    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 356, H.R. 832, H.R. 1994, H.R. 2133, H.R.
     2275, H.R. 2344, H.R. 2360, H.R. 2361, AND A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO
     AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MAKE CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND
    IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRANSFER OF UNUSED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
    UNDER THE POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-23

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                    ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    98-640                         WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman

    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-         Minority Member
        Chairman                         MARK TAKANO, California
    DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee              JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               DINA TITUS, Nevada
    TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas                RAUL RUIZ, California
    MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             KATHLEEN RICE, New York
    RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana             TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LEE ZELDIN, New York                 JERRY McNERNEY, California
    RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa
    MIKE BOST, Illinois
                           Jon Towers, Staff Director
                    Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                         BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio, Chairman

    LEE ZELDIN, New York                 MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
    AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa          Member
    RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania          DINA TITUS, Nevada
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  KATHLEEN RICE, New York
                                         JERRY McNERNEY, California

    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

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 2, 2015

                                                                       Page

    Legislative Hearing on H.R. 356, H.R. 832, H.R. 1994, H.R. 2133,
      H.R. 2275, H.R. 2344, H.R. 2360, H.R. 2361, and A Draft Bill
      Entitled ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, to Make
      Certain Modifications and Improvements in the Transfer of
      Unused Educational Assistance Benefits Under the Post-9/11
      Educational Assistance Program of the Department Of Veterans
      Affairs, and for Other Purposes''..............................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Hon. Brad Wenstrup, Chairman.....................................     1
    Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member.................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Paul Cook (CA-8)............................................     7
    Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18)................................     8
    Hon. Bill Flores (TX-17).........................................    13
    Mr. Paul R. Varela, Assistant National Legislative Director, DAV.    10
        Prepared Statement...........................................    41
    Mr. Brendon Gehrke, Senior Legislative Associate, National
      Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
      States.........................................................    12
        Prepared Statement...........................................    47
    Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, Veterans Employment and
      Education Division, The American Legion........................    15
        Prepared Statement...........................................    54
    Mr. David Borer, General Counsel, American Federation of
      Government Employees, AFL-CIO..................................    16
        Prepared Statement...........................................    61
    Mr. Christopher Neiweem, Legislative Associate, Iraq and
      Afghanistan Veterans of America................................    18
        Prepared Statement...........................................    72
    Mr. Rick Weidman, Executive Director, Government Affairs, VVA....    20
        Prepared Statement...........................................    78
    Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
      Opportunity, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs..........    29
        Prepared Statement...........................................    88

        Accompanied by:

            Ms. Cathy Mitrano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
                Office of Resource Management, Human Resources and
                Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
    Ms. Teresa W. Gerton, Acting Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
      Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor......    31
        Prepared Statement...........................................   107
    Dr. Susan S. Kelly, Director Transition to Veterans Program
      Office, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
      and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense......................    33
        Prepared Statement...........................................   116

                            STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

    Statement of Rep. Markwayne Mullin...............................   122
    Veterans Education Success.......................................   123
    U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board..............................   148

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 356, H.R. 832, H.R. 1994, H.R. 2133, H.R.
     2275, H.R. 2344, H.R. 2360, H.R. 2361, AND A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO
     AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MAKE CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND
    IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRANSFER OF UNUSED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
    UNDER THE POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 2, 2015

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                          Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
    Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present:  Representatives Wenstrup, Costello, Bost, Takano,
    Titus, Rice, and McNerney.
        Also Present: Representative Miller of Florida.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD WENSTRUP

        Dr. Wenstrup. Good afternoon, everyone. The subcommittee
    will come to order.
        Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
    our colleague Chairman Miller be allowed to sit at the dais, to
    make opening statements, and ask questions.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I want to thank you all for joining us here today to
    discuss legislation pending before the subcommittee concerning
    education benefits, employment programs for our returning
    servicemembers and veterans, as well as accountability at the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        This afternoon, we have nine important pieces of
    legislation before us.
        I will focus my remarks on one of these bills, which I
    introduced earlier this year, H.R. 2344, the Veterans
    Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Improvement Act of
    2015, as well as the draft bill that is on the agenda.
        VA's Vocational Rehab and Employment, VR&E, program exists
    to help disabled veterans become employment-ready or to assist
    the most severely disabled reach a point of maximum independent
    daily living. For years, we have heard from veterans and VSOs
    that the time it takes to complete a rehabilitation plan from
    the time of application to full rehabilitation is too long. And
    they have also said that the caseload for counselors is too
    high, which then doesn't allow the counselor to appropriately
    help each client.
        According to VA, on average, veterans spend anywhere
    between 5 to 10 years in the program--which, if that is how
    long it takes to rehabilitate some of these veterans, then that
    is understandable, but I fear that this extended length of time
    could also be due to an overworked system, a large caseload per
    counselor, and reliance on a primarily paper-based processing
    system.
        H.R. 2344 is aimed at ensuring veterans are receiving
    thorough and diligent assistance from their counselors and that
    they are provided the best resources possible to get them back
    to an employment-ready status or to a position where they are
    able to live independently on their own. Our disabled veterans,
    who have sacrificed so much, deserve to have a fulfilling life
    following their service.
        This bill would require that if a veteran is pursuing a
    course of education or training through VR&E that the program
    be approved for GI Bill benefits. Under current law, if a
    veteran is going to school through Voc Rehab, that school does
    not need to be approved by VA and the State approving agencies
    for GI Bill benefits.
        Programs will have a year following enactment to come into
    compliance with these rules. But I hope that this will increase
    oversight, and ensure that there aren't any so-called fly-by-
    night schools taking advantage of our disabled veterans.
        My bill would also change the law so that if a veteran is
    doing any adaptations to their home through VR&E that those
    changes be made under the rules already existing for specially
    adapted housing grants and by their employees, as opposed to
    the veteran's Voc Rehab counselor overseeing the changes. This
    accomplishes two things: gets these counselors out of the
    business of making home construction decisions and instead
    allows them to focus on their primary goal, to rehab the
    veteran; and ensures that experts who deal with home
    adaptations on a daily basis are now the ones handling
    oversight of these projects so we can ensure veterans are
    getting the best outcomes in their homes.
        My bill would also encourage and authorize the Secretary to
    prioritize VR&E services based on need so that the VA can take
    into account things such as disability ratings, severity of
    employment handicaps, income, and other factors as the
    Department and its counselors are managing their ever-growing
    caseload. This provision is not to push any veterans out of the
    program but would be there to allow VA to prioritize the most
    disabled and employment-handicapped veterans as they seek VR&E
    services.
        Lastly, H.R. 2344 would require the Secretary to reduce
    redundancies and process all VR&E claims and payments in a
    paperless system, and it authorizes $10 million to upgrade
    their IT systems to make the change. VR&E has told us that they
    are currently in the process of updating their systems and that
    they have received authorization and funding for this upgrade.
    However, we have seen in the past that this money can easily be
    shifted elsewhere at any point. Shifting Voc Rehab to a
    paperless system will speed up the application process,
    increase efficiency, and assist in a quicker rehabilitation
    timeline for veterans in the program.
        I do believe VR&E is constantly improving, and I appreciate
    the work the VR&E service director, Jack Kammerer, and his
    employees do on a daily basis. And the purpose of this bill is
    to assist them in their critical mission for disabled veterans.
        Lastly, today, we will also be discussing a draft bill that
    deals with GI Bill transferability issues. The draft came from
    recommendations made by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission earlier this year. The
    draft would change the service time requirement to be eligible
    to transfer GI Bill benefits to dependents to 10 years, with an
    additional 2-year commitment. Currently, the time requirement
    is 6 years, with an additional 4-year commitment.
        The draft bill would also reduce the monthly living stipend
    that transferees receive by half of its current rate. The
    commission recommended cutting the living stipend completely
    for dependents. However, I do think that there should be some
    amount of a stipend to be given to transferees, as that is in
    many cases also a benefit to their spouse or parent who served
    and transferred them this benefit.
        If we are to move this bill forward, I would commit to
    using the savings from these changes to improve GI Bill
    benefits or other programs for veterans, which I think we can
    all agree is important.
        With that being said, I am eager to discuss each of the
    nine pieces of legislation before us today. And I am grateful
    to my colleagues who have introduced these bills and to our
    witnesses for being here to discuss them with us, and I look
    forward to a productive and meaningful discussion.
        I will now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Takano for
    any opening statement he may have.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MARK TAKANO

