[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 6452; H.R. 6531; H.R. 6538; H.R. 6874;
H.R. 6947; H.R. 7342; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX;
AND H.R. XXXX
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-495 WASHINGTON : 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina MIKE LEVIN, California
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas Pennsylvania
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
Jon Clark, Staff Director
Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia, Chairwoman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana, Ranking
American Samoa Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jennifer A. Kiggans, Chairwoman.................... 1
The Honorable Frank J. Mrvan, Ranking Member..................... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. John W. Boerstler, Chief Veterans Experience Officer, Office
of Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.............. 4
Accompanied by:
Ms. Tracey Therit, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of
Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security,
and Preparedness, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. David Perry, Chief Officer, Workforce Management and
Consulting, Veterans Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Charles Worthington, Chief Technology Officer, Office of
Information Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Ms. Joycelyn Westbrooks, RN, Secretary-Treasurer, AFGE Local
1633, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...................... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Mr. John W. Boerstler Prepared Statement......................... 21
Ms. Joycelyn Westbrooks, RN Prepared Statement................... 29
Statements For The Record
American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Prepared Statement.. 33
United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care
Professionals Prepared Statement............................... 36
National Federation of Federal Employees, and Service Employees
International Union Prepared Statement......................... 37
Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement................. 39
Senior Executives Association Prepared Statement................. 41
The Honorable Matt Cartwright, U.S. House of Representatives,
(PA-8) Prepared Statement...................................... 43
The Honorable Brandon Williams, U.S. House of Representatives,
(NY-22) Prepared Statement..................................... 43
The Honorable Michael Turner, U.S. House of Representatives, (OH-
10) Prepared Statement......................................... 44
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 6452; H.R. 6531; H.R. 6538; H.R. 6874;
H.R. 6947; H.R. 7342; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX;
AND H.R. XXXX
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:22 p.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jen Kiggans
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kiggans, Radewagen, Rosendale,
Mrvan, Landsman, and Pappas.
Also present: Representatives Franklin, Stefanik, Valadeo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, CHAIRWOMAN
Ms. Kiggans. Good afternoon. Thank you to our witnesses for
being here today. I would like to thank the members who have
sponsored bills on today's agenda who will be joining us.
Before we proceed further I ask unanimous consent for
Representatives Greg Landsman, Chairwoman Elise Stefanik,
Representative Scott Franklin, and Representative David Valadao
to participate in this hearing.
The purpose of this hearing is to learn from stakeholders
with expertise on each of these proposals so that we can make
informed decisions about whether to move this legislation
forward to improve the delivery of services at the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The invaluable insight provided by these members,
stakeholders and agencies is essential to the work of this
subcommittee.
In today's hearing we will examine a variety of bills
including bills that impact the VA's accessibility, pay and
accountability.
The agenda includes the Veterans Scam and Fraud Evasion
Act, sponsored by Chairwoman Stefanik which would codify an
office much needed to fight against scammers who target
veterans, the VA Correct Compensation Act sponsored by Ranking
Member Takano, which would attempt to ensure bureaucracy does
not get in the way of paying medical professionals what they
are legally owed, the Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee
Act sponsored by Representative Valadao, which would ensure
veterans with disabilities have a seat at the decision-making
table, and the VA Political Performance Disclosure Act
sponsored by General Bergman, which would ensure our committee
has full oversight of VA political appointee performance.
I am eager to hear more from our members and witnesses
about these bills and I want to thank our witnesses again for
being here today and I look forward to our discussion.
Now I recognize Ranking Member Mrvan for his opening
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF FRANK J. MRVAN, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chair Kiggans. I am pleased that the
subcommittee is considering several pieces of key legislation
that will take steps toward ensuring that the VA workforce is
supported and has the tools they need to provide world-class
care our veterans.
Today we are considering H.R. 6538, the VA Correct
Compensation Act of 2023, a bill championed by Ranking Member
and full committee Congressman Takano. I am proud to cosponsor
this important piece of bipartisan legislation.
This bill protects Title 38 VA employees' right to
collectively bargain over issues with their pay. For instance,
currently if a Title 38 VA nurse works overtime and that
overtime is not reflected on their paystub the VA can limit
that nurse's ability to grieve that error through the
bargaining unit.
