Nation's veterans.
I spent the last five and a half years doing all I can to
support America's servicemembers and military families and as a
veteran and the son and grandson of veterans, I bring that same
passion to this opportunity to serve.
As I reflect on my first weeks at VA, the learning curve is
steep, but it is deeply gratifying work. Next week, I start on
an aggressive spring and summer travel schedule to meet with
veterans and VA employees, the really most important way to
understand veterans' needs and the work our people in the field
are doing.
What is best for our veterans is what guides all of our
work at VA and that is my singular focus in my role there. That
is also what connects VA to the Members of this committee, the
shared goal of doing everything we can to improve the
healthcare, benefits, services for veterans, their families,
and survivors.
All of us at VA are grateful for the commitment and
sustained support of Congress in both resources and legislative
authorities. Your support enables us to accomplish our mission.
Everything we do at VA is built on a foundation of trust,
the trust of veterans and their families, the trust of the
American people, and their elected representatives who provide
the resources essential to our mission. We earn that trust a
quarter of a million times every day by delivering on our
promise to care for those who shall have borne the battle.
We also earn that trust by being good stewards of the
resources that we are given and that includes providing
accurate and timely information to those who provide VA
resources. Anything that erodes that trust does tangible harm
to veterans.
I believe the status quo in our working relationship can
improve. This is not a VA Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs' issue. It is not a Veterans Health
Administration issue or a Veteran Benefits Administration
issue. It is a department issue. It is a VA issue.
That is why I am here and that is why I pledged to do our
part to improve how VA provides information to this committee
and seek to work with you in a straightforward, collaborative,
and constructive manner. I believe that is what veterans expect
and I know it is what they deserve.
VA currently provides the committee and other Members of
Congress a remarkable volume of information that was noted in
some of the opening statements.
Since the last hearing on this subject in September of
2013, our on-time performance for delivering testimony and
questions for the record is approaching 100 percent, but we
know we must work to improve the on-time delivery of
correspondence and other requests for information. And we are
aggressively working to do that. I ask for this committee's
positive support and constructive engagement in that process.
To reiterate, VA and Congress share the same goal to best
serve veterans, their families, and survivors. We respect
Congress's important oversight role and pledge to continue to
work collaboratively and cooperatively with you. When we work
in that way together, I believe veterans are best served.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today
and for your continued support of veterans. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Sloan Gibson appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We will start off with one round of questions and then if
we need to go to a second round, we will do that as well.
Secretary Gibson, one of the key committee concerns is
about the safety of the VA employees and the veterans who are
receiving care at VA facilities across the country. No one,
whether they are an employee or a veteran, should fear for
their lives at a VA facility, but that is not the case
unfortunately.
Let me give you a couple of examples of safety-related
requests that we have made and are waiting on the department to
reply.
The first is in regards to employment of a registered sex
offender in the women's health unit at the Lebanon, PA Medical
Center. Representative Jim Gerlach had first raised the issue
in a letter to the secretary requesting information. He has
received no response.
I sent a letter to the secretary dated December 20th, 2013
requesting all information related to the hiring and
assignments as well as compliance with OPM hiring guidelines
and background checks. To date, no reply.
The second issue involves the death of a patient at the
Alexandria VA Medical Center in Louisiana following an
altercation with an employee of the medical center. Again, in a
December 12th letter to the secretary, I requested all
information related to the incident including security system
products and employee records. To date, Mr. Secretary, no
response.
When can this committee expect that VA will provide the
data that we have requested regarding these two cases?
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, the safety and security of both
patients and employee staff at VA installations across the
country is of paramount concern to us. In these particular
instances, I am not familiar with the facts of the case, but I
commit to you that we will provide a status report on those
promptly.
I note that Secretary Mooney that you referred to earlier
is on The Hill every single week, oftentimes multiple times a
week. She has standing visits on Fridays with members of the
staff and she would be delighted to visit with members of your
staff or with you, sir, or I would be delighted to visit with
you, sir, to discuss the status of the item.
The Chairman. I do note that Secretary Mooney is not at
least in the Cannon Building today. She may be on The Hill
every other day, but she is not here today.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And this is in the trials and transparency
Web site that we have posted. So all of this information, and
this goes back to what I was saying in the middle of my opening
statement, she knew that we wanted to get into the weeds on
specific questions. And then shortly before this hearing, we
get an email from her saying you are not prepared to talk and
specifics, only at the 30,000 foot level. And, again, that is
just not acceptable.
One of the most alarming trends that I see with the
committee's current outstanding deliverables list is the
multiple outstanding requests regarding mental healthcare. You
mentioned the tragic incident at Fort Hood yesterday where
there appears to be a mental health component, albeit DoD, but
mental health all the same.
There are numerous requests from our Oversight Subcommittee
and our Health Subcommittee regarding a mental health provider
survey. I understand that requests for this survey which
include data analysis as well as responses to open-ended
questions have been echoed in multiple oversight forums
including committee hearings and staff briefings and by both
this committee and our counter-parts in the Senate.
Again, why is it taking so long to get questions answered
on this vital issue and if you are not prepared to respond to
that particular question, will you commit to providing me with
a survey and its results by close of business today and, if
not, why?
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, I recall over the past five years
from time to time, I would be asked if there was anything that
kept me awake at night. And my consistent response to that
question was my concern about our collective ability to meet
the mental health needs of servicemembers, veterans, and their
families. This is a personal priority for me. It is also a
priority for the department.
I am aware that in the case of this particular request that
there has been substantial information provided. I believe
there have also been briefings provided to some of the staff.
We would be delighted to come, provide a briefing to you, sir,
at your convenience.
The Chairman. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, once again, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for
being here.
And since we had the last discussion and my previous
conversations with the secretary about how can we improve the
relationships between the VA and this committee, and we hear
over and over again the number of requests that the department
gets from Members of Congress which I understand there are
quite a few, so in order to speed up that process, we said,
well, rather than writing our requests, let's have an informal
discussion.
And that gets back to us meeting with subject matter, you
know, experts that actually want to talk to the committee, but
that is still a problem because the fact of the matter is we
still have to wait anywhere from six to eight weeks from OCLA
giving the approval for subject matter experts to talk to us.
So that is a frustration.
So would you please, describe to me your operational
perspective on how the VA subject matter experts could and
should interact with Congress?
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, thanks for the question. You
brought the issue up the other day when we visited.
We think it is very important to be able to get timely
information to Members of this committee for you to exercise
your oversight responsibilities. You offered this particular
mechanism as a great example of ways that we can work
collaboratively where the opportunity exists to provide a
briefing as opposed to responding to a formal request.
And my experience, my sense is that when we do that, we
oftentimes hit the nail on the head and we are able to do it
much more quickly. Those should happen promptly. And I know in
the instance that you have referred to, it is pretty clear to
me that we did not meet that standard.
We have done so far in the first six months of this year
217 briefings on The Hill. Every single one of those briefings
is done by a subject matter expert. So you are right. They are
delighted to come visit. We are delighted to have them come
visit. And I commit to you that we will do our best to make the
responsiveness what it ought to be.
Mr. Michaud. I mean, what role do you think OCLA has in
that?
I can understand during the campaign, the President wanted
to keep his message focused and, therefore, departments were
kind of restricted of what they could do during an election
year, but now is the time to govern. And I think that message
as far as the department, where the department goes should be
consistent.
And part of the problem, quite frankly, is OCLA having to
be the filter and that is what the delay is from six to eight
weeks in having us be able to do it. The reason why I gave the
example with the army folks is that is how DoD does it. I mean,
within a week, they had several meetings, several email
discussions. Any time you put a stopper in there where you have
to get approval, particularly through OCLA, it slows down that
process.
And we want to make sure that we can have that ongoing
conversation. That is one of the reasons why we agreed to have
these informal discussions with the subject matter experts, but
that still is a problem.
So what role do you think OCLA has to be involved in this
whole process as a filter versus as a facilitator which we are
trying to do is facilitate?