        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we gather today, I just want to take a moment to thank
    you, Chairman Wenstrup, for conducting the Economic Opportunity
    Subcommittee in such a productive, positive, and bipartisan
    manner in this Congress. You have led the EO Subcommittee so
    that it has become the most productive of the four House
    Veterans' Affairs Committee subcommittees thus far in the 114th
    Congress. Under your leadership, we have conducted a
    legislative hearing and a markup under regular order, and we
    have forwarded 11 bills favorably to the full committee with
    unanimous bipartisan support. Five of our bills have actually
    passed the House.
        I particularly want to also congratulate my colleague, who
    is not here, Miss Rice, on seeing her very first piece of
    legislation pass the House, H.R. 1382, the BRAVE Act.
        So, on this high note, today we begin our second round of
    legislative hearings with nine bills before us. I have
    introduced two of these bills: H.R. 2360, the Career-Ready
    Student Veterans Act, and H.R. 2361, the Work-Study for Student
    Veterans Act. I am very grateful that both enjoy bipartisan
    support.
        The first, H.R. 2360, the Career-Ready Student Veterans
    Act, ensures that career education programs designed to prepare
    our student veterans for entry into the workforce are actually
    doing so. The bill would mandate that programs meet certain
    requirements in order to be eligible to receive GI Bill
    benefits.
        Currently, education programs can be eligible for GI Bill
    benefits even if they lack proper accreditation or do not meet
    State licensure or certification requirements. This means that
    veterans can use their hard-earned education benefits to attend
    programs that do not prepare them for a career in their field
    of study. H.R. 2360 would change this policy so that student
    veterans could only use their GI Bill benefits at education
    programs that meet proper accreditation, licensure, and
    certification requirements.
        Now, the Department of Defense already has this policy in
    place to protect servicemembers using tuition assistance
    benefits. It only makes sense that Congress should protect
    student veterans in the same way.
        I am very proud to say that H.R. 2360 enjoys clear
    bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to consider
    supporting the bill as we listen to the testimony today.
        My second bill, H.R. 2361, the Work-Study for Student
    Veterans Act, reinstates certain Department of Veterans Affairs
    student work-study activities that expired on June 30, 2013.
        Through the VA's Student Work-Study Allowance Program,
    qualifying student veterans in college degree programs or
    vocational or professional programs are paid to work in a
    variety of capacities on campus at VA facilities or at other
    veterans-centered organizations to assist fellow veterans.
        The work-study program achieves two important goals:
    offering student veterans a way to earn a little extra money,
    and providing transitioning veterans with the guidance and
    assistance of fellow veterans who know firsthand what the
    transition is like.
        Unfortunately, the 113th Congress in the Senate failed to
    act on H.R. 1453, the Work-Study for Student Veterans Act,
    which passed the House and would have extended the
    authorization for several qualifying VA work-study activities.
        I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill
    as we go forward. I hope we might hear from the VA today that
    they would like to see this program made permanent.
        Now, there is a lot on the agenda, and I don't want to take
    up too much time here, but I do appreciate all of our witnesses
    for being here today, and I look forward to their testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Takano. I want to thank you
    for your kind words, and I appreciate the opportunity of
    working together with you on this subcommittee.
        I will now yield to Chairman Miller of the full committee
    to discuss his bills, H.R. 1994 and H.R. 2275.
        Chairman Miller, you now recognized.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
    Member Takano. I appreciate the opportunity not only to sit at
    the dais today but also to present a couple of pieces of
    legislation for your consideration today. I also appreciate the
    fact that you are allowing me to speak before Colonel Cook.
        Sir.
        I want to focus on the two bills that you talked about,
    H.R. 1994 and the VA Accountability Act of 2015. It provides
    the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs with yet
    another tool to remove any VA employee for poor performance or
    misconduct. And the provision is simply an extension of the
    same authority that we passed last summer in the Choice Act to
    remove senior executives.
        To prevent retaliation, the bill would protect
    whistleblowers by not allowing the Secretary to use this
    authority on employees who have filed a complaint with the
    Office of Special Counsel. This provision is critically
    important as we continue to uncover many instances of
    whistleblower retaliation, and the last thing I want is for
    this new provision that is meant to hold bad employees
    accountable to instead harm legitimate whistleblowers.
        Now, additionally, this bill would require that all
    probationary periods for new VA employees last for at least 18
    months instead of the current period of 1 year. It would also
    give the Secretary the authority to extend this probationary
    period as he or she would see fit. The provision was at the
    suggestion from Partnership for Public Service, a good
    government think tank, and will give VA supervisors more
    flexibility to determine new employees' performance before they
    actually become a permanent employee of the Department. I would
    also note that most medical professionals in VA are already
    required to complete a 2-year probationary period.
        Finally, the bill would require that the Government
    Accountability Office would conduct a study of VA time, space,
    and resources devoted to labor union activities.
        Some have said that this bill is nothing but a partisan
    attack against hardworking VA employees. This could be no
    further from that particular truth. As I have stated from day
    one, I believe that 99 percent of VA's more than 300,000
    employees are dedicated and hardworking and are not part of the
    problem that exists at VA today.
        The true problem is that, more than a year after enduring
    the biggest scandal in VA history, in which 110 VA facilities
    allegedly maintained secret lists to hide wait times, the
    Department has fired only one for wait-time manipulation--just
    one person. Even worse, rather than disciplining bad employees,
    VA often just transfers them to other VA facilities or puts
    them on paid administrative leave for months on end as they
    receive their full salary and waste taxpayer dollars.
        Whether it is Philadelphia, Reno, Nashville, Phoenix, or a
    plethora of other facilities, VA's tradition of transferring
    problem workers, putting them on paid leave, or simply allowing
    them to go virtually unpunished continues because current civil
    service rules make it nearly impossible to hold bad employees
    accountable. One of the reasons I know this is because high-
    ranking officials at VA, people who work directly for the
    Secretary, have told me, in fact, that this is the case.
        In a hearing last month, Deputy Secretary Gibson also said
    it was too hard to fire employees at VA. In one instance, the
    Office of Inspector General completed a well-documented report
    proving one employee's blatant disregard for government
    regulations and rules. And, in this report, the IG recommended
    that the employee pay back tens of thousands of dollars in
    wasted time, wages, and travel fees which the employee had
    basically stolen during his time as a VA employee. Furthermore,
    the IG recommended that VA take administrative action against
    the employee.
        So what did VA do with this report and the recommendations
    that were contained in it? Well, they reached a settlement
    agreement with the employee which only required the individual
    to pay back one-third of the amount of money the IG said the
    employee owed, allowed the employee to resign as opposed to
    being fired from VA, expunged all documentation from his
    official record regarding his misconduct during his time as a
    VA employee, and required VA to pay the employee several
    thousands of dollars to cover his attorney's fees he incurred
    during VA's investigation and their settlement.
        We have asked the Department whether this employee has
    indeed paid back the amount he owed, and, although we are still
    awaiting a response, I have a sneaking suspicion that he has
    yet to pay back a single dime that was owed.
        I am sure many people would be shocked to learn about the
    incident I just described and will wonder why VA just didn't do
    the right thing and fire this individual as well as collect the
    money that he owed the government. Well, the answer to that
    question lies in this chart that is going to be placed up on
    the screens that was part of a GAO report on the civil service
    from earlier this year. And you also have it in your binder.
        Mr. Miller. They found that it takes, on average, 6 months
    to a year and sometimes significantly longer to fire somebody
    at the VA. Once they are actually removed, the MSPB has cited
    that in 2013 it took an average of 243 days from start to
    finish to adjudicate an appeal.
        The process illustrated by this chart is exactly the type
    of thing that makes the average citizen lose faith in their
    government and causes quality healthcare professionals and
    managers to think twice when considering whether or not they
    would work at VA. After all, why would anyone want to work for
    an organization where corrupt behavior that harms veterans and
    wastes taxpayer money is not only tolerated but often goes
    virtually unpunished because there is too much paperwork?
        Is this what our citizens want? Is this what our veterans
    deserve? I don't think so, and neither do the more than 40
    bipartisan cosponsors of my bill or the leading VSOs that
    support it. So it is time to bring commonsense measures to VA
    and give the Secretary the tools that he or she will need in
    the future to hold VA employees accountable.
        Now, my second bill on the agenda is H.R. 2275, the Jobs
    for Veterans Act of 2015. This bill would realign all education
    and training programs for veterans into the new Economic
    Opportunity and Transition Administration at the VA. This means
    that VA's Education Service, Loan Guarantee Service, Vocational
    Rehabilitation and Employment Service, the Center for Veterans
    Enterprise, and VA's TAP program would transfer over from the
    Veterans Benefit Administration to this new administration.
        The bill would also transfer the Veterans Employment and
    Training Service from the Department of Labor to this new
    administration within VA. The bill would require that VA and
    Department of Labor enter into a memorandum of understanding to
    ensure a smooth transition of these programs and employees. And
    it would require that VA create this new administration using
    already-existing resources.
        I understand this is a major change in the way the Federal
    Government oversees job training and programs for training,
    but, as the old saying goes, the definition of ``insanity'' is
    doing the same thing over and over again but expecting
    different results. Decades of GAO reports and other reports
    have shown that the programs that Department of Labor's VETS
    administers have continually been ignored by the Department of
    Labor regardless of the political party in the White House.
        It is time to bring all employment and training programs
    under one roof, as this will eliminate duplication, it will
    streamline processes, and, most importantly, it will improve
    veteran opportunities for future employment.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity again, and
    I yield back my time.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Chairman Miller. And I
    appreciate your deep dive into these issues. I think it is
    unfair not only to our veterans but to the thousands of good VA
    employees that there they are, devoted to the veteran, and we
    have those that take advantage of working in the system. I
    appreciate your testimony.
        It is an honor today to be joined by our colleagues Colonel
    Paul Cook of California and Mr. Sean Maloney of New York at the
    witness table today. And I understand Mr. Flores will be here
    shortly.
        Mr. Flores and Colonel Cook used to serve on this
    committee, and Mr. Flores used to be the chairman of this
    subcommittee last Congress. So I am sure it is a little bit of
    a different view for him when he gets here and sits at the
    witness table.
        But I thank all three of you for being here.
        Colonel Cook, you are now recognized.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It was no problem yielding to Chairman Miller. It was a
    little bit disconcerting to see that when he was giving the
    definition of ``insanity'' he looked over at me. I don't want
    to read into it.
        Anyway, my bill, H.R. 832, ensures that veterans are
    receiving effective and successful employment training
    services.
        This bipartisan bill authorizes an independent organization
    to collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of the
    Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment Training Service.
    The study will focus on veterans who have received intensive
    services from two programs under VETS: the Disabled Veterans
    Outreach Program and the Local Veterans Employment
    Representatives Program.
        Disabled Veterans Outreach Program specialists provide job
    training for veterans, with special emphasis on veterans with
    service-connected disabilities. These specialists help veterans
    to be competitive in the labor market. They focus on veterans
    who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, including
    homeless veterans and veterans with barriers to employment.
    Local veterans employment representatives conduct outreach to
    employers and focus on increasing and promoting the hiring of
    veterans.
        The study will track the employment status of veterans who
    have received these services, determine if the program
    contributed toward their employment, monitor the employment
    retention rate, and determine if the services provided helped
    them increase their average earnings. A report on the findings
    will be presented to the Committee on Veterans Affairs in the
    House and Senate every year for the next 5 years.
        Congress owes it to our veterans to provide them with the
    best employment services possible. Simply authorizing these
    programs isn't enough; we have to follow up and ensure they are
    working as intended. We saw at the VA what happens when the
    bureaucracy isn't subject to vigorous oversight. If we are
    going to authorize these programs to boost veteran employment,
    Congress has the duty to ensure that they are working.
        You know, we have talked about this over and over again.
    Before I finish up, I do want to thank Congressman Costello and
    Congresswoman Titus for cosponsoring this bill.
        The bottom line is that, with the military and veterans, we
    have a responsibility to take care of the troops. If a program
    is there to provide a certain function or mission, we have to
    make sure it is working; if not, get rid of it or change it. We
    owe that much to our veterans.
        Thank you very much for letting me present this bill.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Colonel Cook.
        Mr. Maloney, you are now recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
    here with all of you and with my colleague Colonel Cook. He and
    I had the opportunity to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the
    Unknown Soldier just last week. I stood and watched while he
    performed that difficult duty in the rain.
        Mr. Cook. I didn't drop it.
        Mr. Maloney. It was an honor to be there with him, and it
    is an honor to be here with all of you.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, members of the
    committee, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me
    to testify in support of my bill, H.R. 356, the Wounded Warrior
    Employment Improvement Act. I know the committee has a lot of
    work to do, so I will be brief.
        First off, I would like to thank Ranking Member Takano and
    Congressman Markwayne Mullin, who joined me as original
    cosponsors of this bill and worked to help move this
    legislation forward. I would also like to acknowledge the
    Wounded Warrior Project, which played a key role in crafting
    the legislation. And thank you to the staff of the Veterans'
    Affairs Committee for working with my office on this, as well.
        My dad, Jim Maloney, was a World War II-era veteran who was
    fairly injured in the line of duty in 1946 aboard the USS
    Manchester. The guy next to him was killed. And my dad spent
    months in a naval hospital, about a year, trying to get back to
    his life. You know, his high school sweetheart, my mom, wrote
    him a letter every day that he was in that hospital, and he
    credits her and those letters with leading him back to a
    productive life.
        But the truth is, when he finally got out of that hospital,
    his government was also there for him. It invested in him. He
    was able to go to school. He was able to get a job. He was able
    to start a family, have six kids, send us all to school, live
    his dream. And that, after all, is what it is all about.
        But today too many members of the military return home only
    to struggle to reenter the workforce or to enter it for the
    first time. This problem is particularly prevalent among the
    roughly 3 million veterans who, like my dad, came home with a
    service-related disability. Our veterans deserve to know that
    when they come home their country will not forget their
    service. I know we all agree about that, and we have an
    obligation to safeguard that promise.
        The VA's VR&E program is the critical tool for helping
    combat-disabled veterans find their place in the workforce,
    but, unfortunately, as a 2014 GAO report found, the program is
    badly in need of reform. The report highlighted problems with
    staff allocation and training, overwhelmed caseworkers, and
    flawed performance metrics that make it difficult to accurately
    gauge the program's effectiveness.
        So my legislation is straightforward and simple. It would
    require the VA to develop a specific action plan to fix the
    problems identified in this GAO report. This bill would help
    reduce caseloads, increase enrollment in education programs,
    and implement a new training program to ensure that the staff
    are able to meet the needs of today's veterans, particularly
    those with traumatic brain injury and PTSD.
        I am proud that this bill has the support of AFGE, the
    IAVA, the Wounded Warrior Project, Vets First, and the American
    Legion.
        I know that the VA has already taken steps to address some
    of these issues, and I appreciate that work, but, as the GAO
    report acknowledged, quote, ``weaknesses remain.'' We cannot
    stop improving this program until it works and until it works
    well. We all know that, when given the opportunity, American
    veterans thrive in the workforce. They just need a government
    that is as good as they are and that is committed to investing
    in their success.
        Thank you, and I look forward to working with all of you in
    support of this important goal. And I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
        And I thank you both for bringing forth these bills and
    speaking on them at today's subcommittee hearing.
        Unless there are any questions for our colleagues, you are
    now excused.
        I now invite our second panel to the table: Mr. Paul
    Varela, the assistant national legislative director for
    Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Brendon Gehrke, senior
    legislative associate for the National Legislative Service at
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Steve
    Gonzalez, assistant director for the Veterans Employment and
    Education Division at the American Legion; Mr. David Borer,
    general counsel for the American Federation of Government
    Employees and AFL-CIO; Mr. Christopher Neiweem, legislative
    associate at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; and,
    finally, Mr. Rick Weidman, executive director for government
    affairs at the Vietnam Veterans of America.
        I thank you all for being here, your service to our Nation
    in uniform, and for your hard work and advocacy for veterans.
        Mr. Varela, we will begin with you, and you are now
    recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA

        Mr. Varela. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
    Member Takano, and members of the subcommittee. DAV appreciates
    the opportunity afforded to us today to testify at today's
    legislative hearing.
        For the following bills--H.R. 832, 2360, 2361--and the
    draft bill regarding the transfer of unused educational
    assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, DAV has no
    resolution from our members pertaining to the issues identified
    within these bills but would not oppose passage of the
    legislation. For the remaining bills, we would like offer our
    views and, in some cases, our recommendations.
        H.R. 356 contains several provisions, one of which would
    require the Secretary of VA to perform an analysis and make
    recommendations in a report to Congress to encourage Post-9/11
    GI Bill-eligible veterans to use Vocational Rehabilitation and
    Employment, VR&E, benefits and services. We have no resolution
    from our membership regarding this issue.
        DAV would not oppose the bill's passage; however,
    encouraging veterans with eligibility under Post-9/11 GI Bill
    to instead use VR&E benefits and services will require
    additional resources in VR&E to meet increased demand. VR&E's
    current counselor-to-client ratio remains high, which
    contributes directly to delays in delivering timely and
    effective services.
        DAV and our independent budget partners have recommended a
    more practical counselor-to-client ratio of 1 to 125. To
    achieve this ratio in fiscal year 2016, VR&E would require an
    additional 382 full-time-employee equivalents, FTEE, 277
    dedicated as VR&E counselors, and the remaining 105 employees
    dedicated towards support services, bringing VR&E's total FTE
    strength to 1,824.
        DAV calls on Congress to increase staffing levels within
    VA's VR&E program in accordance with our National Resolution
    No. 052. If Congress intends to encourage increased use of VR&E
    by Post-9/11 GI Bill-eligible veterans, then adequate resources
    will be essential to strengthen this critical program to meet
    the demand.
        H.R. 1994 would provide the VA Secretary with the authority
    to remove or demote employees based on performance or
    misconduct. We have no resolution from our membership on this
    topic and take no position on this bill.
        H.R. 2133 would provide additional training options under
    the Transition Assistance Program, now TAP GPS, to members of
    the Armed Forces separating from Active Duty. The Secretary of
    Defense and Homeland Security would be required to provide
    additional training opportunities to these servicemembers. In
    accordance with DAV Resolution No. 053, we support this bill.
    Expanding training opportunities to these separating
    servicemembers will only help to better their chances of
    success when competing within the civilian job market.
        H.R. 2275 would establish within VA a new Veterans Economic
    Opportunity and Transition Administration. It would improve
    employment and educational opportunities for veterans by
    consolidating various VA programs now managed by the Veterans
    Benefits Administration and also transfer veteran-focused
    programs from Department of Labor to VA.
        Mr. Chairman, DAV previously testified before this
    subcommittee on February 12, 2015, regarding this very issue
    and encouraged Congress to introduce and enact this proposal.
    We are pleased to support this bill, consistent with DAV
    Resolution No. 227.
        Consolidation has the potential to streamline and enhance
    economic and employment prospects for wounded, injured, and ill
    wartime veterans and provide them with meaningful and gainful
    opportunities. Ensuring these veterans and their families have
    optimal, seamless access to employment and economic prospects
    and services is a central concern of our organization. In the
    wake of war, we believe that we reflect the concerns of the
    entire Nation. DAV welcomes the opportunity to work with this
    subcommittee to see this justified reform enacted into law, and
    DAV thanks the sponsor for introducing this bill.
        H.R. 2344 seeks to make improvements within VA's VR&E
    program that would affect the approval of courses pursued under
    VR&E, eligibility for special adapted housing, and new
    authority to prioritize VR&E services based on need for program
    participants, and a $10 million authorization for related
    information technology enhancements.
        DAV has no resolution from our membership on the particular
    issues identified within this bill but would not oppose passage
    of the legislation. However, we would recommend adding three
    additional reporting requirements: first, a report that
    captures information pertaining to the disapproval of courses
    under VR&E that fail to meet the approval standards set forth
    within the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 GI Bill programs;
    second, a report that collects information relative to the
    number of waivers seeking course approval and the disposition
    of any waiver requests; and, third, a report capturing
    information regarding need-based prioritizations.
        Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and members of
    the subcommittee, this concludes my testimony, and I am
    prepared to answer any questions you may have.

        [The prepared statement of Paul R. Varela appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Gehrke, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF BRENDON GEHRKE

        Mr. Gehrke. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to
    present the VFW views on the pending legislation.
        The VFW supports the intent of H.R. 356; however, we
    suggest that the Congress take a different approach. We share
    the concern that VR&E may not be able to serve the veterans who
    need it most if Congress does not make changes to the current
    system. However, we are doubtful that a VA action plan will
    remedy VR&E's access issues and may unnecessarily burden an
    already overworked agency. Instead, Congress should fund the
    longitudinal study that it authorized in the Veterans Benefits
    Improvement Act of 2008 so that VA can identify problems and
    modify VR&E to better serve veterans.
        To better understand the veteran hiring experience, the VFW
    supports H.R. 832, and we urge the committee to appropriately
    fund the study.
        The VFW strongly supports H.R. 1994, Chairman Miller's VA
    Accountability Act of 2015. We believe that VA and Congress
    must collaborate to identify and fix what is broken within VA,
    must hold employees accountable, and must do everything
    possible to restore veterans' faith in their VA.
        In addition, we urge the committee to take a
    multidimensional approach to tackling issues with VA's human
    resource practices. The VFW is concerned with whistleblower
    retaliation, VA's hiring process, and the sinking morale of VA
    employees. A Federal survey shows that less than 50 percent of
    VA employees feel that arbitrary action, personal favoritism,
    and coercion for partisan political purposes is not tolerated.
    Also, VA employee satisfaction scores fell in 76 out of 84
    measures within the last year.
        With low morale comes a high price tag. The Gallup
    organization estimates that millions of disengaged employees
    cost the American economy as much as $350 billion per year in
    lost revenue as a result of low employee morale. VA can't
    afford to lose time and money from poor hiring practices or low
    employee morale. We fear that VA's workforce productivity could
    further decline due to staffing shortages and low employee
    morale if VA cannot attract and keep high-achieving employees.
        We believe that, in order to help foster a culture of
    accountability, Congress should include language in the bill to
    prevent whistleblower retaliation and provide VA with
    additional resources to recruit, train, and retain the best
    employees.
        The VFW supports H.R. 2275. The VFW supports this bill
    because it can protect veterans job programs from
    sequestration, better ensure that veterans job programs receive
    proper congressional oversight, and improve veterans' access to
    job programs by streamlining government services. Also,
    Congress must ensure that Veterans' Employment Training
    Services is always properly funded no matter what agency has
    authorization over the program--or authority over the program.
        The VFW supports H.R. 2344, except section 4. Section 4
    requires VA to prioritize certain disabled veterans over other
    disabled veterans for access to VR&E programs. The VFW believes
    that no veteran should have to wait or be denied the VA
    services that they have earned.
        This provision calls for VA to manage to a budget instead
    of the need. As we have recently witnessed, this tactic leads
    to veterans being denied care and services they need to
    maintain a healthy life and provide for their families. We
    cannot allow this to happen again, and Congress must fully fund
    all of VA and expand VR&E resources so they can better provide
    employment services to disabled veterans.
        The VFW supports H.R. 2360 to ensure schools who are
    eligible for the GI Bill are offering programs that award
    student veterans with proper programmatic accreditation that
    meets veterans' and employers' expectations.
        Unfortunately, some schools offer degrees that do not
    provide graduates the needed credentials to qualify for the
    professions within their field of study. Worse yet, when asked,
    many of these schools offer prospective students unclear
    information about programmatic accreditation and their
    requirements for professional certification.
        This is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars, it allows
    students to use money, whether it comes from military tuition
    assistance or the GI Bill, for degrees that will not result in
    more veterans being employed.
        The VFW supports H.R. 2361.
        Regarding the draft bill language, the VFW played an
    integral role in passing the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and we have a
    vested interest in ensuring the long-term viability of veterans
    education programs. The GI Bill's primary use should be to help
    veterans reintegrate into civilian life by providing the
    education and skills necessary to gain meaningful employment.
        And the retention aspect should never provide a greater
    benefit to dependents than it does to wartime veterans.
    Therefore, any reduction of certain elements in the GI Bill
    must include increases for those who need it most. The
    committee should concentrate on closing gaps in the Fry
    Scholarship and improving the benefit to Guardsmen and
    Reservists who deployed overseas in defense of our country,
    especially those who are recovering from wounds or injuries
    incurred on Active Duty.
        This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to answering
    any questions the committee may have.

        [The prepared statement of Brendon Gehrke appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Gehrke.
        And before we go to Mr. Gonzalez, I would like to pause for
    a second to recognize Mr. Flores of Texas and give him an
    opportunity to share his remarks on his bill, H.R. 2133.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL FLORES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup and Ranking
    Member Takano. It is great to be back in this esteemed
    committee today.
        I am here today to testify in support of my bill, H.R.
    2133, the Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act. I
    introduced this legislation during the 113th Congress as the
    former chair of this subcommittee and was pleased to see it
    pass through the subcommittee last Congress.
        The Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act is meant to
    enhance the Transition Assistance Program, or TAP, that was
    required for all separating servicemembers in the VOW to Hire
    Heroes Act of 2011. TAP is a joint DoD, DoL, and VA program
    that provide training to servicemembers about veterans
    benefits, job search skills, pre-separation counseling, resume
    writing, interview preparation, and other transition training.
        The bill would modify TAP to enable those leaving military
    service to attend the additional 2-day in-depth informational
    tracks that are currently optional. These three tracks cover
    career technical training, entrepreneurship opportunities, and
    access to higher education.
        As I said before, the VOW to Hire Heroes Act required
    mandatory attendance at TAP for all but a few servicemembers.
    However, it is currently not mandatory for base commanders to
    allow servicemembers to attend these three tracks.
    Unfortunately, by not requiring these tracks, DoD's model for
    TAP falls short in providing sufficiently detailed information
    for transitioning servicemembers and preparing them for
    civilian life. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, for example, is a very
    generous benefit and could be worth well over $250,000 to a
    veteran over 4 years. So it is important that the veteran is
    fully briefed on what that benefit can provide in the long run.
        Furthermore, if a veteran was planning to go to college and
    use their Post-9/11 benefits, the education track would help
    them decide whether they are even ready for postsecondary
    education and/or what school best fits their needs. If they are
    not ready for school, then the education track gives a veteran
    an opportunity to be briefed on how to get ready, on how to set
    their education or training goals, on how to find out what
    schools would best meet their education or training goal, and
    on how to complete the admissions process, and, finally, how to
    finance their education or their training.
        The importance of educating transitioning servicemembers
    before they use their GI Bill benefits was further highlighted
    and recommended to be mandatory for those who want to use their
    benefits in the recent 2015 Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission report.
        I believe that H.R. 2133, in making the optional tracks
    mandatory, would play an instrumental role in filling the gap
    as servicemembers transition from Active Duty to civilian life,
    while also giving the military services flexibility to meet
    those requirements. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that
    their transition into the workforce is as smooth as possible.
    By modifying the required contents of TAP, we are offering our
    servicemembers alternative training paths to better suit their
    intentions and to provide them with the tools for successful
    transition into civilian life.
        Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for their time and
    support today. I also want to thank all the veterans service
    organizations that have shown support for this legislation in
    the past and today. And I urge passage of 2133.
        And I yield back.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Flores.
        We will now continue on with the panel.
        And, Mr. Gonzalez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ

        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Takano,
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to
    allow me to present the views of the American Legion, America's
    largest wartime veterans service organization, on several
    pieces of legislation being considered by the committee today.
        Due to allotted time available, I will concentrate on three
    of the bills. First, I will address H.R. 832, the Veterans
    Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2015.
        The American Legion would support a longitudinal study of
    the job counseling, training, and employment placement
    services, JVSG services, only if the bill were altered to
    direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to contract for this
    study as opposed to the Secretary of Labor.
        In 2012, a similar proposal was made to study the
    Department of Labor employment services. At this time, Chairman
    Miller has stated more study was not needed and, quote, ``We
    have already study after study over the years that say the
    program does not work.'' The American Legion agrees with the
    chairman's assessment. A longitudinal assessment of the
    Department of Labor VETS performance can already be read in the
    16 GAO and OIG reports dating back to 1997. All reports reveal
    negative findings.
        Therefore, such a detailed study would be better
    implemented after JVSG and the HVRP are moved to VA and set
    under the purview of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The
    American Legion supports this legislation.
        Next, I will address H.R. 2275, Jobs for Veterans Act of
    2015.
        The American Legion has long supported the Department of
    Labor Veterans Employment and Training Services, or better
    known as DOL-VETS. Unfortunately, the good faith of the
    veterans in this program have been rewarded with ongoing
    program management problems, including a lack of
    accountability.
        Department of Labor's budget request makes it painfully
    clear that the agency with the monumental task of helping
    Americans to be gainfully employed is unable to give the proper
    attention to veterans employment issues that our constituents
    deserve.
        At this juncture, the American Legion believes that the
    best way to improve DOL-VETS is to transfer the Jobs for
    Veterans State Grants and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
    Portion of the program to VA. Though there is a place for a
    veterans office within Department of Labor, the American Legion
    believes these two programs would be better served if they were
    located in a new administration consolidated under the VA.
        Lastly, I will address H.R. 2360, the Career-Ready Student
    Veterans Act.
        Institution accreditation is typically done by regional and
    national accreditation bodies. Programmatic accreditation is
    for specific programs offered within an educational
    institution. Programs are typically accredited by specialized
    organizations. By not having the program accredited by the
    appropriate body, the individual does not make effective use of
    the GI Bill benefit if an individual uses the benefit to
    prepare for a license or certification occupation but the
    program does not meet the licensure requirements.
        The American Legion will urge the Congress apply this
    requirement equally to all institutions of higher learning as
    well as nonaccredited schools. We also urge Congress also
    include all deemed approved degree programs and assure that the
    State approving agencies can have adequate oversight of all
    institutions of higher learning if we are to implement this
    piece of legislation.
        The American Legion does have two questions or concerns.
        One, does the proposed legislation only cover meeting the
    licensure or certification standards in the respective State
    where the institution is located? If that is the case, it is
    troubling for those veterans who do not plan to practice in the
    State where the school is located or individuals taking
    distance learning courses. The legislation should make clear
    who would determine the requirements for these programs or
    approval in all the States.
        And then the last, number two: If the intent of the
    Congress is to add to the existing workload of the State
    approving agencies, which are already spread thin, then the
    Congress should give great consideration and reevaluation of
    the existing budget of the SAAs, to include increasing such
    budgets to ensure that the SAAs are able to meet their current
    workload as well as the possibility of this new add-on.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano.
        And I will yield my time, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Steve Gonzalez appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Borer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID BORER

        Mr. Borer. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        AFGE's National VA Council represents more than 220,000 VA
    employees. We strongly oppose H.R. 1994 as currently drafted
    and urge lawmakers to reject these counterproductive measures
    in favor of AFGE recommendations, including expanded
    whistleblower protections that would truly hold VA managers
    accountable and protect our veterans.
        Presented as accountability for SES and upper management,
    the greatest target in this extreme bill is the 350,000
    nonmanagement employees of the VA, including service-connected
    disabled veterans who clean operating rooms, maintain VA
    cemeteries, and rate disability claims and their coworkers, who
    are PTSD therapists, surgeons, bedside nurses, and so on.
        Stripping job protections from nonmanagement employees will
    increase the mismanagement in the form of retaliation,
    discrimination, patronage, and antiveteran animus. The result
    will be to chill disclosures, destroy employee morale, and
    undermine the retention of the VA's most experienced and
    valuable employees.
        This bill proceeds from the false premise that it is too
    hard to remove a Federal employee under the current system. On
    the contrary, nothing in the current law prevents agencies from
    removing employees. Competent and responsible managers can and
    do remove poor performers and employees who engage in
    misconduct, and they do not unfairly target good employees.
    And, for the record, Federal employees stop getting paid as
    soon as they are terminated.
        Under section 2, all VA employees, including even GS-4
    housekeepers or cemetery caretakers, would lose fundamental
    rights to notice and to be heard, including 30-days advance
    notice of an adverse action, 7 days for an employee to respond,
    an employee representative, a written decision, and an
    opportunity to appeal.
        These provisions would turn the clock back for employment
    rights over 100 years. It is worse than traditional at-will
    employment, and, if enacted, it will make the VA an even less
    competitive employer.
        Unlike private-sector employees, Federal workers cannot
    bring most contract or tort claims to the courts, so the
    administrative due process eliminated by section 2 is often VA
    workers' only real protection. The requirement in H.R. 1994 to
    get the approval of the Office of Special Counsel will not
    protect whistleblowers. This proposal ignores the practical
    realities that not all individuals will file corrective
    actions, and OSC is not well-suited to essentially pre-approve
    the removal of every would-be whistleblower.
        Employees facing discrimination and other prohibited
    personnel practices would be forced into filing OSC complaints
    in order to shield themselves from their new at-will status.
    This helps neither veterans nor whistleblowers, but it will
    precipitate a flood of OSC complaints that will paralyze the
    OSC and obscure the most valid cases of whistleblower
    retaliation.
        Section 3 of the bill would extend the 1-year probationary
    period to 18 months or longer and gives the Secretary
    discretion to extend it even further. Probationary employees
    can be fired very easily under current law. Recently hired
    veterans working for VA managers who failed to train them know
    this all too well. OSC and MSPB already struggle to protect
    probationary employees from unjustified adverse actions because
    the burden of proof on the employer is extremely low. Extending
    the probationary period makes this even worse, and it will
    erode the chances a whistleblower with a legitimate concern
    will come forward.
        Regarding section 4, we do not oppose a responsible study
    of official time, but such a study should be based on objective
    criteria, such as those used by the GAO and the OPM. The use of
    official time in the VA benefits taxpayers and veterans and
    Federal employees because it reduces costly employee turnover,
    it improves service, it creates a safer workplace, and it leads
    to quicker implementation of agency initiatives. Official time
    gives workers a voice to resolve disputes efficiently, protect
    whistleblowers from retaliation, and implement new technology
    and other innovations in collaboration with management.
        If H.R. 1994 is not amended to strike provisions that
    reduce due process, lengthen probationary periods, and attack
    union official time, the AFGE will vigorously oppose the bill.
    Instead, Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge you to demonstrate our
    shared commitment to veterans through positive reform. My
    written testimony lists our reform proposals, and I will be
    happy to discuss those.
        Thank you again for allowing me to testify.

        [The prepared statement of David Borer appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Neiweem, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM

        Mr. Neiweem. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq
    and Afghanistan Veterans of America, our nearly 400,000 members
    and supporters, I would like to extend our gratitude for the
    opportunity to share our views and recommendations regarding
    these important pieces of legislation.
        Starting with H.R. 356, disabled veteran unemployment has
    consistently been much higher than that of the greater veteran
    population, hovering at nearly 20 percent. Disabled veterans
    must be given the support necessary to overcome barriers to
    employment and achieve economic empowerment.
        VR&E exists for that very purpose, and yet many disabled
    veterans don't know it exists, do not participate, or too often
    find the services it offers to be inadequate in securing a
    rewarding career. This legislation would improve the VR&E
    programs by creating an action plan to identify why the program
    is underutilized and put steps in place to improve its output.
        The recommendations that would stem from its enactment
    would include an analysis and plan to increase disabled veteran
    participation. Additionally, a national staff training program
    would be installed for the counselors charged with implementing
    the program to ensure the variety of challenges their clients
    face are understood holistically. Without a fundamental
    understanding of the conditions a veteran is facing, a
    counselor will not be positioned to identify how to help the
    veteran secure a job and begin a rewarding career.
        This legislation would improve a program that has been too
    often regarded as mediocre due to organizational factors that
    relates to the veteran-counselor relationship.
        Turning to H.R. 832, veterans make use of services to
    assist them in transition for the sole purpose of improving
    their economic outcomes. Simply put, they want to succeed and
    secure a brighter financial tomorrow. This legislation would
    create a comprehensive longitudinal study to determine to what
    extent the job services veterans use aid them in securing
    careers.
        Identifying which services veterans use and the amount of
    time they spent on Active Duty, whether or not they are
    collecting unemployment benefits, whether or not they secure
    work, and whether or not they stay with those jobs are all key
    pieces of information, the collection of which this bill would
    require. The report and data developed through this legislation
    is needed to ensure these programs are bringing back a return
    on investment for the veterans who are using them.
        Turning to H.R. 1994, over 1 year after the Phoenix wait-
    list scandal shook the veterans community nationwide, the
    Department did not fire one employee for wrongdoing related to
    that incident. IAVA strongly supported the increased
    accountability provision of the Veterans Access, Choice, and
    Accountability Act last year, which gave the VA Secretary
    increased authority to remove the SES employees who did not
    serve our veterans to the standard that they earned. We now
    support in that same spirit expanding this removal authority to
    the greater VA workforce, notwithstanding whistleblowers, and
    publicly applaud Chairman Miller for refusing to give the
    Secretary any less authority than is fully necessary to get the
    Department back on the right track.
        We have heard and agree with DepSec Gibson's testimony a
    few weeks back, which indicated it is currently too hard to
    hire and fire employees. This legislation would shorten the
    appeal period for VA employees engaged in misconduct or poor
    performance so, in those rare cases of wrongdoing, the
    Secretary is empowered to take corrective action more briskly.
    The process of personnel action should not languish in a sea of
    bureaucracy, as it has been.
        I also want to make clear that the vast majority of the VA
    workforce does a fantastic job of serving our veterans every
    single day and too often does not receive enough praise. The
    sooner we get real reforms to stick, the sooner the headlines
    of misconduct will fade.
        And in VA's testimony today you will read the false
    assumption that by enacting this piece of legislation it will
    result in disenheartment in the workforce and that employees
    could leave because of less protections. But the fact is, and
    VA states it, people serve at the VA because they want to serve
    veterans. And 90 percent, probably more, do a great job every
    day. And the idea of getting rid of those few folks the
    Department has proven they haven't been able to since last
    summer will improve morale, not reduce it.
        H.R. 2133, we strongly support this legislation. It would
    allow a veteran transitioning away from Active Duty to receive
    additional education, career, and technical or entrepreneurial
    training. This would empower servicemembers to give them an
    early advantage in transitioning back to the workforce.
        Turning to H.R. 2275, this legislation would create a
    fourth administration at VA that would align all veterans
    education, transition, and job placement programs under one
    agency entitled the Veterans Economic Opportunity and
    Transition Administration. This new administration would be led
    by the Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity.
        Veterans we have spoken to have long reported overlapping
    services have clouded options rather than clarified them. GAO
    reports and feedback from our annual member survey have
    indicated the performance of LVERs and DVOPS under DOL-VETS has
    been stagnant at best and not shown the improvement needed to
    help veterans secure rewarding careers.
        Ineffective oversight and incongruent placement of this
    service within a myriad of other programs over at DOL has not
    proven to be a positive fit, so we strongly support the
    legislation.
        I will yield back and am happy to answer any other
    questions about any other bills.