The VA Correct Compensation Act is a critical tool to help
with employee retention. Employees know they have the path to
be made whole when there is an issue with the compensation.
For years we have been hearing from Title 38 nurses and
other critical medical center staff about how they are denied
the collective bargaining rights that their Federal health care
worker counterparts are afforded under the law.
The last Congress, we came together to pass the VA
Employees Fairness Act out of the House of Representatives.
That bill addresses the limits the Secretary's authority to
deny collective bargaining and grievance right for Title 38 VA
medical professionals, including the employees who care for our
veterans every day like Registered Nurses (RN) and Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), physicians and physician
assistants, dentists and more.
Currently these frontline employees are prevented from
raising grievances about issues such as professional training
and patient safety policies that undermine patient care.
There is still substantive policy disagreements among
Members of Congress as to fixing this issue but I look forward
to working with Ranking Member Takano to reintroduce the VA
Employee Fairness Act soon and restore full collective
bargaining rights for the VA Title 38 health care
professionals.
In the meantime, the VA Correct Compensation Act is an
opportunity to make a bipartisan meaningful impact on union
rights for VA medical professionals in the near term.
What the VA Correct Compensation Act does is simple but
incredibly important. This bill ensures there is a fair process
that Title 38 VA employees can access to make them whole when
there is an error in their pay. I appreciate the work done thus
far from our union partners on this bill as well as the support
of the Veterans Service Organizations (VSO).
This bill is endorsed by the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE), the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Association of
Nurses, and the Senior Executive Association.
I would like to specifically thank the American Federation
of Government Employees or the AFGE for their support and
continued partnership with our committee to bring us issues and
solutions to those issues the VA employees face.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to Ms. Joycelyn
Westbrooks, who is representative the AFGE today. Ms.
Westbrooks has served as a registered nurse for the VA for 40
years. Thank you for caring for our veterans, thank you for
advocating for your fellow VA staff and thank you for being
here.
Throughout the AFGE's testimony we will hear that
unfortunately errors in employee pay at the VA is a common
problem and one that has affected far too many of their
dedicated health professionals.
In many instances VA has miscalculated or failed to pay
staff for overtime, holiday work, or weekend shifts. In some
cases, it has taken months for VA to get those employees the
pay they have earned and are rightly owed.
It is easy to imagine how errors in pay can affect an
employee's livelihood and their morale. The VA Correct
Compensation Act rectifies this inequity and I hope to see in
advance--see it advance through this committee as soon as
possible.
I am also glad we are considering H.R. 6531, the Train VA
Employees Act, introduced by former chairman of this
subcommittee, Representative Pappas. This bill will--would
improve the substandard management--the sub-standardized
management training to all levels of supervisors and executives
across VA, one of the core deficiencies my staff identified
throughout this committee's investigation into sexual
harassment at VA.
I am proud to cosponsor the Train VA Employees Act and look
forward to improving the text based on some of the testimony we
received for this hearing. This committee has always held VA to
the highest standard for the quality of care for veterans and
should receive.
We must also push VA to provide these same standards for
the quality of work of the workforce and environment of the
workplace. VA employees, many of whom are veterans as well
deserve these rights and resources. The VA Correct Compensation
Act and the Train VA Employees Act are steps in the right
direction.
As our recent joint VSO hearings highlighted education is a
vital step in ensuring veterans and their families are aware of
the resources available to them at the VA.
The Veterans Affairs Centennial and Heritage Act of 2024,
H.R. 6947, is a step in the right direction as it creates a VA
history office in Dayton, Ohio.
This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my committee
colleague, Representative Greg Landsman and would provide an
outlet to recognize the critical work of VA and its employees
over the last 100 years.
I want to mention my concerns with H.R. 7734, the Required
Notation Investigation and Personnel File Act. This bill would
completely evade due process by requiring VA to annotate the
personnel paperwork for employees who resign from their
position amid an investigation before the investigation
concludes and findings are made.
By statute, VA is already required as all Federal agencies
to permanently annotate a former employee's personnel file if
that person leaves their position while under investigation and
that investigation results in adverse findings. The current
U.S. code also affords these former employees' appeal right as
due process requires.
