[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VA: PATH TO REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-496 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Blake Farenthold, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Ron DeSantis, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Peter Welch, Vermont
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California
Will Hurd, Texas John Sarbanes, Maryland
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Jonathan Skladany, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Brick Christensen, Senior Military Advisor
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security
Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman
Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts,
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ranking Member
Justin Amash, Michigan Val Butler Demings, Florida
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Peter Welch, Vermont
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Mark DeSaulnier, California
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Vacancy
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 1, 2017.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of
Human Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits
and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Irene J. Barnett, Ph.D., Director of the Bedford Office for
Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
APPENDIX
VA Office of Inspector General Review of Alleged Human Resources
Delays at the Atlanta VA Medical Center Report, submitted by
Mr. Hice....................................................... 38
Letter of March 1, 2017, from the American Federation of
Government Employees, submitted by Mr. Lynch................... 60
VA: PATH TO REFORM
----------
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:28 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Amash, Hice,
Lynch, Demings, DeSaulnier, and Sarbanes.
Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security will
come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time. The chair notes the presence of our
colleagues from the full Committee of Oversight and Government
Reform. We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome
your participation today, when you get here.
I ask unanimous consent that all members of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform be allowed to fully
participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
With a new administration and VA Secretary, we have an
opportunity to set a new course at the Veterans Administration.
The VA is the topic of our first subcommittee hearing for a
reason. This subcommittee stands foursquare behind our veterans
and is committed to ensuring that veterans receive the benefits
they have earned.
Over the past several years, the VA has not lived up to the
promises that have been made to our Nation's heroes. Many
veterans have experienced significant problems receiving the
health care they deserve. The problems and scandals of the last
few years have undermined faith in the VA.
The point of this hearing today is to shed light on the
continuing cases of fraud, waste, and abuse at the VA that
require reform. The 2014 wait-time scandal brought to light a
number of serious abuses. That has, sad to say, not been fully
corrected. For example, the VA charged a doctor with
prescribing high amounts of opiates to patients receiving care
for mental health. This doctor received several thousands of
dollars in bonus money 9 months after an OIG report exposed his
poor prescription practices.
In addition, one VA senior executive volunteered to
transfer to a new office. The new position required less
responsibility, but this employee still received relocation
incentives and the same annual salary of over $180,000.
VA staff members in a southern Arizona VA manipulated
patient wait times in order to meet incentive requirements and
national scheduling procedures. These staff members received
bonuses even though they were not meeting national scheduling
standards.
Another doctor, this time in a Pittsburgh VA, received a
$62,895 bonus for implementing an infection prevention program.
Three days before receiving this bonus, the VA Office of
Inspector General issued a report finding that six veterans
died from Legionnaires' disease because of systematic failures.
In an Atlanta VA medical center, there was a backlog of 300
unsettled background investigations for new hires because of
human resource delays.
These are a few of the examples that demonstrate the need
for reform.
Now Secretary Shulkin has set out a vision for improving
some of VA's programs to better serve our veterans. One of
Secretary Shulkin's top priorities is to reshape the Veterans
Choice Program. This includes removing a rule regarding
veteran's ability to seek care at non-VA facilities. It's
important to remove obstacles that make it difficult for
veterans to receive medical care. The Choice Program needs to
serve its intended function, and if that requires congressional
action, then Congress should act forthwith.
The new Secretary will also prioritize, improve mental
health care. According to recent VA statistics, an average of
20 veterans died from suicide each day in the year 2014. These
statistics reveal the need to improve quality of care and
suicide prevention.
We have today representatives from VA's Office of Inspector
General to report on some of these troubling cases. We are also
joined by Acting Assistant Secretary Pamela Mitchell, here to
testify on behalf of Secretary Shulkin. It is my hope we can
have an honest, frank, and positive discussion of the VA's
shortcomings and chart a course to reform.
One reform that I've proposed is to expand treatment
options for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress by
authorizing the VA to link veterans suffering from PTS with a
specially trained service dog, which has proven to be effective
with private organizations. For those that have tried more
conventional forms of treatment and experienced no relief for
their suffering, this could actually be a lifesafer, and we've
had veterans say that their life has been saved because of a
service dog.
Just as we ensure that warfighters have every resource
available to protect them from the dangers of the battlefield,
so too must we provide the veterans transitioning to civilian
life with the resources to treat the invisible and lingering
effects of the realities of war.
The lives of our returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines are at stake. We can't afford to fail them after they
served us. Those who risked their life for this country deserve
the absolute best care upon their return. Time is of the
essence.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today. And I now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee who hails from the Super Bowl champion Boston
area, yet another title, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your courtesy as well.
And just because this is our first subcommittee hearing in
the new session, I just want to say that I'd again like to
express my commitment to working with you and your very capable
staff. You've got great--we both have great staff here that
work on behalf of the American people. And I think that our
bipartisan oversight work will prove critical to identifying
existing and emerging threats. It will also further the
important national security missions carried out by Federal
agencies and our dedicated military and civilian personnel on
behalf of the American people.
