[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]