Mr. Gibson. I think you just answered your own question. It
is a facilitator. When there is interest in a particular topic,
there is a need for Members of this Committee and other Members
of Congress to be able to plug in some more within the
organization. And, frankly, I believe that ought to be within
the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
Part of my responsibility in all of this is to make sure
that if we have got bottlenecks within our own internal process
that we eliminate those bottlenecks. And so that is an
opportunity for us to manage that.
As I mentioned, these subject matter experts enjoy the
opportunity to come over and visit with Members and visit with
staff. And I commit to you that we will work to make that a
more responsive process.
Mr. Michaud. I appreciate that very much because I remember
when I was first on this committee, actually I got a directory
of all the staff over at the Department of Veterans
Administration, their phone numbers. So if I ever had a
question, rather than, you know, go through OCLA or the under
secretaries, we were able to actually--because a lot of times,
these questions could be answered very quickly.
When I became ranking member, I said, well, gee, I have not
had a directory and they said, well, they do not have them
which I know that, quite frankly, you must have a directory of
all the VA. I can understand you do not want people calling in
all the time, but it is problematic, particularly if OCLA feels
that they have to be the filter.
And I agree a hundred percent and I am glad you mentioned
about the fact that they should be a facilitator because that
is the role that they should be and that will help eliminate, I
believe, some of the frustrations that we have over here on our
side on that.
So, once again, thank you very much for your response. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Michaud. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The vice chair of the committee, Mr. Bilirakis, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And thank you, sir, for your testimony.
What do you think needs to happen moving forward to have
100 percent QFRs and 100 percent of testimony submitted on
time? More funding, more staffing, better management of the
current resources? What do you think needs to happen?
Mr. Gibson. Well, Congressman, I may not have understood
the question exactly. In the case of timely submission of
testimony, this fiscal year, we are delivering on time 96
percent of the time and responses----
Mr. Bilirakis. Why isn't it 100 percent of the time?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, we were late 15 minutes with one piece of
testimony for the 33 hearings that we have testified at this
year. So our goal is a hundred percent and that is what we are
aiming for. And we are at a hundred percent in timely
submission of QFRs.
Mr. Bilirakis. I----
Mr. Gibson. And the opportunity, frankly, is for us to
extend that kind of excellent performance in other categories
of communication.
Mr. Bilirakis. I want to move on to the next question.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. I have limited time. Do you have process
inquiries in the order they are received? Are they prioritized
in any way?
Mr. Gibson. In the process of trying to respond, just in
the first six months of this year, we have responded to 2,675
inquiries from Congress. So orchestrating those responses is a
challenge when you look at all the different categories of
response.
Normally, particularly as it relates to executive
correspondence, the correspondence from the chairman and from
the ranking member is a category of correspondence that we put
very high in the priority and we try to turn those around very
quickly whenever possible.
For executive correspondence coming from Members, the goal
is to respond within 30 days. There are occasions when we
should meet that standard and I do not believe that we are.
There are other occasions where the nature of the request is
such that it is pretty clear fairly early on that it is going
to take more than 30 days to respond.
And I think what we owe the Members of the Committee and
the staff is that we pick up the phone or send an email and we
work out a time frame that makes sense for us to be able to
provide a timely and complete response.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you.
Yes or no, did you know that the average number of days of
all requests pending are 143 days? I know it was mentioned here
in the committee. Why 143 days? Why that long? I just do not
understand.
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, are you referring to the number of
days pending for the 96 items on Chairman Miller's list? I am
not sure the----
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, in other words, the average number of
days all requests pending, 143 days, that is my understanding.
The committee says an average of 143 days for all inquiries
pending.
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, I understand the frustration here.
I am taking ownership and committing to improve response times.
Mr. Bilirakis. Maybe the 96 currently on the list.
Mr. Gibson. Okay. I----
Mr. Bilirakis. Address that issue.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. I would tell you in the course of
responding, say, for example, to the more than 2,600 inquiries
that we have received this year or the more than 8,600 that we
have responded to over the last 18 months, many of those
responses are turned around very quickly, very much within that
two-week or that 30-day standard.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Let me move on to the next
question.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Did you know that there were 50 inquiries
over three months pending and why?
Mr. Gibson. Where I was going with the other answer, I am
going to kind of keep going with this answer. There are
occasions where we receive, and many of the requests are the
kinds of requests that we are able to respond to very timely
within that two-week or within that 30-day time frame, but
there are requests that we receive that by the nature of the
request, the complexity of the request will require extensive
gathering of data, extensive analysis of the data, and review
of the data to ensure that we are providing the right
information to respond to the question.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay.
Mr. Gibson. And those are of necessity going to require
longer. Now----
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Next question.
Yes or no, are you aware that there are 66 inquiries over
two months pending? I mean----
Mr. Gibson. Well----
Mr. Bilirakis [contining]. My opinion, it is inexcusable.
We need this information timely to do our job.
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, I understand that need. And we are
committed to providing timely information. And where we are
able to respond to requests within the goal standards that we
set, we do that. But there are requests that we receive that
there is just simply no way that within a two-week or a 30-day
period of time that we are going to be able to provide an
adequate response.
And as a result of that, part of what needs to happen, part
of the collaboration that I think we need to work toward is
that we have the kind of robust communication that Ranking
Member Michaud was referring to earlier that we are talking
through this. We understand that the scope of the request is
such that it is, going to require this extensive time and
effort to gather.
There may be things that the Member is willing to do to
tailor the request a little bit, still accomplishing the
underlying intent, that would allow us to deliver it more
quickly or alternatively that there may be a little bit of
relief in terms of the deadline and the expectation for a
timely response.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. I want to give the other Members an
opportunity. I appreciate it. Thanks for holding the hearing as
well.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Brown, you are recognized for five minutes. And I do
want to compliment you on your attire today.
Ms. Brown. Go Gator.
But welcome, Mr. Gibson, to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Brown. I know that the chairman is not going to be
happy or the ranking member that they recognize me because I
really am a little confused why we are having this hearing
today. We just had a hearing six months ago.
I do not find the department politics and when does the
politics end and the service begin. I am hoping service is all
the time because our role is to make sure that we are serving
the veterans.
And I would like to have a hearing on mental health and
what are we doing as far as partnering with some local
communities because those services are already there. And then
VA should do more oversight because of the volume of the amount
of work.
And then there are certain instance, for example, when we
are talking about someone that has gotten killed, it is some
legal ramifications for you to come up here and say something
to us when we may be in court on those issues.
And the volume, I mean, it is not just this committee. It
is the Senate. It is government oversight. So you get thousands
of requests.
And so how do we deal with all of that and who gets the
priority? I want to say the priority should be the veterans. So
you can respond to me.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, I think the vast shared common ground that we have
here is our interest in ensuring that veterans are best served.
I think when we can build and maintain positive,
constructive, collaborative relationships between Committees
and the department that is the environment where the best
outcomes are going to result, where veterans are going to be
best served.
And I am prepared. I am owning issues surrounding
opportunities for improving responsiveness because I understand
that that is important to the committee. I am going to make it
important to me and it is important to the department, but
collaboration really involves two parties.
And so being able to work together collaboratively as
Ranking Member Michaud outlined, I think, is a very positive
step for veterans.
Ms. Brown. Yes. Can you tell us the volume of requests that
you have gotten from Congress?
Mr. Gibson. I can tell you the number that we have
responded to.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gibson. In the first six months of this year, 2,675.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gibson. In the last 18 months, just over 8,600
requests.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh. And what is the staffing that you have
to respond to this 8,600?
Mr. Gibson. Well, ma'am, because we want to provide the
best information that we possibly can, accurate information and
complete information, in the vast majority of instances, a
large portion of the response winds up being originally created
inside the Veterans Health Administration, inside the Veterans
Benefits Administration, inside the National Cemetery
Administration by people that are actually charged with serving
and caring for veterans on a day in and day out basis.
So that workload gets distributed broadly across the
organization, but then managed on a more central basis. It
would be impossible for me to even guess at the number of
people that are involved or the number of man hours that are
involved in responding to all of those requests.