Chief among these missions is ensuring that more than 21
million brave men and women who have served in defense of our
Nation and represent America's veterans community receive the
quality of care and the opportunity to transition to a civilian
life that is commensurate with their service and their
sacrifice. To this end, I welcome today's hearing to examine
ongoing reform efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
And I'd also like to thank our witnesses for helping the
committee with its work.
It is my understanding that this hearing will focus on
recent audit work conducted by the Office of the VA Inspector
General and to examine so-called recruitment, retention, and
relocation incentives that were previously awarded to certain
senior level and VA central office employees. In particular, a
January 2017 audit report that was issued by the inspector
general determined that, absent additional reforms, the VA will
risk spending an estimated $158.7 million in unsupported
bonuses and forfeiting $3.9 million in bonuses that should be
recouped through fiscal year 2019. And I agree with the
chairman that this area merits meaningful congressional
oversight.
However, I would also urge that our subcommittee examine a
more immediate and serious threat that is facing our veterans
community, and that is, quite frankly, the negative impact on
veterans services that will be caused by President Trump's
executive memorandum to establish an indefinite, indiscriminate
hiring freeze within the Federal Government. This action stops
all Federal agencies from hiring full-time Federal workers,
including individuals to fill 9,000 vacancies at the VA serving
critical functions. The predictable consequences will be to
degrade the essential services that our veterans and the
American public rely on, rescind the opportunities that
America's veterans have earned. And for that reason, veterans
organizations, ranging from the American Legion, the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, and the DAV,
Disabled American Veterans, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America, continue to underscore the devastating effects of
the hiring freeze on our returning servicemen and -women.
As I noted in a letter signed by 107 Members of Congress
urging President Trump to reconsider his decision, past hiring
freezes enacted during both Democratic and Republican
administrations have proven to decrease government efficiency,
accountability, and transparency at the expense of public
services and the American taxpayer.
As reported by the independent Government Accountability
Office in its seminal 1992 report examining the governmentwide
freezes implemented under both President Reagan and President
Carter, these actions severely disrupted critical agency
operations and diminished Federal oversight of agency programs.
I would note that one Carter administration hiring freeze
caused a clerical staff shortage at the VA medical center that
required healthcare professionals to prioritize administrative
duties over their core job functions. Not surprisingly, this
led to increased patient wait times and severe delays in the
processing of medical examinations.
The report also found the hiring freeze, quote, ``caused
decreased oversight of Federal programs, making it more
difficult for the inspector general officers to do their
jobs,'' close quote, something we should remember as we review
the critical work of the inspector general for Veterans Affairs
today.
Moreover, the current hiring freeze is already having a
drastic impact on the ability of our veterans to transition
back to civilian life. That's because America's veterans make
up one-third of our Federal workforce and new hires at the
Department of Defense, the VA, the Department of
Transportation, and other agencies nationwide. According to the
Office of Personnel Management, veterans hiring in the Federal
Government has also risen significantly in recent years, with
Federal agencies hiring an estimated 6,000 more veterans in
fiscal year 2015 than the previous year. That's a total of
71,000 new veteran hires and a veteran hire percentage of 32.5
percent within the Federal Government.
So you see, by instituting a hiring freeze in the Federal
Government, we're blocking out, we're freezing the opportunity
of returning veterans to go to work. More than 31,000 of these
new hires hired within the Federal Government were disabled
veterans, including over 21,000 veterans with a disability
rating of over 30 percent.
In order to ensure that the Federal Government does not
close its doors to America's veterans seeking to continue to
serve the American people in a Federal Government job, I
recently introduced H.R. 1001, the Veterans Federal Hiring
Protection Act. This legislation would simply exempt veterans
from the hiring freeze within the Federal Government and is
even more critical at a time when the Bureau of Labor
Statistics just reported an unemployment rate for our newest
generation of veterans of 6.3 percent in January of 2017.
That's an increase from 5.7 the previous year and represents
over 200,000 Iraq and Afghan veterans who are looking for work
right now. H.R. 1001 has been cosponsored by over 25 Members of
Congress. And I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to join me in this effort.
In his joint address to Congress last night, President
Trump stated, quote, ``Our veterans have delivered for this
Nation, and now we must deliver for them,'' close quote. So the
Federal hiring freeze will make it extremely difficult to live
up to that promise.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. Thank you.
I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
members who would like to submit a written statement.
We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I'm pleased to
welcome Ms. Pamela Mitchell, Acting Assistant Secretary at the
Office of Human Resources and Administration within the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations within
the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; and Dr. Irene Barnett, Director of the
Bedford Office of the Audits and Evaluations within the Office
of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. So if you can please rise and raise your
right-hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the that testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth so help you God?