        [The prepared statement of Christopher Neiweem appears in
    the Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Weidman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF RICK WEIDMAN

        Mr. Weidman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. VVA appreciates the
    opportunity to offer our thoughts on the bills under
    consideration today.
        We very much favor 2361 and look forward to an early
    passage. We would urge you to take a hard look at this bill to
    expand the kinds of activities that work-study students would
    be eligible for, including helping with the preparation of
    veterans' claims and doing other research, such as looking at
    military documents at the Archives to be able to substantiate
    claims. That was used very effectively back in the 1970s and
    early 1980s and, unfortunately, is one of the things that went
    away, and it would be a good thing to bring back, and very
    productive.
        Also, thank you for 2360. We think that that would also be
    a bill that would help significantly.
        Mr. Flores' TAP bill is--the real problem there is not what
    the law says; the real problem is what the military does. The
    Marines solved this problem because the Commandant said, ``You
    will,'' and put it in the commanders' OERs so if they didn't
    send all their people they would be relieved. It is real
    simple. And what is needed is the same kind of engagement from
    the other five services. And, while this legislation may help,
    without that strong commitment from the Secretary and from the
    Joint Chiefs, it ain't gonna happen, bluntly.
        H.R. 356, the Employment Improvement Act, may help. I would
    say that VA in the last few years has made significant progress
    in cleaning up what was, in fact, a real mess in what is now
    known as the VR&E services, but this bill can help by simply
    codifying it and pushing it further.
        The other thing in that regard and that touches on a number
    of things that people talked about today is there is no D-TAP.
    People talk about TAP and they say, well, we are taking care of
    veterans who are disabled. In fact, they are not. D-TAP is a
    myth. It never existed, not back after Vietnam, it did not
    exist in the 1990s with the big drawdown, and it really doesn't
    exist today as a program that makes any sense that gets people
    on track and feeds them right into the programs at VA,
    particularly Voc Rehab. And that needs to happen and needs to
    be very effective.
        I would also point out that it needs to be a much more
    transparent process that involves the veterans organizations in
    a major way. The development of TAP thus far, the VSOs were
    flat ignored and snubbed in terms of making any input. We don't
    claim to have purchase on truth with a capital ``T,'' but we
    know that folks in the bureaucracy don't either. And we do know
    a thing or two, those of us who have been around here for a
    year or two. My friends from IAVA think I started right after
    the Civil War, working in the Pension Building, but it is not
    true. It was a little bit later than that.
        Mr. Weidman. H.R. 832, introduced by Colonel Cook--who is,
    by the way, a life member of Vietnam Veterans of America--is
    moving on the right track. The problem is the way in which the
    Department of Labor keeps score is the largest example of the
    post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy I ever seen. In other
    words, because it happens after, it happens because of. They
    call it a reportable service that they counseled you if you
    went in and registered and they talked to you for 5 minutes or
    less.
        And then if you go out and get your own job with no help
    from them, you show up on a UI tax report the next quarter,
    they cross match your Social Security number against that tax
    report, and if you are back to work they count it as a positive
    termination. That is absurd.
        We need to have a scorecard that is meaningful before you
    can do any real performance evaluation. And Labor is clearly
    not going in that direction. They don't want to be, as an
    agency, don't want to be monitored. And so it is all the more
    reason, leading into why 2275, it is time to move and create
    the fourth division of VA, to move the DVOP/LVER program, and
    we would add the homeless program, the Homeless Veterans'
    Reintegration Program, and other functions, such as VEVRAA, to
    the VA portfolio.
        In regards to H.R. 1994, VVA enthusiastically supports this
    with significant reservations, some of which were pointed out
    by our friends from AFGE. But we do think that there needs to
    be more power.
        What we said in our written statement, I will come back to
    it, and it is shameful that the President and the Secretary
    have not acted to stop the retaliation, which is still going on
    as recently as the past 10 days, against people who stand up
    and tell the truth within the VA. And it is a disservice to
    them, it is a disservice to the people who exhibit that kind of
    courage and that kind of commitment to vets that they would put
    themselves and their families in jeopardy, and it needs to be
    solved, and it needs to be solved now.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see I am over time, and I
    appreciate your indulgence.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I want to thank you all for your
    testimony today. I will now yield myself 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Varela and Mr. Weidman, one argument I have heard from
    some critics of H.R. 2275 is that this bill would create more
    duplication and not less. And I would like to get your response
    to that criticism.
        Mr. Varela. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In our previous testimony back in February we mentioned
    that this is a win-win for VA and for veterans seeking
    employment and economic opportunities. Again, having to
    navigate between two Federal entities to try to arrive at a job
    can be very discouraging to those seeking employment.
        Also, within VBA they are responsible for those activities.
    They are responsible for vocational rehabilitation in
    employment, they are responsible for the home loan program,
    they are responsible for the administration of education
    benefits as well provided through VA. So if we take that out
    and we put that in a new administration and we allow the VBA to
    focus on claims and appeals, they will be able to concentrate
    more on those activities.
        And then taking those veteran-centric functions from
    Department of Labor and transferring them over to the VA,
    again, it narrows that focus, it narrows that concentration to
    really drive all those services and benefits in one location.
    And veterans want to go to one place to get everything that
    they want to get, and the VA is the logical choice.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
        Mr. Weidman. The Department of Labor has had 70-plus years
    to get it right when it comes to veterans. In the creation of
    unemployment insurance, subsequent to the Social Security Act
    in the beginning of the Depression, the employer said: Hey, if
    you are going to tax us for this, we want something to get
    these people back to work. So the job service was created.
        From the outset, largely because the vets came to the Mall
    in 1931, they had veterans preference of that new job service.
    And it didn't work as well as it should, but it worked sort of
    for a while.
        In 1944, when the series of laws that we know as the
    beginning, original GI Bill were passed, they created LVERs,
    the local veterans' employment representatives. Why? Because in
    the midst of the war, for those people coming back, those
    disabled vets who no longer could fight, it wasn't happening
    for them. And once again, after Vietnam in 1977, the Employment
    and Training Administration and the state workforce development
    agency says they weren't placing any Vietnam and disabled
    Vietnam vets into jobs because they couldn't find them. And,
    hence, the DVOP program was created.
        So they have had chance after chance after chance after
    chance. And I will tell you with sadness that the state
    workforce development agency relationship to the VETS flat
    doesn't work. And I lost my mind and moved my family to Albany,
    New York, when I had the opportunity to run what was at the
    time the second biggest LVER/DVOP program in the country in New
    York and discovered that even with the support of the executive
    chamber, the support of both the state senate and the state
    assembly and all the VSOs, and of the Business Roundtable, we
    still couldn't overcome the reluctance of the office managers
    to let the DVOPs and LVERs do their job properly.
        My point is this, it is never going to work. It is a
    structural problem. And it needs to be moved to VA, and with no
    hesitation that if the workforce development agency doesn't do
    their job, they contract with somebody who will get it done.
    Our veterans deserve better than this dissembling that
    continues to go on, particularly with employment. The best
    doggone readjustment program we can offer any veteran of OIF/
    OEF or future conflicts is meaningful work at a living wage.
    And if we don't do that, all the rest is eyewash, because that
    would help them reestablish a sense of worth within our
    society.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
        Mr. Borer, how do you respond to those that say that good
    employees want to work with good employees and watching someone
    you work with skirt the rules and not be held accountable
    damages morale and hurts retention?
        Mr. Borer. Well, we are all for accountability, Mr.
    Chairman, and our concern with this bill is that it doesn't
    actually improve accountability. Accountability to us means it
    is not mutually exclusive with the idea of due process, so that
    removing due process rights doesn't mean that managers are
    going to be held more accountable. We think the opposite is
    true. We think the unintended consequence here is if you reduce
    the rights of the frontline employees, fewer of them are going
    to speak up and hold their coworkers or their bosses
    accountable.
        We talked to whistleblowers at AFGE. We have dealt with, I
    believe, four dozen who have been threatened with retaliation
    since the wait list scandal has started. The very first thing
    they ask is: Can I get fired if I speak up? They don't ask: Is
    there a streamlined process for firing me if I get in trouble
    here?
        Due process is a fundamental piece of that picture, and if
    you pull out that fundamental piece you are going to get less
    whistleblowing and less accountability.
        Dr. Wenstrup. I think I now recognize Ranking Member Takano
    for any questions he may have.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I spoke to a student veteran yesterday who was fortunate to
    have received excellent education counseling at the community
    college he first attended using his GI benefits. He has now
    transferred to a well-known and, some would say prestigious, 4-
    year university here in Washington, DC.
        However, not all veterans share his story. He told me he
    knows many young veterans who were not lucky enough to receive
    such good advice and chose to use their GI Bill benefits to
    attend programs that they later learned were not properly
    accredited. They were faced with the infuriating choice of
    either completing a worthless degree or starting over at a new
    program after having wasted both their valuable benefits and
    time.
        Given that current law places many veterans in this
    untenable situation, I would like Mr. Gehrke of the VFW to
    expand upon your support, your comments on H.R. 2360, the
    Career-Ready Student Veterans Act.
        Mr. Gehrke. As I mentioned, I know a couple examples of
    legal degrees, either a paralegal degree or a law school
    degree, where there are schools who offer these degrees.
    However, when the veteran graduates with those degrees, they
    don't have their accreditation or their certificate
    requirements to go and actually practice paralegal or their
    legal practice. So you have to wonder if that is the greatest
    benefit to the veteran as well as to the taxpayer who just paid
    out thousands of dollars for this veteran to get a degree that
    he now cannot use or at least has to go get additional
    certification requirements.
        So I think it is the best interest to ensure that degrees
    are meeting the expectation of the veterans and the employers,
    and that is the most important thing.
        Mr. Takano. I thank you for those comments.
        Before I ask my next question, and it is going to be on
    Chairman Miller's VA Accountability Act, H.R. 1994, I am
    concerned about the effect that the VA Accountability Act would
    have on VA employees' due process rights. As we consider this
    matter, I think it is important for members to understand the
    background of the Merit System Protection Board and the
    necessary protections to prevent civil servants, especially
    whistleblowers, from being unfairly targeted.
        So I ask unanimous consent to include a May 2015 report to
    Congress from the MSPB on due process in Federal civil service
    employment into the record.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rick Weidman appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Takano. Continuing my question. There is a disagreement
    about how H.R. 1994 would affect whistleblowers, and I am
    concerned that the bill would deter employees from reporting
    the misconduct of their supervisors because they could be
    easily fired out of retaliation.
        Can you talk about how H.R. 1994 will affect
    whistleblowers? Again, Mr. Gehrke.
        Mr. Gehrke. So, I mean, further context, I think last year
    it was established that there are senior leaders within VA who
    are not doing a good job and who are at times neglectful. My
    fear is that those very people who should be getting fired who
    are not getting fired will then be in charge of firing their
    subordinates.
        So are you really going to give that authority to a senior
    manager, who subordinates may not trust, who may not be doing a
    good job themselves, and then might use his subordinates as a
    scapegoat, especially if they are blowing the whistle on him
    and saying, ``This is a bad senior leader who is doing bad
    things''? Will he have the ability to punish that subordinate
    and have the ability to initiate that type of firing process
    for a subordinate who may otherwise be doing a good job or just
    might not be getting the training and supervision he needs from
    a senior leader to do a good job? So that is the fear.
        However, I think, to be clear, it is the VFW's position
    that both the hiring and the firing process is far too arduous
    to complete. But you have to do everything at once and you have
    to be careful with who you are giving the authority to fire
    these employees to.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Gehrke, thank you for your testimony and
    the views of the VFW.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Mr. Bost, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bost. Yeah, I would like to continue down, if I could,
    with the question on 1994.
        First off, let me tell you that, one, in my former life I
    was a union firefighter. Two, I always worked very hard when I
    worked in a state for AFSCME and those that were under that
    union. But I have a question, because since having this job, a
    certain case came up. Let me ask this, because I don't know. I
    am new at this.
        Could you please tell me the doctors that are hired for the
    VA, do they also fall under your protection on the unions?