Ms. Brown. I guess my question is, do they have any
responsibility other than responding to Congress?
Mr. Gibson. Oh, yes, ma'am. In fact, the majority of people
that participate in developing responses to Congress are people
that have direct responsibility for serving veterans.
Ms. Brown. Okay.
Mr. Gibson. They are people inside the administrations
because nine times out of ten, the questions we receive are
questions about service to veterans as they well should be.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gibson. And so these are people very often that have
direct responsibility in that area. And to the extent that they
are spending time, and it is important to provide the
appropriate information timely, it is important for us to
provide that information to this committee and to other
committees of Congress. That is how veterans are best served
when we work together in that kind of way.
Ms. Brown. And I have got to say that you all have been
very responsive to me. Just yesterday, the head judge from
Duval County was here. I wanted them to have a quick meeting
with someone from the VA because we have the veterans court and
it is working really well. And we have the mental health court
and we were talking about what we could do to expand this
program.
So, you know, I personally will give you a response. I know
we need to work together to improve the services for veterans.
Thank you very much, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for the committee's
information. The Office of Legislative Affairs since 2009 has
increased 30 percent in regards to their ability to do their
work as it relates to the requests that have been made.
Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
And thank you for being here and thank you for taking some
time to come by my office----
Mr. Gibson. It is great to see you, sir.
Mr. Roe [continuing]. And for the hearing. And thank you
for the service, and your service to our country, too. And I
appreciate your forthrightness in being able to get this
information to us in a timely fashion.
And as Mr. Michaud said, one of the frustrations I have had
here and many Members here, I actually read this stuff and I
cannot read it if I get a Sears and Roebuck catalogue the night
before----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe [continuing]. And make any sense out of it. So
being timely, and I say this tongue in cheek, but here in
Washington, I do not think anybody ever got a term paper done
on time. And we know when these hearings are going to be and it
would be nice to get this information and that you are getting
it to us. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe. And I hope that continues where we get it a day or
two ahead where we can actually go through it and get something
meaningful out of----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe [continuing]. The hearing. And another comment that
Mr. Michaud made, well, you know, he did not want to call the
office. Well, people call his office all the time. And he
mentioned exactly what happened. I have a staff of seven people
here because of the cutbacks and we are making it work.
And a lady Sunday at church pulled me over aside about an
issue that I was not aware of. We put some information out to
the secretary of Labor. We have called the appropriate, two
appropriate organizations and her. I did not get her this
morning, but I left her a message. That is timely. And I was a
little ashamed it was four days, three days to get back and get
her the information she needed.
We need this information to be able to carry out our jobs.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe. We cannot do it without it.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe. And I think the VA has the personnel to do what
you need to do. And, look, if something, as Mr. Bilirakis said,
is going to take--you mentioned some of these issues are very
complicated. Somebody could send a letter in two weeks and say,
look, this is a very complicated issue, we have looked this far
in three paragraphs. I do not need the sermon on the mount.
I just need a cliff notes version of what you are doing so
that I know you have not forgotten me because I think it is
rude and arrogant when you do that. I think when you ignore
requests, it means that either it is not important to you or
you do not think it is important to me. And I would not be
making that request if it were not.
So I would suggest you do that, send out an interim letter
or some information so that we know that you have not just
buried us and forgotten about it because we have thousands of
issues we deal with every day.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roe. And we do not have 300,000 employees as the VA
does. So just a comment on that. And I think those are a few
little things you could do for me personally if I write you a
letter and it may take you 90 days to get the information back.
I understand that.
And I also understand I do not know. That is a perfectly
good answer, too. I have said that many times in my career.
When I did not know something, just I do not know the answer to
it, but we will get back to you. But do not say that and then
never get back to me. I think that is okay not knowing the
answer if I ask you a question or if you ask me one. I do not
know. I will get back to you.
So that is just a comment. I actually have no other
comments. I yield back my time.
Mr. Gibson. If I could just say, sir, what you just
outlined is perfectly reasonable. That is a perfectly
reasonable expectation and it is what we should be doing
routinely.
Mr. Roe. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Brownley, you are recognize for five
minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Gibson, for testifying here today. And
congratulations----
Mr. Gibson. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley [continuing]. On your recent appointment and
confirmation.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley. And I know, as you know, you have been
trusted as all of us on the committee have been with a great
task and very important task of serving our Nation's veterans.
And I am looking forward to working with you to ensure the
needs are properly met in a timely manner and also in a
qualitative manner as well.
And I also want to thank you for our meeting yesterday----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brownley [continuing]. And your attention to my
district where the wait time exceeds 44 days for mental health
services. So I really do appreciate that very, very much.
I wanted to ask really two questions. One, specifically, on
the congressional legislative affairs office and the fact that
in 2013, as you stated, we have made great improvements based
on the data, and if you could just comment, what has changed?
Why is it better? What has happened?
And then secondarily, in your testimony, when you stated
that it is not a Veterans Health Administration problem or a
Veterans Benefit Administration problem; it is a Department
issue.
I know that you have only been with us here for six very--
six short weeks, but if you could, with fresh eyes, share with
the committee what you think needs to be changed on a
Department-Wide basis to be more customer friendly, and more
service oriented--what changes, larger changes you see.
So if you could speak, specifically, to the legislative--
congressional and legislative affairs office and speak more
broadly on the Department.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am. Thanks for the question.
First, I would say that I think recognizing the importance
of timely communication with this committee and frankly with
other committees and other Members of Congress, and supported
by the encouragement from the chairman and from this committee.
I think a lot of additional attention was focused on
specifically areas of timely receipt of testimony and timely
delivery of responses to questions for the record and I think
that very intensive focus is what allowed that progress to be
demonstrated.
Within the Department, it is a large and a complex
organization, and so as you kind alluded to earlier, there are
different parts of the organization that get involved in
different kinds of ways, ranking member mentioned earlier that
they are the process of review. And so as I wade into this
space, my sense is there are opportunities for us to streamline
the review process. I think there are perhaps some
opportunities for us to establish interim milestones along the
way when we have a relatively more complex item that we know we
are going to have to respond to.
And then, as we discussed a moment ago, the need for this
routine and robust communication so that we understand; we are
acknowledging that we have not only just--we have gotten the
item, but we are working on the item. Here is how we think
things are coming, and I would reiterate again, that the staff
of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs is on
The Hill every week and they are always willing to provide an
update to a member of your staff or to a member on any
particular item.
And so I think it is creating a more end-to-end process and
creating more visibility about how we are doing it each step of
the way, which will allow us to identify the bottlenecks that
we were talking about earlier.
Ms. Brownley. Well thank you for that, and I mean if there
is anything more specific, you know, other than in terms of the
legislative affairs office, you are saying just more focus,
more attention to responsiveness and timeliness has made the
difference in terms of the data in 2013. But is there anything
more than that has specifically changed or it is just that sort
of direction and focus?
Mr. Gibson. I think there is more horsepower pushing this
locomotive and that is one of the reasons that I am here. We
are very focused on this. This is important. This relationship
is not just important to us at VA; it is important to veterans.
Because the veterans get best served when we are working
together constructively, so we understand that. We understand
that we are not meeting the expectation and that we have work
to do. And so there is a lot more horsepower pushing the engine
on this issue inside the Department.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Runyan, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Chairman.
And, Deputy Secretary Gibson, thank you for your service
and your testimony.
Kind of going back to what you were just talking about, and
you used the phrase ``horsepower,'' and thank you for the
meeting we had yesterday. And I know you, Secretary Shinseki,
all the time talk about accountability. Well, I want to put
this out here and give a couple of examples of it. With
accountability, you have to parallel that with consequences.
And I have asked this question many times to many different
under secretaries and the thing a lot of the times are what are
the consequences? As we sit up here as elected members,
everybody on this dais has consequences of them not executing
their job; it is called an election.
Our veterans have consequences not executing their job in
the field; it is the lives of their comrades around them. I did
the same thing when I played in the NFL. The consequence of not
doing your job; you lost your job at the end of the day. Are
there formal structures, formal procedures that you have,
throughout your leadership model, to hold people accountable?