Thank you. Please be seated. All witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we'd appreciate it
if you would please limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your
entire written statement will be part of the record.
Assistant Secretary Mitchell, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF PAMELA MITCHELL
Ms. Mitchell. Good afternoon, Chairman DeSantis, Ranking
Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss internal controls for use of
recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives, commonly
known as the 3Rs, within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
VA requires talented employees, including highly trained
healthcare professionals, to serve the needs of our Nation's
veterans. We're competing in tough labor markets for skilled
personnel, both in the public and the private sectors. The 3Rs
are important human resources tools to help us remain
competitive in recruiting and retaining the best personnel to
serve our veterans. To that end, we very much appreciate the
inspector general's recommendations to improve controls over
use of the 3Rs, as outlined in their January 2017 report. This
report was based on incentives awarded during fiscal year 2014.
I'd like to draw your attention to what the Department has
done, both in the years prior to and following the period
covered by the IG report, to more effectively manage use of the
3Rs. First, I'd like to note that the size of the VA workforce
has increased by 22.5 percent since 2011, from about 296,000
employees to about 362,000. During that same period, we
decreased spending on the 3Rs by 50 percent, from approximately
144 million in 2011 to approximately 72 million projected for
2017.
In April 2015, we centralized processing of all senior
executive personnel actions under the Corporate Senior
Executive Management Office, or CSEMO, implementing additional
internal controls for 3R payments to senior executives. This
ensures that proper justifications are made to support payment
of incentives and that executives are fulfilling agreed-upon
service periods or that they repay or request a waiver from
repayment.
As a result of this centralization, our use of retention
incentives for executives in particular has decreased
dramatically. From approximately $390,000 in fiscal year 2014
to about $17,000 in fiscal year 2017 to date.
Our VA handbook on pay administration was significantly
revised back in April 2013 to require an explanation of an
organization's workforce and succession plan as part of the
request for or review of a retention incentive.
We're in the process of further updating the handbook to
reinforce that requirement by requiring a senior leader to
certify that this plan was reviewed. This process will also
require the signatory to attest that all incentives have been
reviewed for compliance with VA policy and that appropriate
action has been taken to initiate debt collection from
individuals who did not fulfill their required service
obligation.
In the meantime, VA has published interim guidance
emphasizing that HR specialists must obtain authorization for
an incentive from the appropriate official prior to including
one in a vacancy announcement. Significantly, this interim
guidance also includes tools to assist our hiring managers and
HR professionals, helping ensure they follow proper procedures
when offering an incentive. Additionally, we've developed
training designed to help them and us to help eliminate
potential misuse of these flexibilities. And this year, we will
ask each administration and staff office to submit a report on
the incentives they authorized during 2016 certified by the
most senior leader in each organization.
In closing, I'd like to express on behalf of the VA
workforce our commitment to the Department's mission to serve
veterans. To accomplish that mission requires continued
competition for top talents in tough markets, particularly in
the private sector for healthcare professionals. The 3Rs are
key human resources tool we need to help us in that
competition, particularly when we are faced with serious hiring
challenges. We are also committed to ensuring careful
consideration and effective oversight of 3R use in the VA.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Mr. Dahl, you're up for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DAHL
Mr. Dahl. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the Office of Inspector General's work related to two
key human capital programs, the 3R incentive program and the
drug-free workplace program.
VHA provides health care to about 7 million veterans each
year through a large network of medical centers and outpatient
clinics. To accomplish this, VHA employs over 350,000 people,
including physicians, nurses, other healthcare professionals
and administrative employees. VHA uses human capital
flexibilities, such as the 3R incentives, to attract and retain
talented employees for its medical facilities. These incentives
provide VA with important tools to fill positions that support
the agency's critical mission. In fiscal year 2015, VA spent
more than $67 million on 3R incentives, with VHA accounting for
almost all of this spending.
When used prudently and properly, recruitment and
relocation incentives help VA attract qualified candidates with
in-demand skills and competencies who would otherwise not
consider working in the Federal Government or working at
locations where positions are difficult to fill. Retention
incentives enable VA to retain employees whose services are
essential to its mission and who would otherwise leave Federal
service.
VA also administers a drug-free workplace program, which
serves an important role in VA fulfilling its responsibility to
protect patients and employees. VA has a designated safety-
sensitive occupational series that require drug testing as
testing-designated positions, including positions such as
physicians, nurses, and police officers. There are three key
parts of this program: first, pre-employment drug testing for
testing-designated positions; second, random drug testing of
employees in testing-designated positions; and, third, drug
testing of employees when there is a reasonable suspicion of
on-the-job drug use or where drug use is suspected following a
workplace accident or injury.
In January, we reported VA needed to improve controls over
its use of 3R incentives to ensure these pay authorities are
strategically and prudently used to assist in their recruitment
and retention of highly qualified employees in hard-to-fill
positions. We determined VA's controls over the incentives were
inadequate and projected VA would spend almost $159 million on
unsupported incentives in fiscal years 2015 through 2019.