        Mr. Borer. Yes. AFGE represents thousands, probably, of
    doctors.
        Mr. Bost. I wanted to confirm that before I ask the next
    question. When working on the problems that we have with our
    VA, I asked specifically for constituents to come forward. I
    have a situation where I couldn't believe it when the veteran
    said it, but I know him well. And he said that he would have
    liked to have found out about his hernia, but because of the
    religious beliefs of the doctor he saw, she was not able to
    examine him. They cannot fire her.
        Now, I would like to hear, if we don't move forward with
    this, what do we do with those situations? Because I stand for
    my workers and employees, and I want them to have a way to make
    sure that they aren't improperly treated. But I want my
    veterans to be treated correctly. And I don't know, whenever I
    went to the VA, my local VA, and asked specifically, the
    administrator, he says, yeah, he knows about it. Well, no. No,
    there needs to be a way to let them go or make them ear, nose,
    and throat specialists, but good heavens.
        So this is the type of things we are trying to do. And I
    want to protect the employee. I understand that. But do you
    have an answer on how the language can be put together, other
    than saying, ``Okay, we think this goes too far''? Because my
    final job, I feel like, is to protect our veterans.
        Mr. Borer. Sure. And we share that commitment. We have,
    again, 100,000 members in the VA who are there, as someone said
    earlier, primarily because they believe in serving our
    veterans.
        In the doctor's situation, she has a bona fide religious
    belief that interferes with that particular duty, that is an
    EEO matter. And so, as you said, maybe somebody else could do
    that exam, I would think. There are certainly other doctors
    available. I would think that is more of a management problem
    where they have to have the right people doing the right exams.
        Mr. Bost. And my question--of course, that is a specific
    issue--but I don't know if it was a change of religion, because
    somehow you had to get through medical school. And I don't know
    at what point do we give the power to the administrators to
    administrate and how we would do that. So, I mean, it is
    something I am going to watch very, very closely. There are the
    cases out there, and we have got to make sure we are very wise
    with what we do.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Ms. Titus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and the
    ranking member for having the hearing today, and also for
    including the legislation that I introduced, along with a
    former member of our committee, you heard from him earlier,
    Colonel Paul Cook of California. We worked together on this,
    and I was very pleased to do it.
        Our bill, the Veterans Employment and Training Service
    Longitudinal Study Act, would require a longitudinal study for
    job counseling, training, placement services, so that we can
    better monitor the effectiveness of these programs.
        And I heard several of you mention that you supported this,
    and I appreciate you offering some comments about how to make
    the bill work better. And I look forward to working with you on
    that and hoping that we can move it through this committee.
        I would also like to go back and discuss H.R. 1994, VA
    Employee Accountable Act. We all are in agreement that those
    serving our veterans as well as public servants in every
    department need to be held at the highest level. But I have got
    some concerns about this legislation, like some of you do, that
    it is going to affect the VA's efforts to recruit and retain
    the most qualified employees.
        Now, I know that the Secretary has prioritized recruiting
    the best and brightest to join the VA, and I think that is
    important. We don't want to do anything that ties his hands.
        In Nevada, we have a hard time recruiting. We don't have a
    permanent director of the Reno RO. We have a hospital, brand
    new hospital without a permanent director. We have a hard time
    getting doctors to come to that hospital. So we just don't want
    to do anything that stops that process.
        Mr. Gehrke, you mentioned in your testimony that the VA--
    you highlighted it, several of you mentioned it, but you
    highlighted it--that the VA needs to be able to quickly fill
    vacancies within the workforce. And you referred to the report
    that the VFW issued in September, ``Hurry Up and Wait.'' In
    this report you suggest that Congress examine ways to
    streamline the hiring process so that we can hire the best
    employees.
        I wonder if you would share some of the details of that and
    maybe give us some concrete proposals of how we could do that,
    because I would like to work with you and the other VSOs on
    improving that process, and then I would ask them if they have
    any particular suggestions as well.
        Mr. Gehrke. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
        I think that needs to be extremely focused on. Just out of
    curiosity, I was looking today, and there are 2,500 vacant VA
    jobs currently posted on USAJobs. Now, I was looking at out of
    curiosity, I am not interested in leaving the VFW, just in case
    my boss is watching. But 1,600 of those positions have been
    pending for over 60 days. There are 81 positions open in Ohio
    with 69 of them being pending longer than 60 days, 268 in
    California with 178 been pending for longer than 60 days, and
    40 in Nevada with 15 open for 60 days or greater. And as you
    indicated, some of those are pretty high-level positions that
    should be filled.
        Now, you have to wonder, if you fired all the employees
    today, if you had a magic wand and you did that, you would
    think that there would be an instant gap in services, because
    there would be nobody there. However, if you are able to hire
    all those 2,600 employees you would think that services would
    increase immediately. So I think that needs to be in the frame
    of thought.
        Now, there are multiple recruitment training and retention
    reforms that should probably take place throughout the VA and
    the Federal Government as a whole. I think three
    recommendations that could happen immediately. One is review
    recruitment patterns, as well as quit rates for positions,
    especially like schedulers, and take steps to maintain a
    constant applicant pool, like recruiting at 110 percent rather
    than at 100 percent or as they open.
        Establish automatic recruitment procedures and avoid
    repeated approval delays and remove requirements to backfill
    actions. I think hiring managers really feel like it takes too
    long to get their new hires approved through the process. As
    well as develop standard operating procedures throughout VA on
    hire, training, and retention practices.
        Right now, each VA medical center has their own hiring
    practices, their own training practices. Some work better than
    others, however. So if you are able to take the best practices
    and then implement them VA-wide, as well as share that
    information and how that is working, you would think that you
    would be able to come up with some better solutions that are
    happening right now. So we strongly recommend VA take the
    following actions.
        But I am definitely eager to work with you and your staff
    to come out with some concrete details and suggestions on a way
    to move on forward on that, that we can hopefully couple with
    the chairman's legislation.
        Ms. Titus. That would be great. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wenstrup. In followup to that just for a second, Mr.
    Gehrke, if I could intervene here, you brought up recruiting at
    110 percent, which I think is an interesting concept. Are there
    any other Federal agencies right now that are doing that that
    you are aware of and what kind of success rate are they having
    in making sure that their vacancies are filled quickly?
        Mr. Gehrke. Not that I am aware of. And like I mentioned, I
    think VA is one example. I mean, we hear of horror stories all
    the time in Washington, DC, of the Federal hiring process and
    the firing process, and I think they are symptomatic of the
    whole Federal Government.
        I would love to see VA become a model employer both in
    their firing and hiring practices and then be able to
    disseminate that to other Federal Government agencies. So we
    would be willing to work with the committee to make that
    happen.
        I do have to say, though, if we are going to create unique
    standards for VA, we should make sure that those employees are
    recognized appropriately.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Rice. you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to follow up on a question that Mr. Takano
    actually asked Mr. Gehrke. I want to ask it of Mr. Borer.
        What are your concerns about how H.R. 1994 would affect VA
    whistleblowers?
        Mr. Borer. Well, as I said, whistleblowers that come to us,
    the very first question they ask is: Am I going to get in
    trouble if I stand up and tell what I know? And so when you
    start subtracting their due process rights and you go to a
    system that essentially makes them at-will employees, our
    advice is going to change. We are going to have to begin to
    tell them: No, you really don't have much protection anymore if
    this bill passes. And I can guarantee you that whistleblowers
    will then stand up and leave my office and never mention it
    again to anybody because they will be afraid to lose their job.
    So it is really that simple.
        And as I said before, it is not that it is impossible to
    fire Federal employee. I believe the VA fired 2,000 people in
    2014. It is just a matter of doing the paperwork. I think
    managers, if you surveyed the managers, they don't like doing
    reports either, but they do reports. You just have to go
    through a process, and it can be done.
        Ms. Rice. Mr. Borer, I am going to direct this question to
    you, but also would like everyone on the panel to answer it if
    you do have an answer.
        One of the things that in the short time that I have been
    here that I have recognized is that without a profound culture
    shift within the VA we are going to continue to have panels of
    people that are going to talk about problems over and over and
    over again. And whenever I have put that question to higher-ups
    in the VA there really has been no sufficient answer as to how
    you really implement a culture shift. Because that has to take
    place, and I think that comes from the top down.
        You gentlemen all seem to me to be qualified enough to
    maybe give some suggestions. And I will just start with you,
    Mr. Borer, then anyone else who wants to add.
        Mr. Borer. That is a concern that we have. And the culture
    at the VA until now, in years past, has been anybody that
    sticks their hand up, we chop it off. And so we have seen a lot
    of whistleblowers retaliated against. And that was part of the
    management culture at the VA.
        I have to say, we have met with the Secretary repeatedly
    about this. We get very good signals from the Secretary, but it
    is a huge organization, as you know. It does have to start at
    the top, but there is great difficulty in pushing cultural
    change down through an organization this size.
        We have partnered with the Secretary on this. We are
    working very hard to make that happen. But that great middle
    management inside the VA is what we need to push in a new
    direction, and that is going to take some time.
        Mr. Weidman. It is precisely because of that that, I think,
    we need 1994. In our statement we said that the lower the
    grade, the more the due process protection should be. And
    earlier SES was put on the line, but nobody has been let go.
    And it is those below them who are still grade levels, grade 16
    or whatever is comparable, aren't covered by the earlier act.
    So something needs to be done at that level.
        I will tell you also that the culture change of creating a
    fourth division, you have got a chance to build a corporate
    culture from the ground up. And that corporate culture of that
    division should be totally different than compensation and
    pension. It is a, what am I going to do, how can I do for
    myself? And within the VA at large, it needs to stop
    patronizing veterans.
        Let me give you an example. In a discussion, I will make it
    sound more polite than it actually turned out to be, over doing
    chest x-rays with freestanding CAT scans, which is now approved
    for Medicare and Medicaid payments, VA is still refusing to do
    it. And the woman who is in charge of preventive health says:
    Oh, well, there will be false positives, and we don't want to
    upset the veterans. And I said, what? Are we cattle? You think
    we are going to stampede and that you will get hurt? Is that
    what it is?
        I mean, it is that the attitude towards veterans of not
    respecting us as individuals and collectively that makes us
    wild on our feet. And in a discussion following up on that with
    Sloan Gibson and with the Secretary, they said: Well, it is
    really not that easy, Rick. I said: What you guys need is the
    archangel of death. I am 70 years old. I have no wish for a VA
    career. Hire me for a year. I will fire the suckers.
        And change the attitude. You cannot change the attitude if
    you don't have line authority. This crazy five-area thing, this
    is nothing that we haven't said in detail to them. They don't
    have any line authority. And we said that is ridiculous. They
    are all going to come together, said, yeah, we are all with you
    for our new MyVA, and they are going to come back and do the
    same damn thing. Why? Because you don't do their officer
    evaluation reports.
        You have got to connect and from the top down, say: This is
    going to happen. This is happening on your watch. If you don't
    fix it, you are down the road. And if they don't fix it, then
    they are down the road, and you bring in somebody else. They
    are good people, but nothing ever happens to the bad guys now,
    ever. And that is what makes us crazy. It has made us crazy for
    30 years.
        Ms. Rice. I think you have hit the nail on the head,
    because if you can't show accountability there can be no
    culture shift.
        Mr. Weidman. Precisely.
        Ms. Rice. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Weidman. And you have to enough good people that you
    can start over, but you have to start at the top and send the
    right cues.
        Ms. Rice. Thank you, gentlemen.
        I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, if there are no further questions from
    our panel, you are now excused. And I thank you again for your
    testimony here today.
        Dr. Wenstrup. I want to now recognize our final panel of
    witnesses today. First, I want to welcome back Mr. Curt Coy,
    Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity at the U.S.
    Department of Veterans Affairs. And he is accompanied by Ms.
    Cathy Mitrano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of
    Resource Management at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
        We also have Ms. Teresa Gerton, who is now the Acting
    Assistant Secretary for the Veterans' Employment and Training
    Service at the U.S. Department of Labor. And finally, we have
    Dr. Susan Kelly, Director of the Transition to Veterans Program
    Office in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Personnel and Readiness at the U.S. Department of Defense.
        I want to thank you all for being with us today.
        Mr. Coy, if you are ready, then we will begin with you. And
    you will be recognized for 5 minutes as soon as you get
    settled.