We talk about accountability, but truly, who is being held
accountable and what are the processes and procedures to do
that within your model?
Mr. Gibson. First of all, I would say, Congressman, that
one of the things that has really struck me about my first six
weeks in the Department is the passion that people have for the
mission that we do; their determination to do the right thing;
and the fact that they are working very, very hard to
accomplish that mission.
At VA, and I would say in any organization, the thought
process begins with ensuring that clear standards are
established, and then the leader's job is to make sure that the
skills and the other resources associated with being able to
meet that standard are available. And so when there are
performance issues that arise in the wake of that kind of good
foundation, then you start a process of constructive
engagement, where you are trying to understand where the issues
are.
I would tell you from my own private sector experience, my
experience inside VA is obviously very limited at this point,
but in my private sector experience, rarely did that result in
a firing, in a removal from a position. Because you work with
somebody, often times the performance improved. In other
instances, you would work with someone and they would self-
select out. They would retire. They would resign. They would
step down to a position that is perhaps less challenging and
within the scope of their ability. Rarely in the private sector
does it result in firing someone. And so I know the secretary
has said on numerous occasions that he believes that he has the
authority that he needs to hold people accountable. I will tell
you that there are elaborate performance measures in place
across the organization that people are expected to meet and I
believe there is a strong system of accountability in place.
Mr. Runyan. And I thank you for the response, but I think
what you are touching on there, it kind of comes back to a
phrase you used yesterday in our meeting in talking about
relationships, when you have a close, personal connection to
those around you. And I think, you know, as the chairman and
the ranking member have said, sometimes we don't have these
relationships. We don't have a personal connection, a lot of
times to the people we need the information from; there are
barriers in there. That personal relationship has
accountability to it----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, it does.
Mr. Runyan [continuing]. Because they feel like they are
letting people down and that is the structure of a team. We are
all on a team here to serve our veterans, and I think these are
the barriers. You addressed in our meeting yesterday, we have
to get there, though, and those accountability measures I think
can be reached through more open dialogue and better
relationships in the long run.
Mr. Gibson. Well, if there is any mistaking here, let me
clarify it. I am the accountable guy, and so I believe in the
importance of those relationships, and believe me, as I walk
out the door today when we are finished, that starts the work;
that doesn't finish the work, because I am accountable back to
you and every other member of this committee.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
And Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I apologize, I am going to have to leave in just a minute,
but I want to ask, specifically, since we are talking about
transparency and accountability, and I think it is very, very
important that we discuss it. Are you familiar with the report
that NBC, here in Washington, just did about a VA employee that
was involved in an incident, left, and then was hired back--
actually, I think the employee's name was Fillingham--are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, I have read one news account of--
associated with that and that is the full extent of my
knowledge of what you're talking about.
The Chairman. Let me, just if I can, give you a little
background. If the members will indulge the Chair for just a
minute.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In fact, Mr. Coffman, who chairs the
oversight and investigative subcommittee sent a letter to the
secretary on December 20th of 2013 and it was requesting Mr.
Fillingham's personnel file, and the letter also asked that the
request not be treated the same as a FOIA, or Freedom of
Information Act request, from the general public. We haven't
gotten a response. And so the question is: Why in the world
would Mr. Coffman's letter go unresponded to when the Freedom
of Information Act, by a news organization, was responded to
weeks ago?
And since we don't have a response from the VA on Mr.
Coffman's letter, I am going to take this opportunity to ask
these couple questions and maybe fill you in.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you.
The Chairman. The media reports that the police and federal
investigators found that Fillingham drove a government vehicle,
after drinking with two other VA employees. One of Fillingham's
colleagues fell out of the truck while it was moving and that
employee died.
According to media reports, VA records show that Fillingham
was later allowed to resign from VA, but was rehired by the
Department just months later while he is still under federal
investigation, and the media reports at a salary of $100,000.
So the question is: Why isn't drinking and driving a
government vehicle on VA business a fireable offense? Why would
VA rehire an employee still under investigation for misconduct?
Who decided to rehire Jed Fillingham? Why did they rehire him?
And what is VA currently doing in response to this incident?
And I only ask the question because we have waited since
the latter part of December for an answer and you are who we
have to ask.
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in response to an
earlier question, the safety of staff, patients and veterans
that we care for is of paramount importance to the Department.
Also, as I mentioned, I am unfamiliar with the specifics
surrounding this particular item. Any response is going to be
nothing more than speculation on my part. I would like to have
the opportunity to respond back to you.
The Chairman. If I was the deputy secretary, I certainly
would expect that somebody's probably watching this testimony
now, either on television or webcast, that they would probably
have an answer for you when you got back to the central office.
So I would hope that we could very quickly have an opportunity
to discuss what is going on.
Because the facts, as they have been presented in the
press, are more than egregious, and I think not only do the
taxpayers, are they owed an explanation, but certainly the
members of this committee are. And I will take you at your word
that you will respond as quickly as possible once you get
briefed up. It is a pretty bad incident, a pretty bad incident.
Next--would be Mr. Walz
Well, Mr. Walz, first of all, how did you get up there? You
were down here.
Mr. Walz. I know. They had me walk down there first and
then I came back up as a little shaming or something. I'm not
sure what is going on.
The Chairman. Mr. Walz, you are recognized.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Chairman.
And Deputy Secretary, thank you. In listening to this, I am
very appreciative. I am appreciative of listening to all of the
meetings you had with members. I know it is a challenging job,
but as a graduate of West Point, an Airborne Ranger, and son of
a B-17 tail gunner, and grandson of a soldier who fought at the
Marne, your family is used to tough things, and so I appreciate
your candidness on this. I think you hear the frustration,
maybe on both sides of the aisle a little bit, and I understand
and we will look at this: You are clearly speaking the language
of everybody in this committee, that we are a team together,
but we need to work as a team to make that happen.
My suggestion, if it would be--and it is not necessarily a
question--is a lot of these things can be started on the front
end. One of the things we do is we never introduce legislation
or try and do changes or anything like that unless we built the
coalition of the VSOs, our constituents across the board.
But I have to tell you, though, the one piece that is kind
of missing--and I don't know if it is the nature of the
legislative versus the administrative/executive side of
things--we always feel like there is a bit of resistance, and
why I say that is if we send a suggestion over for a bill, we
want candid input. And what we end up getting--and members
would know this, too, sometimes you have a standard form
letter, but we joke in our office, if I sent a bill over
recognizing today was Thursday, there would be lots of red
flags coming up from VA of why that is not a thing that we can
be with.
And it is that type of thing that I think, then, is
corrosive and leads to this long, drawn-out process where--and
I don't--certainly, I think the point was made we don't want to
put you in a tough position, have you testifying under oath on
things where that is. But it is the partnership in this of
working from the beginning of an issue collaboratively
together.
And you mentioned yesterday, which I was very appreciative
of, Deputy Secretary, was this issue of creating some more
informal means of talking and collaborating. That there is
trust among folks who are entrusted with our Nation's veterans.
Maybe elaborate a little bit of ways that we can do that,
because I understand there are rules, there are regulations,
there are open meetings, there are all those things, but
sometimes all we are looking for is some informal feedback--Do
you think this is a good idea or what does this actually mean?
And what members hear is I will wait six months to get a canned
answer that I knew I was already going to get.
So it is the content of the answer, not just the time that
matters, too.
Mr. Gibson. Right. Congressman, you are hitting the nail on
the head right here in terms of the kinds of collaborative
relationship that best serves veterans. I think those kinds of
informal contact--in any relationship, the ability to have
regular, candid communication is one of the vital ways that you
feed a relationship and that a relationship grows. I think that
it's an opportunity for VA and this committee, and I will look
forward to pursuing those kinds of opportunities, personally,
and to making staff alike.
Mr. Walz. Well, I think it builds trust is that, you know,
we are not calling over to trap somebody into saying something,
just running something by them: What do you think about this
bill on speeding the backlog, do you really think it would
help? And if we could get a candid, trusted response back, that
impacts how we go about it or what we can get done, that would
be incredibly helpful to me.