Specifically, we reported the following related to VHA's
use of 3R incentives: First, about 33 percent of the
recruitment incentives VHA awarded in fiscal year 2014 were not
properly authorized. Next, about 64 percent of the relocation
incentives VHA awarded were not properly authorized. And,
finally, about 69 percent of retention incentives VHA awarded
did not include adequate workforce and succession plans.
We made 10 recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for
Human Resources, including recommendations to review and update
procedures to ensure recruitment and relocation incentives are
justified and properly authorized and to develop internal
controls to monitor compliance with developing succession plans
to reduce VA's reliance on retention incentives.
The Assistant Secretary concurred with our recommendations
and provided responsive corrective action plans. We consider
three recommendations closed due to actions VA has already
taken, and VA continues to work on implementing the remaining
recommendations.
In March 2015, we issued a report detailing the results of
an audit of VA's drug-free workplace program. We identified
program weaknesses in three areas. First, pre-employment
applicant drug testing: For that, we reported VA did not ensure
compliance with policy to drug test all applicants selected for
testing-designated positions prior to appointment. Instead, VA
only selected about 3 of every 10 applicants for testing.
Second, employee random drug testing: We estimated VA
achieved a national drug testing rate of 68 percent of
employees selected for random testing in fiscal year 2013.
And, finally, reasonable-suspicion drug testing: VA lacked
sufficient oversight practices to monitor whether facilities
referred all employees with a positive drug test result to the
employee assistance program. Based on our work, we determined
VA's program was not accomplishing its primary goal of ensuring
illegal drug use was eliminated. We made five recommendations,
of which one remains open.
In conclusion, VA has faced significant challenges in
recruiting staff into key positions such as physicians and
nurses. While we recognize the importance of VA having the
ability to use the 3R incentives to meet staffing challenges
and strategically manage its workforce, the results of our
audit demonstrate that VA needs to take action to improve the
management of its 3R incentive program. Also, in the absence of
effective oversight of its drug-free workplace program, VA may
not be adequately reducing the risks to the safety and well-
being of veterans and employees.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and we would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Dahl follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Dr. Barnett, you're up for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barnett. Thank you very much, but my colleague, Nick
Dahl, gave our official statement.
Mr. DeSantis. Wonderful.
Well, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Secretary Mitchell, in a recent news article, Secretary
Shulkin noted that one of his top priorities is to reform the
Veterans Choice Act. How will the VA go about doing that, or
how will the Secretary go about doing that?
Ms. Mitchell. Chairman DeSantis, I have no personal
knowledge of that that I can offer. But I do know that the
Secretary is going to be testifying next week.
Mr. DeSantis. In front of the House VA Committee?
Ms. Mitchell. I believe that's correct.
Mr. DeSantis. Are you familiar with the interview he gave
to Stars and Stripes a couple days ago?
Ms. Mitchell. I'm not extremely familiar, no, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. So he wants to eliminate the 40-mile, 30-day
rule for non-VA care under the Veterans Choice Act. I support
that. I wonder, though, would that require a change of statute,
or does he think he can do that through the regulations? I
guess you don't know that?
Ms. Mitchell. No, sir. That's not within my purview or area
of expertise.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, we would like to know because I think
that is something that veterans have been frustrated with.
Congress passed this several years ago. There was a lot of
fanfare about it. It just has not actually done the job, and it
has not met the obligations.
Let me ask you this, Secretary Shulkin in a recent
interview on FOX News stressed the importance for VA employees
to have due process. So what is exactly the process for firing
an individual within the VA?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, there are different processes depending
on the situation. There are conduct-based issues that occur,
and there are performance-based issues that occur. And so they
take different paths, and then there are also different
processes depending on whether it's a title 5 employee or a
title 38 employee.
Mr. DeSantis. So conduct-based is misconduct you're saying.
Ms. Mitchell. Correct.
Mr. DeSantis. People that do something wrong. I guess if
you were to be convicted for something somewhere, that would
obviously be an issue.
Performance-based, let's talk about performance-based. What
is the process if somebody is a poor performer? How would the
VA move to get that person out if they are not serving the
veterans well?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, typically, the first thing that would
happen is that there would be a discussion between the
supervisor and the employee. And that would be followed by
what's called a performance improvement plan, or a PIP, and
then an employee is given a period of time.
Mr. DeSantis. How long typically?
Ms. Mitchell. At least 30 days, but sometimes longer. It
may depend on what the actual issue of performance is. And so
then there's a period of time to look at, is the individual
improving? Are there still issues to look at that? And then, if
there is no improvement over a period of time, which again may
vary, then a variety of things could happen. There has to be a
proposal made as to what the employee's notified as to what
will happen, and then a decision is made.
Mr. DeSantis. By who?