It is unclear to me why this bill takes such an extreme
approach that would duplicate existing law and add language
that would likely result in years of litigation. Chair Kiggans,
I hope our staffs can work together to address policy concerns
with these pieces of legislation. I hope can advance the other
bipartisan bills we will consider today.
I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Ranking Member Mrvan. Before we get
to testimony I will introduce the witnesses on today's panel.
On today's panel representing the Department of Veterans
Affairs we have Mr. John Boerstler, VA's chief veterans
experience officer. He is accompanied by Ms. Tracey Therit,
VA's chief human capital officer, Mr. David Perry, chief
officer for workforce management and consulting within the VA's
Veteran Health Administration and Mr. Charles Worthington,
chief technology officer for the VA's Office of Information
Technology.
Also, on our panel representing the America Federation of
Government Employees we have Registered Nurse Joycelyn
Westbrooks who is both the Secretary and Treasurer for AFGE
Local 1633.
I will ask the witnesses in our panel to please stand and
raise your right hand to be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Thank you. Let the record reflect that all witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
Mr. Boerstler, we will start with you. You are recognized
for 5 minutes to provide your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BOERSTLER
Mr. Boerstler. Well good afternoon and howdy. Thank you,
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to represent the
Department of Veterans Affairs and appear before you today to
discuss these 9 bills.
I am accompanied today by Ms. Tracey Therit, chief human
capital officer, Human Resources and Administration/Operations,
Security, and Preparedness, Mr. David Perry, chief officer
workforce management and consulting, Veterans Health
Administration, and Mr. Charles Worthington, chief technology
officer, Office of Information Technology.
We have provided detailed comments in the full testimony to
include areas of support and concern noting certain provisions
that could benefit from certain--from some clarification or
amendment. We are thankful for your time today and look forward
to working with the committee on these important bills.
VA supports H.R. 6452 with amendments and subject to the
availability of appropriations. This bill compliments the
Veteran Scam and Fraud Evasion or VSAFE task force, an
administration--which is an administration initiative launched
in December 2023. Our suggest, our suggested amendment would
support standing up a VSAFE office versus the creation of just
one VSAFE officer billet.
In line with H.R. 6452, VA announced our Fiscal Year 2025
legislative proposal that seeks to codify the larger Veterans
Experience Office, otherwise known as VEO, within which the
VSAFE program operates.
Codifying VEO permanently within statute would ensure that
the veteran has a voice in policy formation and the decision-
making process permanently. VA supports H.R. 6531, the Train VA
Employees Act subject to amendments and availability of
appropriations.
VA cites concerns with H.R. 6538, the VA Correct
Compensation Act of 2023, but would be happy to work with the
committee on an alternative approach that would require VA to
establish an internal process whereby Title 38 employees could
pursue allegations of compensation errors in violation of the
law, rule, regulation, or policy outside the scope of
collective bargaining.
VA appreciates the intent of H.R. 6874, the VA Web Act, but
cites concerns. While VA supports the intent of this bill, we
believe that many have--many performance accountability
mechanisms are in place already and that the types of system
monitoring required by the bill are a natural part of software
development.
We are concerned with the implications of some of the
bill's definition and reporting requirements which are
discussed further in our written testimony.
VA supports H.R. 6947, subject to the availability of
appropriations. This bill could codify VA's establishment of a
history office and provide clear authorities and statute that
advance VA's effort to preserve its history formally to this
office.
VA does not support H.R. 7342, the Veterans Accessibility
Advisory Committee Act of 2024. We believe this effort is
duplicative of the efforts of numerous existing VA advisory
committees. VA would welcome the opportunity to work with the
committee to determine how we would address Congress's
underlying concerns in the existing Federal advisory
committees.
VA supports the draft VA Medical Center weapons detection
technology bill which would authorize the Secretary to carry
out a pilot program to use weapon detection technology at the
primary entrance of VA medical centers subject to the
availability of appropriation.
The VA supports the draft Required Notation of
Investigation in Personnel Record File Act if amended and
subject to appropriations. The bill would require a notation in
the personnel record file of VA employees who resign from
government employment prior to the resolution of associated
personnel investigation.