And I think it would reduce your workload on this, and I
would argue it would build stronger relationships and better
legislation.
Mr. Gibson. It is about finding ways to move together.
Mr. Walz. And, again, I would be remiss if I wouldn't, as
the co-chair with Chairman Miller of the--co-chair of the USO
Caucus to thank you for your dedication when you were over at
USO. It was bittersweet--I am glad you came over here--but I
did not want to see you leave over there, because that is an
important organization that you made even better, so thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Bilirakis. [Presiding] Thank you, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions, and I
think my colleague from New Jersey used the word that is most
critical here and that is ``accountability.'' And I have a few
questions here and I would like to see if we can address those.
Deputy Secretary, there have been reported 19 preventable
deaths nationwide, including six at the Columbia, South
Carolina Center; three at the Augusta Medical Center due to
delays in VA care. As I understand it, VA has refused to reveal
the locations of the other ten deceased veterans, where they
were seeking care. Can you tell us specific locations today for
the other ten deceased veterans, where they were seeking care?
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, any time an adverse event occurs,
anywhere in VA and veterans are harmed, that is a very serious
matter to us. There are extensive processes that we go through
in VHA to investigate and to document and understand the
circumstances surrounding those adverse events and to ensure
that they don't occur elsewhere in the organization
subsequently.
I do not have particulars as it relates to those specific
events. I would be glad to arrange for a member of the staff to
brief your staff or to come by and brief you as well, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp. Will you commit, though, to providing the
information by the close of business day for the committee?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, what I want to do is provide you the
information that we can provide when we can provide it, and so
I am not familiar with the workings on the homework that is
being done on that particular issue.
Mr. Huelskamp. We have ten deceased veterans and the VA has
refused to reveal those locations. I think our veterans deserve
to know where there was a delay in care that led to the death
of a veteran. And as I understand it, the VA has refused to
release those locations.
So I will ask you by the end of the day, we will make
another request: Will you please provide that to the committee,
and I would appreciate that.
The second issue deals with, again, on-going issue with
Pittsburgh and Legionnaires' disease. We had a hearing on that,
as I understand that, three days after the VA's Inspector
General reported the mismanagement of the VA Pittsburgh
Center's response to the disease outbreak, the director at that
center received a $63,000 bonus.
VA officials that repeatedly said that his bonus was under
review, and then they allowed the gentleman to retire. Did
anyone actually review the bonus? What is the status review,
and when will it be completed? And I presume you don't know
anything about this situation either, but I would appreciate a
response to the committee on that particular issue, this on-
going bonus issue.
And I would also like to know how many members of the
Senior Executive Service in the past year received a bonus from
the VA.
And the last one, two issues that are related to--
specifically to responses. March of 2013 last year, my office
received official confirmation from the VA that an outbased--
outpatient clinic in Liberal, Kansas would receive a physician.
Last week I had an individual from that town was in my
office and notified us that never did happen, and so 13 months
later, after we were told it was happening, we were told by a
constituent that it did, indeed, never did happen.
I am just curious how the VA can give some information that
turned out to be inaccurate, and wouldn't you expect a
notification back to our office that said, Congressman, that
didn't happen, there is still a vacancy and you still have
three years without a physician in Liberal, Kansas.
Can you describe what should be the proper response and
whether you would be informing me in the future when you don't
follow through on a request that was promised.
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, I would say that in any kind of
dialogue or conversation around an issue like that, when we
have communicated information to a member and that information
proves to be incorrect or the circumstances change, then we owe
a follow-up conversation and communication to the member. That
is part of building the kind of trusted relationship that needs
to exist between the members of this committee and the
Department.
Mr. Huelskamp. And I appreciate that, and that did not
happen. Again, a Kansan has to catch us and say, the VA didn't
tell you, but we are still waiting on a physician in Liberal,
Kansas.
Further on--it is just outside of my district--there is a
Topeka VA Center and still trying to understand why the
emergency room was closed at this center, the VA, and I
received no notification. Again, I heard about it at a town
hall from a constituent. And it is hard to build trust when
good information might be communicated, but these difficult
situations and failures, the delays in care and refusal to
answer questions makes it very difficult to visit with my
constituents and honestly tell them that we are getting the
full story from the VA.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Ms. Titus, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibson, nice to see you.
Mr. Gibson. Good to see you, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you for taking time to join us this
morning. I also want to thank you for your previous service at
the USO and for working with me to get the facility at McCarran
in Las Vegas. Every time I fly home, which is about every
weekend, I am glad to see that USO is there.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Absolutely. And as you outlined in your
testimony, I know that the VA receives an enormous amount of
correspondence and requests. You may be one of the most
micromanaged agencies in the Executive Department because we
all have concerns and we all have constituents----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, you do.
Ms. Titus.--who are veterans.
And I appreciate the offer that you have made to us in
meetings and here today to work together better to provide
accountability, to provide more information. Because this
committee could be your biggest cheerleader if we have that
information, but we need to know what is working well and what
is not working so we can try to help you fix that. Just a
couple of points of things that I have been concerned about and
I think that you are aware of them, but I would just put them
on the record again and hope to get more information down the
road. One is the new veterans hospital in Las Vegas. It is a
big, beautiful facility. We are very proud of it. Like any new
facility, it is had growing pangs, but I am concerned that some
of the things that are happening there like with the emergency
room aren't taking into account some of veterans' input, some
of the doctors' input. I hope that we can kind of be notified
about changes and work together to make that transition better.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. I also want to ask you--again, I have done this
before to the VA about the interim disability ratings. I have a
bill that is pay-as-you-rate, so veterans can get some of their
compensation as different parts of their cases are assessed.
The VA can already do that, but they are not doing it. Only
about eight percent of the cases have been allowed to have that
interim payment, but I haven't gotten a good answer of why that
is the case or why that is a problem and how we can work better
on that.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. That has passed the House, and so we will see
where it is going in the Senate. But if I know what your
concerns are on how you can make it happen without the
legislation, let me know.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. And finally, I have been very concerned and very
vocal about the performance of the Reno regional office. It has
one of the worst records, one of the longest backlogs, some of
the troubled personnel. I have talked about this many times.
They brokered half of their cases, so they brought down
their backlog, but it is by sending half of their cases to
other places. And we hear from the VSOs and from individual
veterans that they can't now track it, that there is a lack of
communication on these brokered cases. So if there is some way
that we can look at a communication plan that includes all the
stakeholders, I think there will be a lot more confidence in
the fact that their cases are being sent somewhere else, and
those that are left at the regional office are going to be
addressed in a way that is appropriate; it's not that you are
just getting rid of cases, you are solving problem as well.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. So those are areas that I am working on. I
appreciate your input and your help on this, and I thank you
for being here.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am. I understand.
Ms. Titus. And I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Coffman, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Gibson for being here today.
I want to tell you that after hearing your testimony today,
I can't tell you how disappointed I am. I think you are
dedicated to not making a difference. Because for you to come
before this committee and conflate the numbers that come--the
correspondence that comes from all congressional offices about
questions about individual VA cases that usually stem from the
district level, without breaking out the numbers that come from
this office that are based on our oversight responsibilities--I
think is stunning, and I think that tells me is what we are
going to get out of your leadership, or lack thereof, is just
more of the same. More of the same, that you are dedicated to
making sure that things don't change.
You ought to be outraged. You ought to be outraged at the
length of time it takes for VA to respond to the members of
this committee on their oversight role.
Look, we had a hearing on February 13th of last year and I
asked Dr. Petzel who was testifying before this committee on
mental health issues that he had mentioned a survey that was
completed four weeks prior to his testimony, about--it was VA
providers--what VA providers are saying about the work being
done related to mental health care, and I asked for that and he
said he would have it to me, close of business that day.
I have not received it yet, and that is typical. That is
not unusual. That is typical. And for you to come before this
committee and say, everything's really fine, I am just going to
make it a little bit better. Really? Just a little bit better?