Ms. Mitchell. By the--well, if we're talking about a GS
employee, so it would be the hiring--I'm sorry--the supervisor
who would make a decision typically, or it could go up to
higher level. Again, it's going to depend on the level of what
we're talking about. But typically the supervisor would be
working with the employee on this and making different
decisions.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you know how many human resources
employees at the VA were terminated last year or the year
before?
Ms. Mitchell. No. I'm sorry. I don't have that detail. But
I would be happy to take that for the record.
Mr. DeSantis. Yeah, we would definitely like to get that.
In his interview, Secretary Shulkin claimed that he would
fire any VA employee who had been complicit in any waste,
fraud, or abuse, but I think that's a little bit easier said
than done, given--I mean, you articulated a relatively complex
process. Is there any way that this can be streamlined so that,
when we identify examples of poor performance or misconduct,
that this can be dealt with very expeditiously?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I know that we have had a team working
with staffers here on the Hill to take a look at that. I know
that a bill was introduced yesterday, and we're currently
reviewing that right now.
Mr. DeSantis. In the same interview, the Secretary said
that he would like to use whistleblowers to bring issues to the
forefront. I take this to mean that the Secretary believes that
whistleblower process either has been inadequate or needs
somehow to be reformed. Do you have any idea how he intends to
do this? Is it going to be a revised process? Or what hasn't
been done up to this point that now is going to be done?
Ms. Mitchell. I'm sorry. I don't have any knowledge of
that, but again, I would be happy to take that for the record.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I appreciate your testimony.
My time has expired. I want to recognize the ranking member
now, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, I want to thank the witnesses for your
attendance and for helping us.
Ms. Mitchell, thank you for the wonderful care that many of
our veterans receive at the VA and for all the good work that
you do.
Mr. Dahl, Dr. Barnett, thank you very much for your
oversight because I think the work that you do makes sure that
we meet our obligations that we owe to our veterans. So I don't
see an adversarial relationship here. I see people trying to do
good work, and I see the Office of the Inspector General as
just trying to make sure that we keep our game at a level that
it should be.
Let me ask you, though, we've talked a little bit this
morning about the hiring freeze in the VA and across the
Federal Government. A lot of people don't realize that about 30
percent of the employees for the Federal Government that work
in the Federal Government are veterans. And it's even higher at
the VA. We have about 32.5 percent of the people who work at
the VA are veterans. So I have three major VA hospitals in my
district. One is in Brockton. One is in West Roxbury. And one
is in Jamaica Plain. I'm a frequent flier to those hospitals.
And I typically will just pull people aside and talk, whether
they are orderlies or maintenance or nurses or docs or
therapists. I'll often ask them how they came to work at the
VA. And I don't think I've met anybody yet who was not a
veteran. So maybe that's just in my district. But I am
enormously proud of the work that they do there.
I know that we had problems down in Phoenix with the VA.
Very unfortunate. We even had problems in a couple of other
cities as well. I think San Antonio was one, but I'm very happy
to say that, when the VA went back--and I know the Inspector
General's Office was involved in that, and we did a whole
assessment--my three hospitals got very, very high marks, as
did the Bedford facility, which has a state-of-the-art
Alzheimer's facility there. So I know this committee, we often
have criticisms, but I don't want it just to be about
criticisms. I want to understand you understand we appreciate
the good work that's being done.
I have amazing people who work at the VA all around this
country. And I know more personally the ones in my district,
and they are a blessing each and every day what they for our
veterans.
And what concerns me is this hiring freeze. So we have
critical positions that are--about 9,000 positions are vacant
right now at the VA. And these vacancies serve critical
functions. And so I would like to ask Ms. Mitchell, can you
tell me what the impact would be if we continue this hiring
freeze that prevents us from filling those critical positions,
especially--especially--with candidates who are veterans who
normally would have a preference but now are being shut out?
Ms. Mitchell. Thank you for that question. First of all,
let me say that, by virtue of the authority conferred by the
Presidential memorandum, then Acting Secretary Bob Snyder took
fairly immediate action to exempt a number of positions from
the hiring freeze as tied to public safety. And so those
essentially included folks involved in providing direct patient
care as well as our cemetery workers who take care of burials
for our veterans and their families. So that itself was a large
mitigating factor. And we continue to look as we move forward
as to whether there are other positions that should be
considered for exemption.
Mr. Lynch. I've had veterans come to me, though, in
radiology and other positions that are not exempted. So they've
been stopped. A Navy veteran just last week trying to get on at
the VA and is being prevented because of the freeze. So what
about the positions that have not been exempted? There are a
lot of them, based on the material I was given. There are there
are a lot of positions that are not exempt.
Ms. Mitchell. That's correct.