                       STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY

        Mr. Coy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon, Mr.
    Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and other members of this
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
    discuss legislation pertaining to VA economic opportunity
    programs. Accompanying me today is Cathy Mitrano, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for the Office of Research Management.
        We are here to discuss several impactful bills. We will
    defer to our colleagues at Labor and Defense on those that
    pertain to their programs.
        With respect to H.R. 2275, Jobs for Veterans Act, while we
    appreciate the committee's focus on improving employment and
    economic opportunity for veterans by consolidating various
    programs, VA does not support the bill. VA believes there is
    currently an appropriate management structure in place to
    oversee veteran programs in a collaborative environment.
        VA is pleased, however, to see several bills that seek to
    improve our vocational rehabilitation and employment services
    to our wounded warriors and disabled veterans. We support the
    intent and purpose of most of the provisions of these bills and
    would like to work with the committee to ensure the bill
    language meets that intent. For example, a requirement to
    ensure voc rehab courses of education meet the same
    requirements as those for the GI Bill. We are currently doing
    so.
        Less than 1 percent of voc rehab plans have courses that
    are not GI Bill approved, but there are occasional instances
    where veterans' requirements cannot be met with GI Bill
    courses. We agree that voc rehab housing modifications are best
    managed by our Specially Adaptive Housing grant experts in our
    Loan Guarantee Service, but the bill as written may not meet
    the intent or have unintended consequences.
        VA supports the intent to prioritizing VRE services and
    currently tries to do just that through our IDES program and
    ensuring seriously and very seriously injured veterans receive
    VRE appointments within 10 days and have established plans
    within 30 days. Conducting a complete study, likely with
    contractor support and to include input from our various
    stakeholders, would certainly take time and resources.
        VA supports and appreciates the intent of reducing
    redundancy and inefficiencies in the IT process for VRE claims.
    We are currently working with our Office of Information
    Technology for a new case management system. This effort would
    complement that effort subject to availability of appropriated
    funds.
        Another bill would require VA to develop and publish an
    action plan for improving and in training and rehabilitation
    services for our VRE clients. While we support this effort, we
    believe we are currently focusing on these issues, and we would
    be happy to discuss some of those efforts.
        With respect to the VA Accountability Act of 2015, VA will
    continue to work with the committee and VSOs on how the
    Secretary can best hold employees accountable while preserving
    the ability to recruit and retain highly skilled workforce that
    VA needs to best serve veterans.
        VA supports the intent behind the Career-Ready Veterans
    Act; however, we do not support the bill as currently drafted
    and would be happy to work with the committee to ensure the
    language meets that intent. We agree that courses or programs
    of instruction should ensure students can meet the licensure
    and certification requirements of a state's particular
    vocation. If a veteran is using their well-earned GI Bill
    benefits to become a barber or a nurse, the program should
    prepare them to be obtain a barber certificate or a nursing
    license. We are ready to work with the committee to address any
    inconsistencies in that bill.
        VA fully supports the workstudy program for a student
    veterans act that expands the program to those efforts
    previously expired in 2013 and extending the current expiration
    date.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased
    to respond to any questions you or other members of the
    subcommittee may have. Thank you, sir.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Coy appears in the Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Coy.
        Assistant Secretary Gerton, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON

        Ms. Gerton. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
    Member Takano, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very
    much for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. As
    Acting Assistant Secretary of the Veterans' Employment and
    Training Service at the Department of Labor, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the Department's views on pending
    legislation and proposals impacting veterans.
        While this hearing is reviewing several bills under
    consideration by the subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to
    the Job for Veterans Act and the Veterans Employment and
    Training Service Longitudinal Study Act.
        The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015 seeks to establish the
    Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration
    within the Department of Veterans Affairs and to transfer DOL's
    veterans programs to the VA. The administration does not
    support moving the Veterans' Employment and Training Service or
    its programs to VA.
        The veterans employment services DOL provides are well
    integrated into the public workforce system that is overseen
    and funded by DOL and shifting these services to VA would
    weaken this connection. VETS is able to accomplish its mission
    by working closely with other parts of the Department,
    including the Employment and Training Administration, which
    administers numerous core employment and training formula
    programs.
        Together, these DOL programs provide a unified and
    complementary approach to serving and protecting the
    reemployment rights of veterans and have operated together
    within the states for decades. We believe that moving vets to
    another agency will diminish the synergy gained through
    alignment of these programs with other Department of Labor
    employment and training programs, as well as those that protect
    the rights of servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
        Further, DOL's connection with governor-appointed state or
    local workforce boards and state workforce agencies that
    oversee the nearly 2,500 American Job Centers across the Nation
    facilitates veterans' employment with large national employers,
    as well as those small and medium-sized businesses that do most
    of the hiring. Our long-established relationship with the state
    workforce agencies is a partnership that delivers proven and
    positive results.
        The movement of veterans' employment programs and services
    from DOL to the VA would generate inefficiencies by removing
    existing employment programs and services for veterans from the
    national employment services network that already exists for
    all America's job seekers and workers.
        Other significant changes are currently underway in the
    public workforce system as it affects education, training, and
    employment services for veterans and their families. The
    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, signed into law last
    year, was the first legislative reform of the public workforce
    system in over 15 years. This transformational legislation,
    which passed by a wide bipartisan majority, reaffirmed the
    roles of the American Job Center system that served over 1.1
    million veterans last year and brought together and enhanced
    several key employment, education, and training programs.
        The Opportunity Act modernized the public workforce system
    to help job seekers and workers access the services they need
    to succeed in the labor market and match employers with the
    skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy.
        The Opportunity Act also requires a new data reporting
    structure. Currently, reporting requirements are met through
    the state workforce agencies which are funded by DOL's
    Employment and Training Administration. The reporting system
    for veterans' employment outcomes is part of the Department's
    reporting regime for the workforce system. Any requirements to
    adjust or change collection of veterans' data under H.R. 2275
    would require extensive coordination between two departments
    instead of two agencies in the same department. Further,
    requiring VA systems to integrate with the new labor reporting
    system is likely to generate tens of millions of dollars in
    additional costs.
        The administration wants to ensure that we build on the
    established relationships and the improvements called for in
    the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to modernize the
    public workforce system and American Job Centers to better help
    our transitioning servicemembers and veterans obtain family
    sustaining jobs. For this reason, the administration does not
    support any legislation that would undermine its progress or
    ability to help veterans and transitioning servicemembers
    achieve positive employment outcomes.
        The Department does support the enactment of the Veterans
    Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act, which
    would direct the Secretary to enter into a contract with a
    nongovernment entity to conduct a statistically valid
    longitudinal study of veterans and the job counseling,
    training, and placement services for veterans provided by the
    Department. However, we do have technical concerns enumerated
    in our written statement and look forward to working with the
    committee to address those issues.
        Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank
    you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing, and I
    welcome any questions you may have.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gerton appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Ms. Gerton.
        Dr. Kelly, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF SUSAN S. KELLY

        Ms. Kelly. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
    members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you
    today to discuss and share the Department of Defense's views
    relating to several pieces of proposed legislation.
        Regarding H.R. 2133, which would amend section 1144 of
    Title 10, United States Code, the Department does not believe
    it is necessary. The current DoD policy provides servicemembers
    the opportunity to participate in all training tracks in
    addition to the core transition GPS curriculum. These training
    tracks are now offered at 206 military sites worldwide. The
    Department believes that further legislation to permit
    servicemembers to receive these specific training tracks would
    limit our flexibility to modify the training and education
    needed by transitioning servicemembers as the program evolves.
        Regarding H.R. 2275, section 4, the Department believes
    that the best way to maintain an all-volunteer force is to
    demonstrate to potential recruits that servicemembers thrive
    when they return to the civilian workforce. One way to improve
    the likelihood of this is to ensure our servicemembers receive
    the best training possible on employment opportunities,
    resources, rights, and practices.
        Since the passage of the Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 and
    the redesign of the Transition Assistance Program, the
    Department has gained a greater appreciation for the value that
    the Department of Labor Employment Workshop provides our
    servicemembers. The Department of Labor's familiarity with the
    modern labor market, expertise in assisting with credentialing,
    licensing, and finding registered apprenticeships, and its
    connection to state labor offices makes it the single best
    organization in our Federal Government to provide labor-related
    services not only to our servicemembers, but to all American
    citizens.
        The success of the DOL's Employment Workshop proves its
    value. On average, 91 percent of transitioning servicemembers
    who participate in a 3-day employment workshop say the training
    enhanced their confidence in transition planning, 93 percent
    said they will use what they learned, and 96 percent said the
    facilitators were knowledgeable about the material.
        The Employment Workshop's emphasis on providing
    servicemembers early access to state-run American Job Centers
    is a critical factor in assisting our servicemembers in finding
    employment. Segregating veteran services and staff from the
    employment services available to the rest of the Nation is
    inefficient and potentially puts veteran reintegration into
    civilian life at risk.
        Since the revised workshop began in 2012, the outlook for
    servicemembers transitioning to the civilian workforce has
    brightened every year. This is good news. But to best ensure
    continued progress, as well as to discover innovative ways to
    build what Secretary Carter has called the force of the future,
    DoD and DOL must continue to work together.
        We would hope not to have diversions from that close work
    with DOL, as we strongly believe that it is the single-best
    organization in our Federal Government to provide labor-related
    services.
        Regarding the draft bill that would amend Title 38, U.S.
    Code, the DoD believes that this draft bill appears to mirror
    several of the education proposals from the Military
    Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission final
    report from January of 2015.
        In response to that report, the DoD deferred comment until
    it has more data on the impacts of transferability on
    educational benefits on retention. Similarly, the Department
    stated on May 13 in testimony to the Senate Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs that without data enabling the Department to
    understand the potential effects on retention the Department
    cannot support a bill that changes the Post-9/11 GI Bill
    housing stipend for dependents or the proposed language to
    increase the eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/
    11 GI Bill benefits.
        To this end, the Department has sponsored a study with Rand
    to review educational benefits for servicemembers to include
    the benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the impacts on
    retention with a focus on impacts of transferability. We
    anticipate the study to be completed in the summer of 2016.
        Regardless of the outcomes of the study, the Department
    strongly believes that those servicemembers who have already
    committed to additional service obligations should be
    grandfathered and their dependents should not be subject to any
    reduction in transferability that may be imposed by further
    legislation. The Department defers to the VA regarding any
    costs to this bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of this
    subcommittee for your outstanding and continuing support for
    the men and women who proudly wear the uniform in defense of
    our great Nation.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly appears in the
    Appendix]