Our suggested amendments would seek to clarify and conform
which employees are covered by the bill and to ensure that the
required due process and appeal rights are afforded.
Last, VA does not support the draft Reporting Performance
Plans for VA Political Appointees Act, which would require the
blanket submission of political appointee performance plans.
VA administers a performance management system that holds
all political appointees accountable for individual and
organizational performance. We are concerned with this bill's
exclusive focus on political appointees as well as the
challenge of balancing accountability with the confidentiality
of personnel records. We welcome the ability to have further
discussions with Congress to meet your needs while balancing
these requirements.
The Department of Veterans Affairs remains steadfast in our
commitment to keep veterans and their families at the center of
everything we do. Thank you all for the opportunity to discuss
the legislation before the committee. We look forward to
working with you and to addressing any questions you may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of John Boerstler Appears In The
Appendix]
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Boerstler.
The written statement of Mr. Boerstler will be entered into
the hearing record. Ms. Westbrooks, you are now recognized for
5 minutes to provide your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOYCELYN WESTBROOKS
Ms. Westbrooks. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking
Member Mrvan, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting AFGE to today's hearing. My name is Joycelyn
Westbrooks and I am the secretary-treasurer for AFGE Local 1633
at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas.
For the past 40 years I have had the honor of serving our
Nation's veterans as a registered nurse at the VA, the Nation's
best healthcare system. On behalf of AFGE and its national VA
council representing over 300,000 VA employees including 75,000
Title 38 employees, I am here today to strongly endorse H.R.
6538, the VA Correct Compensation Act, or VACCA. This
bipartisan bill is also endorsed by our sister unions NFFE,
SEIU, and AFSCME, as well as the nurse anesthetists and our VSO
partners, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans
of America (PVA), and the American Legion.
The legislation will limit the agency's power to deny
grievances challenging routine payroll errors affecting Title
38 clinicians. Since the enactment of 7422 in 1991, the VA has
used this authority to deny grievances related to the
establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee
compensation.
For years, this committee has examined ways to amend 7422
including the VA Employee Fairness Act. I raised this bill
because through spirited debate a census--consensus emerged
that the VA has misused its authority under 7422 to routinely
not pay payroll errors.
Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano have built on that
common ground and crafted a bill that we can enact this
Congress. The fruit of that labor is VACC, a technical
correction to the 7422 statute that defines the compensation
exception in 7422 and explicitly prevents the VA from denying
grievances contesting that a covered employee has received a
correct compensation as required by law, rule, regulation, or
binding agreement.
This commonsense bill will allow employees to file a
grievance and have a fair process to make themselves whole.
Unfortunately, payroll errors are a common problem at the VA.
Too often the VA fails to accurately calculate if a covered
employee worked overtime, the night shift, weekend shift or
holiday. If the affected employee is a Title 38 hybrid, that
employee could easily file a grievance and receive the money
they are owed under the law.
However, if an employee is a pure Title 38 employee the VA
threatens and does invoke 7422 to deny the grievance with the
employee losing the ability to receive the compensation they
are rightfully owed.
In practice that means that an RN does not have the rights
as an Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), an optometrist does not
have the same rights an audiologist, and a psychiatrist does
not have the same rights as psychologist. Beyond this
inequality over 30 years the VA's use of this authority has
discouraged employees from even filing grievances to correct
their pay and that harms retention.
A clear example of this arises from the Asheville, North
Carolina VA where AFGE filed a grievance on behalf of the
nurses claiming the VA failed to pay the nurses night
differential and weekend pay. An arbitrator ruled in favor of
AFGE but the VA refused to pay citing 7422. The undersecretary
for health reaffirmed its use of 7422 denying the grievance.
In 2007 the VA failed to accurately pay for overtime in
Buffalo, New York. The VA chose nurse practitioners to work
eight Saturdays to address a backlog. That year United American
Nurses (UAN) and National Nurses United (NNU) filed a grievance
alleging that management owed the employees Saturday premium
pay in addition to the overtime pay. The VA invoked 7422
denying the grievances.