Mr. Lynch. What will be the impact on those?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, it is too early right now to assess the
impact because we're about 30 days in. I think the most
important thing I could tell you is that we continue to look at
vacancies. And our leaders across the Department continue to
look at the impact in their various areas. And certainly, as
appropriate, we'll be coming in and asking for relief.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Let me ask the same question to Mr. Dahl over at the VA
Office of Inspector General. I know, in the past, the inspector
generals have been critical of this type of freeze back when
President Reagan did it and back when President Carter. This is
not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans have tried this
approach in the past, and it's had disastrous effects, but I
would like to hear from you in terms of what you think this
might lead to.
Mr. Dahl. A hiring freeze is definitely going have an
impact on our immediate operations. We've been fortunate that
Congress has been supportive recently to help us right-size.
Historically, we are a small office of inspector generals,
especially when compared to the size of the overall Department
and the budget of the overall Department. Fortunately, we have
got a 4-year appropriation. We've been given additional money
to beef up our staff. But we have about 100 open positions
right now below our ceiling. We've made the determination about
half of those meet the exemptions because they deal with public
safety or national security, but that leaves half of our
positions that we have not exempted. So that will impact our
ability to provide the level of oversight that we should be
providing.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. That's fair enough. And I know I'm over my
time. So I appreciate that. And is it fair to say that the
longer this freeze goes on, the more difficult it becomes?
Mr. Dahl. I would say so. I mean, obviously the Department
will probably feel some impact too, but their operations are
going to continue----
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Dahl. --without the bodies we need to provide the level
of oversight that we should by providing.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
I will note for the record the VFW head--national commander
actually spoke with Secretary Shulkin about this hiring freeze
effect on the VA. And he reported that the Secretary's response
was that the agency was satisfied with the exemptions. I just
wanted--I know you can't necessarily speak for him as we had
asked earlier, but that's what we have from the VFW.
The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
We've actually had her husband testify with the joint committee
here last Congress. We want to first welcome you to the
committee. It is good to have another Floridian, and you're
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again to our witnesses for being here today
and for the critical role that you are doing for our country.
In holding this hearing on VA's path to reform, we should
not lose sight of I think the larger issue, that far from
progress on reform, veterans face substantial harm, I believe,
from President Trump's hiring ban.
Secretary--or Assistant Secretary Mitchell, are you aware
of the number of unfilled job openings at the VA?
Ms. Mitchell. Right now, we have approximately 48,000
vacancies. In the neighborhood of 36,000 of those have been
exempted from the hiring freeze.
Mrs. Demings. Do you know how many jobs openings are from
the Veterans Benefits Administration?
Ms. Mitchell. I can take a moment to look that up very
quickly, or I can take that for the record.
Mrs. Demings. Please take it for the record.
Also, to Secretary Snyder, Secretary Snyder has exempted
over 90 occupations from President Trump's recently announced
hiring ban. Do you know if Secretary Snyder exempted any
occupations within the VBA, any specific occupations?
Ms. Mitchell. No. There were no occupations exempted within
the VBA.
Mrs. Demings. For fiscal year 2017, the VA requested
funding from VBA to hire an additional 300 claims processors.
Would you agree that the VA cannot now hire these additional
claim processors because of President Trump's hiring ban?
Ms. Mitchell. At this point, they are not exempt positions.
Mrs. Demings. They are not exempt positions. Okay. Just a
second.
The VA recently noted that it, and I quote, ``has made
dramatic progress in reducing the backlog and proving
timeliness of decisions and reducing the overall pending
inventory of disability rating claims while at the same time
improving the quality of its decisions.'' Secretary Mitchell,
how will President Trump's hiring ban impact the VA's progress
on this front?
Ms. Mitchell. At this point in time, I know that VBA is
monitoring that very closely. And we are only about a month
into the hiring freeze. So it is a little early to give you a
strong assessment on that.
Mrs. Demings. Would you say you've seen no change at all in
the timeliness of the decisions, of the process at all within
the last month?
Ms. Mitchell. That's not within my area of responsibility.
So I would be happy to take that for the record for you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hice. [presiding.] All right.
I am going to recognize myself. I want to begin with the
Office of the Inspector General and the report, the review of
alleged human resources delays in the Atlanta medical center. I
would ask unanimous consent for it to be added to the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hice. I have a great deal of issues, specifically with
this report that has come out, and I want to thank you for
being here, but it outlines some serious failures in the
Atlanta VA. And in particular, some things that came out of
great concern personally was the failure to conduct drug tests
on employees, and they also allowed over 200 employees who had
not completed background checks to work directly with some of
our veterans for several months and, in some cases, even years.
This is a huge VA medical center in Atlanta, servicing some
well in excess of 100,000 veterans a year. And I'm just curious
how many of these people had no drug test or background checks?
How many veterans potentially, if you can use the word, were
exposed to these types of individuals, and why were they note
adequately checked?
Mr. Dahl. Congressman, there was just a lack of appropriate
oversight at the facility to ensure that the drug test program
was being administered. The person that was responsible for the
program left. The backup person did not take on the
responsibilities as they should have. This happened for a 6-
month period. I can't tell you how many people should have been
subjected to the drug testing during the 6-month period. But
they certainly were coming into contact with the patients and
other employees at the medical center.