I mean come on. I just can't tell you how disappointed I am.
And I just think that maybe that is how you see your job
description, keeping information away from this committee, not
giving us information, not transparency on behalf of the
veterans that have served this country on behalf at the
taxpayers who foot the bill.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Ms. Negrete McLeod, you are recognized
for five minutes.
Ms. Negrete-McLeod. Thank you. I have no questions;
however, I would like to say--I would like to thank the
Department for handling quite a few things on my behalf.
And just recently I called, last week during our week that
we were home, I had a veteran that had come in who had felt
that there was not attention given to the PTSD arena and he had
some problems and I called when I came back last week. And they
quickly responded to him. They called him and wanted to know if
they could help him in any way and try to get an appointment
quicker than he was having one over in Loma Linda, and so I
just wanted to thank you for coming, and testifying before us.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for the feedback.
Mr. Bilirakis. Dr. Wenstrup, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibson, I want to say thank you for your service to our
country, and I am hopeful with you being here. I have worked
with you on USO events in Cincinnati and have been nothing but
impressed with the work that you have done there and we have
had some pretty successful events and it has been a pleasure to
work with you there.
Obviously, we all have concerns and we all know that there
are problems within the VA and in the communication with us a
lot of times. And I have come to find in the years that I have
been here that sometimes people in the VA don't know what they
don't know; for example, on the healthcare side, we had a
committee of doctors here and I asked the doctors if any of
them had ever been in the private sector in managing hospital
systems and they haven't. So they have been in a system--they
have been in academia, you know, where they are salaried. They
don't have to make ends meet necessarily; that is not an issue.
And as a doctor in the army, I served in DoD facilities
where I know the inefficiencies there--not that the care is
bad--but the fact that I can only see 15 patients in a DoD
facility, wherein in my private practice, I would see 45 to 50
in the same amount of time.
These are the types of things that the people that are
running, they don't know that. They have never been that, and
for the last year I have offered to go into the hospitals, into
the clinics, into the ORs, and talk about what could be done to
improve things.
And when we had a hearing recently, I asked can you tell
me, for example, patients in an eight-hour day in the clinic,
an orthopaedic surgeon sees?
And they said, We have no idea.
And so then what are you measuring--and this was the doctor
trying to evaluate the efficiencies--I said what are you
measuring?
We are making some headway on that. We are going to get
some time, and hopefully we can make a difference here. I mean,
I am here and I want to be part of the solutions, not just
complain.
But at the same time we had a breakfast five weeks ago and
I hand-delivered a letter to General Shinseki asking about the
prescription drug monitoring program that we have one in Ohio
where we share information amongst the medical professionals,
amongst doctors to know who is getting what narcotics and where
so that we are not over prescribing or that we tend to try to
help somewhere--someone, rather than continue to prescribe
unnecessarily. The VA is able to get that information from the
private sector in Ohio, but the private sector can't get it
from the VA. And I asked why are we still behind on that, and I
have received nothing back, and I hand-delivered that.
At the same time, you know, I asked Dr. Petzel one time and
he said, Well, it is an IT problem.
Well, why is it an IT problem?
Because the funding has been there. So our doctors in Ohio
cannot get that information.
So here is the situation: Now, five weeks you were at that
breakfast and I want to know why; I haven't been heard from, I
haven't heard anything.
Mr. Gibson. Congressman, first of all, thank you for the
willingness to engage positively, particularly in light of your
background, and experience and your professional training and
credentials; it is a valuable resource to the VA and I am
grateful that you would be willing to do that.
We owe you an answer and I will see that we get you a
status update promptly.
Mr. Wenstrup. I appreciate that, but that is the type of
thing that everyone is talking about, and I know that you
haven't been on the job very long----
Mr. Gibson. That's right.
Mr. Wenstrup [continuing]. And I recognize that it is a
mountain to climb, and, again, knowing you personally, I think
that you are the man that can get that job done, but you have a
lot on your hands and I will pin some high hopes on you.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Any further questions?
All right. I----
Ms. Brown. I have one.
Mr. Bilirakis. You have a question?
Ms. Brown. Yes, I do.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. You are recognized.
Ms. Brown. Thank you again for coming.
But my question pertains to a couple of the members have
said that they wanted something by the end of the day, and both
of their issues sound like they are legal issues. How do you
all handle a situation like that if the case is in court or
under legal review? What kind of response could you give?
Mr. Gibson. Well, I think the response, ma'am, will have to
be shaped by the advice of counsel.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Gibson. Whether there is outstanding litigation or
whether there are privacy issues associated, either with
patient matters or with employee matters, and so the response
has to be shaped by that input, but we still owe a response.
Ms. Brown. I agree, you owe a response, but the response
may not be the in-depth detail as to what the person is asking,
because basically, if you give it to us, we will read it in the
press and if it is a legal situation, then, you know, we are
not under oath.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gibson. You are exactly right, but we owe you a
response.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Gibson. That is part of building the kind of
collaborative relationship that we want to have. That is how we
wind up working together to find ways to move forward. That is
not just going back and forth; that is not constructive.
Ms. Brown. I agree.
And relationships are two ways and it is not just what we
want; it is how we treat you, how we respond to you. It is a
partnership. It is a marriage. It is what we are doing together
for the veterans.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
And I'd like to recognize now, the ranking member for
whatever he would like, questions, statement, whatever.
Make some comments, please. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I ask that Ms. Kirkpatrick's statement be
included in the record. She had to leave earlier.
The Chairman. So moved.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
Mr. Michaud. And once again, I want to thank you very much,
Mr. Gibson. I am impressed be your testimony. I know that you
have been at the Department for a short time, but also knowing
your previous history with USOs that you are a good fit for the
Department.
And open collaboration, communication, and honesty is
extremely important for this committee, for us to do our job
because I do know that even though some members haven't brought
up some of the issues, that my staff get a lot of requests from
members of this committee saying, Well, why haven't we heard
from OCLA yet? They come to us to complain about it.
And so I think that the more we can have that open
communication, the better off that we all will be, and some of
the frustrations that you saw this morning from some members on
both sides of the aisle, I think will help lower that
frustration if we have that open, you know, line of
communications.
In a way, we can speed up the process, and one way that I
thought of, that I mentioned in my opening statement was the
subject-matter experts. I think that is one of the ways to
speed up the process, but still, we have a ways to go in that
area.
But I looking forward to working with you, and once, again,
thank you for your service, and thanks for being here today.
Appreciate it.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And, sir, again, I know you have only been on the job for
six weeks. I appreciate your service to our country and what
you have done for the USO and your service here.
But I will tell you we are very, very serious about this.
We have got to see some improvement. You know, the members are
frustrated and rightly so. Just like--I agree with the ranking
member. We have got to get some answers quickly, and again, the
lack of communication is extremely frustrating. If you don't
have the answer or if you can't give the answer for legal
reasons, get back to us. Let us know. We have to know that you
are working on it.
So, again, we have got to be able to do our jobs, and when
we don't get these responses in a timely manner, it is very
difficult to--it inhibits our ability to communicate to our
constituents.
So, please, I implore you to make some improvements. You
know, there is no excuse. There is no excuse. You have the
staffing, 30 percent increase since 2009, so let's get the job
done. And I appreciate you being here today, and thank you for
your testimony.
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, message received, and I look
forward to being with you on the 12th of April down in Tampa to
cut the ribbon.
Mr. Bilirakis. Excellent. Thank you.
Thanks so such.
If there are no further questions for Secretary Gibson, I
asked unanimous consent that all members have five legislative
days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material into the hearing record.
Thank you, the hearing--with no exceptions the hearing--no
objections, the hearing now stands adjourned.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Jeff Miller, Chairman
Good morning and the hearing will come to order. As the
title of today's hearing suggests, to conduct our
constitutional oversight duties, VA needs to respond in a
timely manner to our requests for information.
With us today is Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson. I would
note that we again invited Assistant Secretary Mooney to
testify since she is, by title, the assistant Secretary for
Congressional and Legislative Affairs and as a presidential
appointee, she agreed to testify before congress as part of her
confirmation process.