Beyond these examples I want to share why this bill hits
home for me. My dad was a decorated Army veteran. He passed
away at 52 from cancer. My family and I forever appreciate the
VA for the instrumental part it played in his final days. When
my dad needed more intensive care then could be provided
locally, they VA airlifted him to a regional hospital to
receive that care. Those nurses and doctors who cared for him
are our sheroes and heroes.
Title 38 staff in VA hospitals across America are answering
the call for so many families in meeting the demands and needs
of our veterans. We have a basic responsibility to correctly
compensate these providers as we do other staff. Congress never
intended for 7422 to permit the VA to deny grievance over
routine payroll errors and unlawfully without the compensation
due to its employees.
When I grew up you pay people what they are owed for an
honest day's work. This is not Democratic or Republican, but
American, and not complicated, but common sense. By passing the
VA Correct Compensation Act, Congress can prevent problems and
force the VA to pay Title 38 clinicians what they are owed
under law. Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Joycelyn Westbrooks Appears In
The Appendix]
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Ms. Westbrooks.
The written statement of Ms. Westbrooks will be entered
into the hearing record.
We will now turn to questions and I yielded to Chairwoman
Stefanik 5 minutes.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, for the
opportunity to join the VA committee today for this important
legislative hearing and while I do not serve on this committee,
this hearing as all VA hearings are critical for veterans both
across my district in New York 21, home to the largest number
of veterans in New York State and across this country.
My bill is one of the bills under discussion today and it
addresses a matter that affects all of our Nation's veterans,
the rise of fraud and scams targeting those who have bravely
served our country. The statistics are staggering and we have
worked with many constituents who have faced these frauds and
scams.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), over
74,000 military retirees and veterans reported instances of
fraud or identify theft in 2023 alone, resulting a collective
loss of 350 million hard-earned dollars. These scams came in
various forms including fake debt collectors, credit card
fraud, benefits fraud, and fake job opportunities just to name
a few.
Criminals often exploit veterans trust by impersonating
government officials or representatives of well-known financial
institutions making it difficult for our veterans to discern
the truth from deceit. We must act to better protect our
veterans against these malicious actors.
That is why I introduced the bipartisan Veterans Scam and
Fraud Evasion Act knows as the VSAFE Act. I appreciate those
supportive comments, Mr. Boerstler. This significant bill aims
to permanently establish an office within the VA dedicated to
leading all fraud prevention efforts.
Currently the VA lacks a centralized approach codified in
law to combat fraud with various offices operating in a
decentralized manner. My VSAFE Act bill will rectify this by
providing oversight and coordination of all fraud prevention
efforts within the VA ensuring these activities are coordinated
across the entire department.
My bipartisan bill, H.R. 6452, the VSAFE Act represents a
crucial step toward safeguarding our Nation's veterans from
fraudulent activities by codifying into law a dedicated
organization within the VA and fostering collaboration across
government agencies. We can and we will better protect those
who have sacrificed so much for our country.
I thank the Chair for holding this hearing and I urge my
colleagues to support this bipartisan bill as we work it
through the legislative process through the committee and on
the floor.
My question is for you, Mr. Boerstler. Can you tell me why
the VSAFE Act that I have introduced, why it is important to
have a one stop shop for veterans where they can go to in times
of crisis as they are facing this unprecedented threat of
frauds and scams?
Mr. Boerstler. Well yes, and thank you, Congresswoman, for
your support and for introducing the bill. I think it is
incredibly important and for many different reasons and the
$350 million metric you mentioned a second ago, that is just
what has gone reported. We have no idea how many more millions
have impacted our military, our veterans and----
Ms. Stefanik. Good point.
Mr. Boerstler [continuing]. families. We do need a
centralized effort here not only within the Department of
Veterans Affairs but within the broader Federal landscape
because there are many different agencies that have enforcement
authorities and reporting authorities and we want that one
central phone number for veterans and their families to call,
one website to go to so that they cannot only identify ways to
protect themselves against different scam and fraud efforts but
also report these efforts so that we can track them down and
prevent it from happening to other veterans and families.