        Dr. Wenstrup. I thank you all for your remarks. And I now
    yield myself 5 minutes for questions.
        And I will start with Ms. Gerton. We are all trying to get
    the best opportunities for our veterans to succeed. So I would
    like to get your response to the comments from the veterans
    groups that we heard earlier on the previous panel that believe
    that vets and programs for veterans in general are lost in a
    myriad of other missions within the DOL. You have many, many
    missions within the DOL, and they believe, as they testified,
    that transferring these programs to VA is the best option. So I
    am curious your response to their thoughts on that process.
        Ms. Gerton. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
        I think there are a number of critical points about how DOL
    delivers services for veterans that we have to keep in mind.
    Across all of its services, in all of the Job Centers in the
    country last year, the Department of Labor, through its state
    workforce agency activities, served over 1.1 million veterans.
    The JVSG program that VETS administers as part of that served
    only 330,000 out of that 1.1 million.
        First of all, moving the VETS programs to the VA only moves
    the support for those 330,000, and that is a counseling and
    case management type of support. It separates then the support
    for those veterans who need the greatest amount of additional
    services to prepare them for employment, those who have
    significant barriers to employment, those young veterans, and
    those who were separated because of involuntary force
    downsizing decisions. It separates the counseling support for
    those folks from the embedded services that DOL delivers in
    employment and training and education opportunities and
    employment readiness that are delivered by the broader Job
    Center services.
        So in the first point, we think that separating the
    services actually would diminish the outcomes for the veterans
    who need the greatest amount of support because it moves the
    counseling and case management away from the embedded services.
        The second point I would make is that VETS serves within
    DOL as the voice of the veteran and the advocate for the
    veteran across all of DOL's program. So removing VETS from the
    Department of Labor would remove that voice of the veteran from
    all of the policy decisions that DOL is making.
        And I include in that recent efforts that improve and
    streamline the accreditation of apprenticeships so that
    veterans can serve in them, take greater advantage of them, and
    use their GI Bill housing stipend to augment apprentice
    salaries. Additionally, our work with the Office of Federal
    Contract and Compliance Programs on behalf of veterans to make
    sure that Federal contractors are meeting their veteran hiring
    obligations, and our work on USERRA that the GAO documented in
    a study last year that clearly demonstrated that VETS is doing
    a better job in protecting veterans' reemployment rates.
        So those points, and a number of the arguments that we
    enumerated in our written testimony, demonstrate that we
    clearly believe, and the administration supports, that the
    retention of VETS inside DOL because it delivers a better
    outcome for veterans, not worse.
        Dr. Wenstrup. So you would say then that the conclusions
    drawn by the VSOs are incorrect?
        Ms. Gerton. Sir, I cannot dispute that in the past VETS has
    had some difficulty in administering those programs. I would
    point to recent reports over the last 2 to 3 years that
    demonstrate a significant improvement in those outcomes. We
    have a number of externally delivered reports, including from
    the GAO, from the Center for Naval Analysis, from the Summit
    Institution that demonstrate the value of the Veterans'
    Employment and Training Service's services to veterans. We have
    data over the past 10 years that demonstrate a significant
    improvement in veteran outcomes.
        We would believe that the most recent history would tend to
    overwrite a long past history and say that we have got the
    organization on the right track.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Coy, at the bill signing for the Veterans Access Choice
    and Accountability Act, President Obama made the following
    statement in support of accountability measures that are
    essentially the same authority provided in section 2 of H.R.
    1994. And I will quote the President here. He said: ``Now,
    finally, we are giving the VA Secretary more authority to hold
    people accountable. We have got to give Bob''--McDonald--``the
    authority so that he can move quickly to remove senior
    executives who fail to meet the standards of conduct and
    competence that the American people demand. If you engage in an
    unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you
    should be fired, period. It should be that difficult.'' End
    quote.
        So what has changed since that time that the President and
    the administration have now changed their mind?
        Mr. Coy. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Ms.
    Mitrano to address that specific question.
        Ms. Mitrano. Thank you.
        Well, first of all, I don't think that we differ with the
    President's statement or this committee's stated desire for
    accountability within VA. Certainly, we are all about trying to
    hold people accountable for those unethical and those
    egregious-type conduct actions that we have seen displayed.
    However, this piece of legislation extends to all of the GS
    employees throughout VA, and it is targeted at VA only, it is
    not a government-wide reform of course. And we believe it
    simply is going a bit too far when it comes to the due process
    depravations to that broad a group of employees.
        Dr. Wenstrup. So let me ask you. So you would prefer it be
    extended to every agency, not just VA?
        Ms. Mitrano. Well, at least it would not then have the
    disparate effect of targeting VA employees only in this time. I
    think that certainly some studies should be done to improve the
    government-wide adverse action or----
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I am just curious what has changed
    since the time of the statement, because at the time of the
    statement--the problem lies within the VA. And so we are
    addressing the problem that is very, very clear and in front of
    the American people. So I don't understand what has changed
    since the President made that comment.
        Ms. Mitrano. Well, I think the scope of the legislation is
    what is changing here in this piece of legislation. It is not
    just the most senior leaders and VA who have the
    responsibility, higher level of responsibility of ensuring
    these types of actions don't occur, but it is the wage grade
    employees, it is all the way down, as my colleague from AFGE
    mentioned, to the folks that are cleaning the hospitals out and
    providing service to our employees.
        And this legislation certainly does deprive them,
    basically, of every due process right to their livelihood. And
    so I think that the scope is significantly different when you
    look at the 350,000 or more employees that VA has, a third of
    which are veterans themselves, who have put their own lives on
    the line fighting for the very constitutional protections, such
    as due process and the preservation of property right or the
    right to preserve your livelihood.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I just don't see what has changed since
    the time that statement was made. But I appreciate your
    comments here today.
        And, with that, I yield back my time.
        And, Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Kelly, you said there is no data on the effect of the
    change in transferability. But can you tell me just how
    important the educational benefits are to the military's
    ability to recruit people into the voluntary force? I mean,
    where does that rank in terms of an incentive for people to
    join the military?
        Ms. Kelly. I can tell you that 50 percent of recruits
    identify education benefits as one of the reasons, one of the
    compelling reasons, that they want to join the Armed Forces.
        Mr. Takano. It is a compelling reason, it is one of the
    number-one reasons or top three reasons why people--you don't
    know about that?
        Ms. Kelly. I don't have that data, no. But I will----
        Mr. Takano. But at least 50% identify this as a reason they
    join.
        Ms. Kelly. I will check that out when I go back too.
        Mr. Takano. I would like to know that. If we knew that, it
    would help me make some inferences, even in advance of the
    data, on specifically how transferability should work.
        It is my own sense that it is a very important recruiting
    tool for our voluntary forces. And, as a ranking member of this
    committee, I want to make sure that we make good on that
    promise, that that promise is not hollow, that, indeed, people
    are able to use these benefits positive effect.
        There are three levels of, protections. And, seems to me
    that political appointees that are at will. Is that correct? In
    any one of the Federal departments, but there are appointees
    that are very much close to the top who can be fired ``at
    will.'' Is that true?
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes. My understanding is that the political
    appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, and they are
    subject to at-will employment.
        Mr. Takano. And in this quest for accountability for some
    of the egregious things that have happened within the
    Department, we saw that there was a firing--not a firing, of
    course, but Secretary Shinseki resigned his position. So, at
    the very top, there was an at-will sort of act. But, in this
    case, he wasn't fired, but circumstances came together that he
    actually left under those conditions. But there is a level
    below the political appointees. And, for the public, can you
    tell me what is that level generally known as?
        Ms. Mitrano. Well, below the political appointees are the
    Senior Executive Service employees.
        Mr. Takano. The SES.
        Ms. Mitrano. The SES, exactly. And the SES are covered by
    the legislation that was already passed, dealing with the
    expedited removal authority.
        And then the level below the SES are what we typically
    refer to as the GS ranks, the General Schedule ranks, of
    Federal civilian employees that are currently subject to the
    pending legislation.
        Mr. Takano. And H.R. 1994 extends--so we have legislation
    that affected the SES----
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. That was passed. And that was the
    statement that President Obama was addressing----
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. That we should be able to hold the
    SES, the senior management that are typically in the civil
    service----
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. We streamlined the ability of, say, Secretary
    McDonald to be able to discipline and dismiss this level of
    employee.
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Takano. And now we are talking about, in this new
    legislation that is pending before us, an extension of this
    streamlining or to make it much more easy to fire people that
    are below the SES.
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes. Exactly, sir.
        Mr. Takano. And that is the scope that we have that you
    hesitate to say is a good idea, that we may be subjecting
    people that are below the SES, the Senior Executive Service, to
    far less job protections than are necessary so that they may
    report bad actions to superiors.
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Takano. Don't you also believe there is also a problem
    of politicization of the Department, that we, in effect, turn
    the entire department over to political patronage? That people
    who can be fired at will up and down the chain put us in the
    position of an administration coming in and firing everybody,
    and then there is a huge number of jobs that can be filled.
        Ms. Mitrano. Absolutely.
        Mr. Takano. If they can be fired at will, you know--I mean,
    this is something that existed, sort of, in the mid-19th
    century. And that is the whole reason why we had civil service
    reform acts, was to protect--so we need to find the sweet spot.
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes.
        Mr. Takano.
        Ms. Mitrano. Absolutely.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. Enough protections. But we also
    want to prevent rent-seeking, as well.
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Miss Rice, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to focus on two of the bills, 356 and 1994.
    They are opposed by the VA.
        And, Mr. Coy, I would like to ask you, as to Congressman
    Maloney's bill, H.R. 356, can you explain why an analysis of
    workload management challenges at the VA's regional offices is
    unnecessary?
        Mr. Coy. When we looked at this particular bill, we
    indicated that we supported, you know, the intent to improve
    and expand, but we think we are doing much of this. And so we
    are not necessarily opposed to the intent of this bill.
        We are looking at the entire VRE organization over the past
    several years, as has been noted by a few folks. We are
    streamlining a number of our business processes. We have
    developed new performance metrics, both on a regional level and
    on a national level. We developed a staffing model for each of
    our regional offices to ensure that we are putting assets where
    we need to do that.
        We put together a national training curriculum that
    includes things like TBI and PTSD, job-seeking skills, but also
    working with other key agencies like the Veterans Health
    Administration and their mental health services to ensure that
    we are serving those veterans with PTSD and TBI in the right
    way.
        We have worked with DOL. We just recently, only a short
    time ago, back in February, signed a memorandum of
    understanding that took a number of months for us to put
    together so we can work more collaboratively. We have worked
    with DoD on IDES and improved TAP programs. We have looked at
    our VetSuccess on Campus program. We have developed
    telecounseling.
        So when we look at the wide swath of the things that we are
    doing in VRE, we are not suggesting that we are doing it all
    and we have all the right answers; what we are suggesting is
    that we are going down a path that is doing all of those kinds
    of things.
        Ms. Rice. Why can't you just take a recommendation like
    this and say, you know what, maybe someone else has a good idea
    too? And maybe all of the things that you just mentioned have
    nothing to do with the outcome of an analysis of workload
    management challenges.
        Mr. Coy. And I think we have indicated that, you know, a
    study like this would be timely and somewhat costly. But, in
    fact, we are not necessarily opposed to the intent of wanting
    to take an inward look at all of our programs.
        Ms. Rice. Then why not just do it?
        Mr. Coy. Well, we think, when we look at the GAO studies,
    we have looked at all the previous studies, we are, in fact,
    following many of those recommendations that we are doing right
    now.
        Ms. Rice. I just was specifically asking about this one. I
    wasn't sure I understood the reason for the opposition.
        So, going to the VA's opposition to H.R. 1994, I guess I am
    going to ask you two things: What is the basis of your
    opposition to 1994? And can you tell this committee what the VA
    is doing in the absence of 1994 and what it would allow for to
    hold negligent employees accountable to their actions? Because
    we know that there is no accountability, at this point.
        Mr. Coy. I would like to, if I may, defer that to Ms.
    Mitrano, who is here to answer for VA's----
        Ms Rice. Oh, okay.
        Ms. Mitrano. Thank you for the opportunity.
        Our concerns with 1994 really drive around the due process
    deprivations for employees. I mean, the Supreme Court has held
    that a Federal job, or a job, is a property right, and the
    Fifth Amendment to the Constitution certainly says that you
    shall not be deprived of your property without due process of
    the law.
        This legislation actually would allow the Secretary to fire
    a Federal employee, remove them from their livelihood, with no
    notice, with no written reasons proffered, pretty much on the
    spot.
        That employee would then have 7 days to appeal to the Merit
    Systems Protection Board, but that would be a post-deprivation,
    it would be after they have already been fired they will have
    some right to appeal the action while they are unemployed. They
    have to file within 7 days, which is a fairly abbreviated
    timeframe that, you know, some employees might not be able to
    make.
        If they do get an appeal within 7 days, the Merit Systems
    Protection Board's judge is required to issue a decision within
    45 days, which is also a very abbreviated time for a judge to
    convene a hearing and gather enough information to have a
    hearing. If the 45 days is not met by the administrative judge
    for whatever reason beyond the employee's control, or beyond
    VA's control certainly, the VA's decision becomes final at that
    time.
        So, really, if taken in the worst-case scenario, an
    employee at the VA could be deprived of their livelihood on the
    spot and never have an opportunity to present reasons why that
    decision was mistaken or, perhaps, given some ability to defend
    him- or herself. So that is a significant concern.
        Ms. Rice. And I understand that. That makes sense. But you
    are putting that concern over the concern of whistleblowers,
    who are actually suffering probably more than someone who could
    be fired on the spot. And that really is at the heart of this,
    that retaliators are being protected more than whistleblowers
    are.
        And this is the optic issue that I have with the VA: that
    you don't seem to understand how bad what you just say sounds,
    that you defend bad actors over whistleblowers.
        Ms. Mitrano. Ma'am----
        Ms. Rice. My time is up. And I appreciate your answer. My
    point is the culture is not going to change----
        Ms. Mitrano. I understand.
        Ms. Rice [continuing]. And there will never be effective
    administration, holding people accountable, until people are
    actually held accountable.
        Thank you----
        Ms. Mitrano. No, I understand----
        Ms. Rice. Thank you so much.
        And I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you.
        Ms. Mitrano, do you consider the right to appeal part of
    due process or not?
        Ms. Mitrano. Yes, it is part of due process. But it----
        Dr. Wenstrup. Okay. Well, you have been stating here today
    that people would have no due process if this bill became law.
    And I think that is a misleading statement, considering that
    people have the right to appeal and, if they win their appeal,
    they are given their back pay. So I am afraid that I think you
    have skewed things a little bit in the process. But we will end
    with that.
        And I just want to say that, if there is no further
    questions, the panel is now excused.
        And I do want to thank everyone here today for taking the
    time to come and share your views on these nine bills because
    your input and your testimonies are very important to the
    legislative process, and we appreciate your insight and
    feedback.
        I would also like to announce that the subcommittee will be
    holding a markup on some or all of these bills on June 25.
        I ask unanimous consent that the written statement of
    Paralyzed Veterans of America be placed in the hearing record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all
    members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
    remarks and include extraneous material on any of the bills
    under consideration this afternoon.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Dr. Wenstrup. This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]