For the second time, we are gathered to hear how we can
improve a process that too often has resulted in frustration
and delay. Let me start with a positive. Since our last
hearing, VA has improved its submission of testimony on time.
So that is certainly an area where progress has been made. Mr.
Secretary, I would also like to recognize what I view as a
positive tone in your written testimony about improving the
timely response to Committee requests. You are totally correct
in that the Veterans Affairs' Committees and VA have a common
duty to ensure we meet the nation's commitment to its veterans.
Unfortunately, long-delayed responses for information,
documents, or questions continue. As of Tuesday, the average
days pending for all 96 requests was 143 with 66 pending over
sixty days and 50 over one hundred days. In fact, we have 3
requests pending since 2012 and our oldest outstanding request
is 666 days pending.
The last time we visited this subject with Assistant
Secretary Mooney, she testified regarding the literally
thousands of requests VA receives from Capitol Hill. I
understand the reality, but I will continue the committee's
active oversight of the department. As they should, Members of
the House and Senate take great interest in VA and its programs
because of its mission. That won't change on my watch.
I understand there are lots of moving parts involving
responses to our requests, many of which are outside VA's
control but in the end, it is VA's responsibility to provide
congress with complete, accurate and timely answers.
Regardless, perhaps moving the issue up the chain of command
will help improve VA's performance in this area, so Secretary
Gibson, I thank you for testifying today.
Prepared Statement of Michael Michaud, Ranking Minority Member
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I share your view that this hearing is not just about
accountability for individual Congressional requests, but also
an opportunity to discuss what can be done to improve the
relationship between VA and this Committee.
Mr. Gibson, congratulations on your recent appointment as
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We
appreciate you being here today. I am, along with the Chairman,
a bit disappointed that Assistant Secretary Mooney and
Undersecretary for Health Petzel are not joining you at the
witness table as they were invited.
I am, however, encouraged by the shift in tone conveyed by
your participation and written testimony. For the first time,
the Department has clearly, concisely, and publically indicated
the status quo must change. Thank you for that open and honest
acknowledgement.
Also, from your written testimony and our recent
conversation, it appears you, as the Deputy Secretary and
``Chief Operating Officer,'' are taking on the challenge from a
Department perspective. I think that will be a significant
improvement, and I look forward to working with you in a
collaborative and constructive manner.
As I have laid out in my discussions with the Secretary, I
have three basic expectations of the VA around customer
service.
My first expectation is that VA is responsive to
Congressional inquiries. While I recognize the founding
fathers' construct of the separation of power, I also recognize
their construct of checks and balances between these separate
powers. Oversight is a fundamental power provided Congress, and
a fundamental obligation. Getting information from the
Department is crucial to Congress doing its job. This is not a
theoretical civics discussion, but directly affects our
ability, as a co-equal branch of government, to do our job.
VA's responses to Congressional inquiries should be thoughtful,
thorough and complete.
Since my recent conversation with Secretary Shinseki, a set
of standard operating procedures addressing responsiveness
between the Committee Democratic staff and VA's OCLA have been
agreed to and put in place. These appear to be working well so
far. I appreciate the VA OCLA team's willing to work out these
SOPs, and adhere to them. I hold my staff accountable for
adhering to our part of this agreement.
My second expectation is that VA is timely in its
response to Congressional inquiries. I recognize that
thoughtful, thorough and complete responses take time. I also
recognize that time moves at different paces in Congress and
the VA. This is not a judgment statement--merely an
acknowledgement that our work occurs at different speeds.
Congress should not expect VA to operate at our extremely rapid
pace. Nor should the VA expect Congress to operate at its
slower pace. Reasonable accommodation is somewhere in-between.
When a response is needed and what can be provided by that
date, and when a final response will be forthcoming, should be
a frequent, routine discussion between our staffs.
Since the last Transparency hearing held by this Committee
in September 2013, we have seen an improvement in the
timeliness of VA testimony submissions and responses to
Congressional inquiries. However, we continue to see
substantial delays, from one to three months, on a few
individual Member inquiries tracked by the Committee staff. I
will defer to these Members to discuss the specifics with you
directly.
It is often difficult to get a straight answer on the
reason for a delay in responding. It appears the lack of
timeliness in VA responses to Congressional inquiries may, in
part, be the cumbersome review process that responses are
required to go through--both internal and external to the
organization preparing the response. This, Mr. Gibson, is
likely the toughest part of your challenge to improve the
process. However, it behooves everyone involved in the review
and approval process to work collaboratively to change and
improve the process. No one benefits from frustrated,
dysfunctional relationships between an Administration, Agency
and Congress--least of all America's veterans.
My final expectation is that VA allows Congressional
Members and staff direct access to subject matter experts
within the Department. This means that the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs facilitate, not control,
the interactions between VA executives and The Hill. For the
most part, in these interactions, in my opinion, OCLA's role
should be transparent to us.
Last year, it took me--the Ranking Member of this
Committee--three days to get the phone number for the
Undersecretary for Health. I wanted to thank him for the great
care one of my staff received at the VA Medical Center here in
Washington, DC. That is simply unacceptable.
Our staffs hear informally that VA's subject matter experts
want to talk with us--they want to share the good news and
progress they are making; they believe getting ahead of bad
news is important; they understand that the trust you mention
in your written testimony begins with open, honest
communication. We in Congress understand the need and value of
a synchronized message. The way to accomplish that is through
internal Department coordination, not a single filter.
Politicians know that during a campaign you try to control the
message, but during the governing process that comes after the
election, you need to collaborate around the message. Failing
to do this typically means failure in the next campaign.
Just recently, one of my staff members met a young soldier
at a professional reception. He was there representing a new
Army program to help soldiers transition from active duty.
Unable to have a robust discussion about the program at the
reception, the soldier agreed to follow-up with my staff.
Within the week, that soldier and my staff exchanged several
emails, met once and set up follow-on meetings for other staff
and Members. There was no red-tape, no DoD or Army legislative
affairs intervention, no delays, no complications. That, is
what I expect from VA--just swift, simple, direct business.
Mr. Gibson, I look forward to your testimony today. I look
forward to hearing in more detail how you plan to change the
process internal to VA. And, I look forward to hearing what you
need from us in Congress to rebuild the trust and improve our
working relationship.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Sloan D. Gibson
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, Members of the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs: I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) work to provide Congress with needed information.
VA and Congress share the same goal: to do everything we
can to improve the healthcare, benefits and other services
delivered to our Nation's Veterans, their families, and
Survivors earned through service. That is what guides our work
at VA throughout the country.
I want to acknowledge the dedicated professionals that work
at VA. While more work remains, remarkable progress has been
made in implementing Secretary Shinseki's top priorities:
improving Veteran access to VA benefits and services,
eliminating the claims backlog in 2015, and ending Veteran
homelessness in 2015. As a Veteran who cares deeply about the
welfare of Veterans and their families, I also want to express
my gratitude for the passion, commitment and sustained support
Congress continues to provide, both in resources and
legislative authorities, for these critical initiatives.
Everything we do at VA is built on a foundation of trust.
We earn the trust of Veterans as we deliver, each day, on our
promise to care for those ``who shall have borne the battle.''
We also have to earn the trust of the American people and their
elected representatives. They provide the resources that allow
us to serve Veterans, and they must have confidence that VA is
a good steward of those resources. Anything that erodes this
trust does tangible harm to Veterans.
For the benefit of our Veterans, the status quo in our
working relationship must change. The Committee is not
receiving all the information it needs in a timely manner. From
my perspective, this is not a VA Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs (OCLA) issue. It is not a Veterans Health
Administration or a Veterans Benefits Administration issue. It
is a Department issue. That is why I am here. I am committed to
working with the Committee in a collaborative and constructive
manner to best serve our Veterans.