Mr. Hice. And how long did that take, did that last?
Mr. Dahl. Well, there was a 6-month period where there was
no drug test at all.
Mr. Hice. Is that normal?
Mr. Dahl. No, sir.
Mr. Hice. How long typically?
Mr. Dahl. Well, we'd like to think that every facility
would be conducting whatever drug testing they should be. But
we have known from other work that there are facilities that
don't conduct the test or conduct a low percentage of the test
that they should.
Mr. Hice. Ms. Mitchell, have measures been taken to ensure
that this won't happen again.
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, sir, they have. Beginning in October of
2015, our local drug program coordinators began certifying
monthly that employees selected for random drug testing were in
fact tested. And in November of that year, our own office began
reviewing that data for compliance, and we have continued to do
that.
Subsequently, we are also working with our IT side of the
house, not the Office of Information Technology, but with our
partner to ensure that we have an automated way of making sure
that everyone who should be considered for random drug testing
is in fact considered.
Mr. Hice. So are you saying that specific to the Atlanta VA
or across the board?
Ms. Mitchell. Across the----
Mr. Hice. So are there any other medical centers where this
type of thing could be happening?
Ms. Mitchell. I don't have any personal knowledge of that.
Mr. Hice. Well, shouldn't you?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, if I were to say to you, could it be
happening, I think it would be----
Mr. Hice. And my question is, are there measures to ensure
that it is not and that it will not happen?
Ms. Mitchell. Those were the measures, sir, that I was just
talking about.
Mr. Hice. And those are for all our VA medical centers?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, yes, they are, sir.
Mr. Hice. So you can ensure that that's not going to happen
again.
Ms. Mitchell. Exactly. That's why those measures were put
into place.
Mr. Hice. And the same would apply to the drug testing?
Ms. Mitchell. That's correct.
Mr. Hice. All right. And the background checks.
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I'm not personally involved in the
background checks.
Mr. Hice. Who is?
Ms. Mitchell. It is another office within VA, but I would
be happy to take that for the record.
Mr. Hice. I would like that. Have there been any VA
employees who have been fired for this or any management level
who let this slip through?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I'm not aware of that, but I would be
happy to take that for the record.
Mr. Hice. I would like that for the record. It seems to
me--would you not--would all of you not agree that this is
inexcusable?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir.
Mr. Hice. Then why is there no consequences?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I don't have enough personal knowledge
to comment on whether or not there have been consequences as I
sit here today. Again, I would be happy to take that for the
record.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
All right--Dr. Barnett, is there any recommendations that
are coming down the pike timeframewise for corrections of these
type of thing that you're aware of? I just wanted to give you
an opportunity to weigh in.
Ms. Barnett. We have one outstanding recommendation that
still exists from a national drug-free workplace audit that we
conducted. That was issued I want to say about a 1-1/2 year
ago, closer to 2 years ago, where we did a random sample of
facilities and then checked to see to what extent random drug
testing was going on at that time. And there was one
outstanding recommendation that still exists with that report,
and that is specifically related to ensuring that folks in the
occupations that are considered high risk or drug-testing-
designated positions are in fact coded as such in VA's
personnel system, which is the new HR smart system, so that
those folks are actually eligible to be selected for random
drug testing because, once you are an employee at VA and you
are in a drug-testing-designated occupation--physicians, police
officers, those sort of folks--you are eligible to be selected
on a monthly basis for random drug testing. So random drug
testing at the facilities should be occurring once a month. The
folks at HR&A randomly selects employees. They then communicate
those names down to the facility level. And then in the HR
department, at a facility level, there's a drug testing
coordinator, and it's that person's responsibility then to
inform those employees and have them go to the lab to submit a
urine sample.
Mr. Hice. Okay. All right. I thank you.
My time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Sarbanes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I'm glad to be back on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. This is my first hearing since I've come back after
10 years of being gone.
Mr. Hice. We're glad to have you back.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
And I want to thank the panelists for coming and testifying
obviously on a very important topic. And I share some of the
concerns that I know have already been expressed about this
hiring freeze and its impact on the agency. Obviously, we know
that the VA has had some challenges, and those need to be
addressed at various levels, and we want to make sure that's
done, and input from the OIG periodically is certainly critical
to that.
But if you step back and look at the overall context for
this conversation, the hiring freeze and the impact that it's
going to have on the ability of the agency to function at a
high level and to meet the needs of the populations that it
serves is obviously at stake here. So you've got two or three
impacts that I know others have already called attention to,
but I want to reiterate one is just the service to all the
veterans out there who benefit from the VA and what it has to
over. And you impose this draconian hiring freeze when you have
thousands and thousands of positions that are open, and that's
going to aggravate a situation in which the agency can't
deliver at the level that it should be able it to deliver.
Secondly, as has been pointed out I know by a number of my
colleagues, many of those who are currently employed by the VA,
but certainly many who could be hired if the freeze was not in
place, are veterans themselves and are bringing a very special
set of experiences and perspectives and qualities to the job
that I think are indispensable to the mission of the agency and
the way that it functions.
And, thirdly, just to bring it back to the hearing today,
obviously, a hiring freeze and other kind of resource
restrictions on the VA that are imprudent can have an impact on
the ability of the IG and others to do the work that they need
to do as well. So all around it doesn't seem like the freeze is
a good idea.
What I wanted to ask you, Ms. Mitchell, if you could
respond, I imagine that the VA does focus groups, surveys with
the folks that are served by the agency, as well as being in
regular contact I'm sure with various veteran services
organizations, and that that contributes to the perspective
that you have on what the impact of a freeze can be. In other
words, as you're doing these surveys, as you're getting this
information, you may be identifying in that way that there are
certain needs of the agency that need to be met that are going
unmet because positions are not being filled or, alternatively,
that there are certain strengths of the agency that we want to
maintain that could be imperiled by not being able to keep
positions filled going forward. So I was interested just to get
your thoughts based on the kind of information feedback that
you get from the populations that are served by the agency on
exactly what some of the impacts of this freeze could be.
Ms. Mitchell. So I have not seen anything since the hiring
freeze began indicating anything like that, but I would be
happy to take that for the record.
Mr. Sarbanes. Are there surveys that have been done
previously? In other words, it would be very interesting to
know if some surveys or feedback you've received since the
freeze has been put in place, but are there surveys that have
identified needs that you think relate to the hiring freeze in
terms of whether those needs can be adequately met going
forward given that a freeze is now in place?
Ms. Mitchell. I have not seen a survey myself indicating
that. I know that different surveys are done. So I would
certainly be happy to take that for the record.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yeah, that would be interesting for us to get
here in the committee because I think that might give us some
additional context and perspective on the potential impact that
this freeze is going to have going forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry I had to be in some other meetings, and so I may
ask something that's already been asked. I'm especially
interested in this Veterans Choice Program and how it's working
out. My staff Allen Johnson tells me that there's a billion
dollars of unused funding in that pot. Are the veterans--are
they not happy with that program for some reason? How is it
working? Who can tell me about that?
Ms. Mitchell. I'm afraid that's not within my area of
responsibility, but I would be happy to take that for the
record.
Mr. Duncan. Well, all right. Anybody else?
Mr. Dahl. Sir, I'm with the Inspector General's Office. We
have done work in Choice. I believe we have a report coming out
as soon as tomorrow on Choice, and we have other work in the
pipeline. I'd be happy to speak with the folks in our
organization if you're interested in a briefing on the results
of our work.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I am very interested in that, how it's
working. And I understand that there's some interest in trying
to remove some of the requirements, like the distance and so
forth, and the make it--give it a little more flexibility. I'm
also--I didn't know about this big drug losses or theft of
these opioids. It said--the report I have says it jumped from
200--these losses or theft at Federal hospitals jumped from 272
in 2009 to almost 3,000 in 2015. What is the story behind that,
or what are we doing about that?
Mr. Dahl. Well, within the Office of Inspector General, we
do have an active investigation program that looks at drug
diversion by VHA employees within facilities for their own
personal use, or diversion for illegal sale. I'm not within the
Office of Investigations, but I'm sure we could provide you
more information on that if you're interested.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, I would. All right. Since I struck out on
my first two questions, I guess, let me ask you this, and this
goes back several years ago. But I saw on 60 Minutes several
years ago that there were some VA hospitals that had very low
occupancy rates at that time, and I remember they mentioned one
in Philadelphia that had only a 40-percent occupancy rate. Are
there other VA hospitals that are not being utilized at this
point, any place that we know of?
Ms. Mitchell. I hate to be the one to say ``strike three,''
but unfortunately, that's also not within my area of
responsibility, but I'd be happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Well, I would be curious about that too
so--all right. Well, I think that's pretty much what I was
interested in. I would like some additional information on all
three of those topics if you can provide them for me.
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
And I would like to thank each of our--- yes.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I just have a brief bit of
business here. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter to President Trump requesting him to reconsider
the Federal hiring freeze, signed by I think 120 Members of
Congress.
I also have a letter from J. David Cox, Sr., Eugene Hudson,
Jr., and Augusta Thomas from the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, regarding the hiring freeze and
its impact on veterans.
And then we have a study, ``Employment of Veterans in the
Federal Executive Branch,'' by the United States Office of
Personnel Management. I would like to have these entered into
the record if I may.
Mr. Hice. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hice. Again, I'd like to thank each of you witnesses
for taking time to appear before the subcommittee today.
I ask unanimous consent that members have 5 legislative
days to submit questions for the records.
Without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]