We will do better. In fact, the data show that since the
last hearing on this subject, in September 2013, our on-time
performance for delivering testimony and Questions for the
Record has improved dramatically. In that time period, 100
percent of QFRs and 95 percent of written testimony were
submitted on-time. Additionally, during the same time period,
the Department has responded to over 1,000 requests for
information from Congress. We can do more to improve the on-
time delivery of congressionally mandated reports and
correspondence, and we are working aggressively in those areas.
VA is committed to working with Congress to deliver needed
information in a timely and accurate manner.
It is important to note that VA is already providing vast
amounts of information. In the first five months of this Fiscal
Year VA has testified at 24 hearings, delivered 178 briefings,
responded to 1,063 Requests for Information, responded to 187
pieces of executive correspondence, completed 130 requests for
Technical Assistance on legislation, and answered 653 Questions
for the Record. By any standard, this is a remarkable volume of
information.
The level of care and services VA provides to Veterans
every day has an impact on every Member of Congress because
every Member represents Veterans in their district. Most
Members of Congress also represent districts that have VA
facilities that provide and maintain healthcare, benefits, and
cemeteries. For that reason, VA receives a large number of
requests from Congress. In FY 2013 and the first five months of
FY 2014, VA Central Office responded to tens of thousands of
Congressional requests for information.
Moving forward, I want to ensure that VA and this committee
are working together in a positive, constructive, and
collaborative manner. Our Veterans expect that we expend our
time and energy moving forward. That will require regular and
open two way communication to insure that we are putting our
resources toward those efforts that best support appropriate
congressional oversight and lead to improved care and services
for our Veterans.
To reiterate, VA and Congress share the same goal: to do
everything we can to improve the healthcare, benefits and other
services delivered to our Nation's Veterans, their families,
and Survivors. We respect Congress' important oversight role
and look forward to working collaboratively and cooperatively
together.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and am prepared to
answer any questions you may have.
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Representative Kirkpatrick
1. Unlike most federal agencies, the Department of Veterans
Affairs touches each congressional district in a unique way--we
all represent veteran communities. This means that VA garners a
lot of attention from not only this committee, but the entire
Congress. Outside of the requests for information from this
committee, how many other requests does VA receive and respond
to from the entire Congress?
2. How does VA prioritize requests for information from
Congress? Does the committee need to do a better job of
prioritizing our requests?
3. Mr. Gibson, as a new addition to VA, what are your first
impressions of the department? What do you think VA does well
and where do you believe there is room for improvement?
Congressman G. K. Butterfield
1. When the Department of Veterans Affairs is hosting an
event in a state and participation from Members of Congress is
desired, what procedures do VA regional personnel take to
invite the proper elected officials to events?
2. Who ultimately has oversight of VA's regional personnel
in their dealings with Members of Congress? Is the VA Office of
Legislative Affairs the best office within the Department to
have ultimate oversight over VA's regional offices in their
interactions with Members of Congress?
3. How are invitations disseminated to Members of Congress
and their offices? What are the procedures for following-up on
these invitations?
4. After the initial invite, how do VA regional office
personnel communicate with Members of Congress and their staff?
5. In dealing with Members of Congress, how do the regional
VA offices communicate with your office in Washington, D.C. to
update you on their interactions with Members and their staff?
Who reports to whom and who is ultimately responsible for
proper communication with Members and their offices?
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Representative Kirkpatrick
1. Unlike most federal agencies, the Department of
Veterans Affairs touches each congressional district in a
unique way - we all represent veteran communities. This means
that VA garners a lot attention from not only this committee,
but the entire Congress. Outside of the requests for
information from this committee, how many other requests does
VA receive and respond to from the entire congress?
The level of care and services VA provides to Veterans
every day has an impact on every Member of Congress because
every Member represents Veterans in their district. Most
Members of Congress also represent districts that have VA
facilities that provide and maintain health care, benefits, and
cemeteries. For that reason, VA receives a large number of
requests from Congress.
In the first six months of this fiscal year (FY) 2014, VA
has testified at 32 hearings, delivered 213 briefings,
responded to 1,346 requests for information, responded to 213
pieces of executive correspondence, completed 143 requests for
technical assistance on legislation, answered 723 questions for
the record and responded to 9,748 constituent casework
inquiries from the Central office level, additional primary POC
on casework and notification at local VA offices.
2. How does VA prioritize requests for information from
Congress? Does the committee need to do a better job of
prioritizing our request?
We take all requests from Congress seriously and try to
follow-up with answers in a timely and expeditious manner. We
prioritize requests from Chairmen and Ranking Members of
committees of jurisdiction, Congressional leadership, followed
by any other request in the order that they are received. VA
endeavors to work with the committee in a positive and
constructive manner, and we would welcome any additional
guidance the Committee may have on how we can best prioritize
the requests.
3. Mr. Gibson, as a new addition to VA, what are your
impressions of the department? What do you think VA does well
and here do you believe there is room for improvement?
My most prominent and important first impression is of the
people who work at VA. I see men and women, many Veterans
themselves, that care deeply about VA's mission, that want to
do the right thing, and work incredibly hard to get it done. I
believe this is the motivating force that drives the people I
have met at the VA.
I believe the single most important opportunity for
improvement is the need to do a better job conveying to
Veterans, to the American people, and to their elected
representatives the vast body of great work that is done for
Veterans day in and day out. While there are opportunities for
us to improve--as there always are in any large organization--
the fact is that VA delivers on its promise to hundreds of
thousands of Veterans every single day. This simple fact must
be the foundation of the trust vital to our relationship with
those we serve and those who provide the resources essential to
our mission.
Representative G.K. Butterfield
1. When Department of Veterans Affairs is hosting an event
in a state and participation from Members of Congress is
desired, what procedures do VA regional personnel take to
invite the proper elected officials to events?
The Department's protocol suggests inviting both U.S.
Senators and the U.S. Representative of the facility's
congressional district to speak, while inviting other Members
of Congress and state officials to attend.
2. Who ultimately has oversight of VA's regional personnel
in their dealing with Members of Congress? Is the VA Office of
Legislative Affairs the best office within the Department to
have ultimate oversight over VA's regional offices in their
interactions with Members of Congress?
The local VA staffs are responsible to their individual
offices in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) or National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). Given the volume and complexity involved
in the management of the day-to-day local VA/congressional
interactions, it is beneficial to utilize all available
resources to include regional and local VA staff. The Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) serves as the
Department's primary point of contact for Members of Congress
and their staffs on matters regarding policy, oversight, and
Members' requests. The office maintains relationships and
encourages the flow of information between VA and Members of
Congress and congressional staff. OCLA should be the focal
point for Department management and coordination of all matters
involving Congress.
3. How are invitations disseminated to Members of Congress
and their offices? What are the procedures for following-up on
these invitations?
The Department's protocol includes recommendations on the
development and distribution of invitations for special events.
Local facilities are responsible for ensuring this guidance is
incorporated into their local standard operating procedures.
The Department's protocol includes recommendations on the
development and distribution of invitations for special events,
including following-up on invitations. Local facilities are
responsible for ensuring this guidance is incorporated into
their local standard operating procedures.
4. After initial invite, how do VA regional office
personnel communicate with Members of Congress and their staff?
The Department's protocol includes recommendations for
following-up on invitations, including requesting RSVPs. Local
facilities are responsible for ensuring this guidance is
incorporated into their local standard operating procedures.
5. In dealing with Members of Congress, how do the regional
VA offices communicate with your office in Washington, D.C. to
update you on their interactions with Members and their staff?
Who reports to whom and who is ultimately responsible for
proper communication with Members and their offices?
Regional and local offices communicate with VA central
office through their respective chains of command in each
administration and program office. Constituent issues are
generally handled at the local level and national policy issues
are handled by OCLA. OCLA works with the administrations and
staff offices to advance responsive and effective congressional
communications.
OCLA is the focal point for Department management and
coordination of all matters involving the Congress. OCLA serves
as the Department's primary point of contact for Members of
Congress and their staffs on matters regarding policy,
oversight, and Members' requests. The office maintains
relationships and encourages the flow of information between VA
and Members of Congress and congressional staff.
[all]