Ms. Stefanik. Well thank you. Thank you for your support of
the legislation. I know you have some recommendations from the
VA. We look forward to working with you on some of those
recommendations as we move this process forward. With that I
yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Chairwoman Stefanik. I will now
yield myself 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Boerstler, this question is for you. As a geriatric
nurse practitioner, it was not uncommon for me to hear about
patients and veterans who were targeted by fraudsters and it
was very stressful for these guys. They had a hard time using
computers anyway or using their phones or tablets and when they
were victim to a--either a phone call or something that
appeared on their, on their computer it was very stressful and
often times resulted in the loss of a lot of money and an
invasion of their privacy.
How will the VSAFE office, which I am very excited about
and very supportive of specifically combat fraud against older
veterans and how will you be able to get that message of what
you are offering in that office, you know, to your patients and
to our veterans?
Mr. Boerstler. Well, thank you, Chairwoman, and especially
our elderly veterans and their families are being specifically
targeted by many of these predatory actors and we have
identified many different types of pension poaching or identity
theft or romance schemes that have specifically targeting them.
What we are planning to do and we are already doing is not
only identifying which offices can provide more information to
these individuals but more specifically reach out in the
channels that are available to us via letter, via phone call,
via text message, via email, however we can it in the hands of
our veterans and their caregivers and families.
It is critically important that they know not only as I
mentioned a second ago how to identify these types of scam and
predatory actors and attempts but where to report, to which
Federal agency has which--has jurisdiction and they should not
have to figure that out themselves. We should make it much
easier for them.
I think the VA and having VA.gov especially as a, as a
trusted website that veterans already go to and 1-800-MYVA411
is a trusted number for veterans to call and their families to
call. We want to be that coordination entity and help our
Federal partners in engaging and protecting more veterans.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. A good PR campaign enlisting local
media and let us know how we can help spread that word so they
know that resource is available to them too.
Mr. Boerstler. Thank you.
Ms. Kiggans. For me living in the Commonwealth of Virginia
and representing Virginia Beach, we have so much great history
especially in the Commonwealth and I am a history buff. I am
also the wife of an Ohio Navy veteran, so I am very excited the
VA is planning to preserve our Nation's history in Ohio. Mr.
Boerstler, how does the VA's history office plan to collect and
preserve artifacts?
Mr. Boerstler. We are--we have done a tremendous amount in
the past many years of collecting and preserving artifacts and
I think we have bolstered those efforts with the VA history
office in particular by hiring folks that have these specific
skillsets and to really bring it up to par to other Federal
agencies and their permanent, permanent history offices.
I think the fact that the museum itself will be eventually
located on campus at the Dayton, Ohio VA Medical Center, and
it, throughout its history is one of the National Old Soldiers
homes is incredibly important and so the--Mike Visconage and
the VA History Office team has already done a great job to
collect and identify these artifacts.
More importantly preserve them for future generations of
not only veterans but Americans and I think and it cannot be
understated how important this is for employee experience, for
us as VA employees and the many, many hundreds of thousands who
serve our veterans and families can see themselves reflected in
this effort.
Ms. Kiggans. Very much so. When I worked at the VA hospital
in Hampton, Virginia for a short time I remember on my
lunchbreak I would go to the front to--we had a very old part
of the hospital was a Civil War hospital and they had a very
small, just a museum but it was fascinating to see the pictures
and to recognize the different parts of the hospital that were
still there and to have that history preserved. Thank you very
much for preserving that for us.
Mrs. Therit, as chairwoman of the subcommittee I witnessed
instances where VA employees have prioritized politics over
serving our veterans. How is the Department making sure that
political appointees annual performance plans keep them
accountable to the veterans they serve and keeps hyper
partisanship out of serving our veterans?
Ms. Therit. Chairwoman Kiggans, thank you for that
question. VA looks forward to working with the committee on the
political performance plan bill and making sure that we
strengthen the bill to ensure that it reflects the work that we
are doing to make sure political appointees as well as career
senior executives are held to the same performance standards.
Currently we have 38 USC 725. In that bill we are required
to make sure that our Schedule C appointees as well as our
political appointees are on performance plans. We use an
enterprise-wide performance management Information Technology
(IT) system to track those plans, to track the evaluations that
our careers and our politicals receive.
We are also under OPM regulations, the Office of Personnel
Management to have a certified performance management system
that meets all the criteria for General Schedule (GS) as well
as political appointees. We have a lot of internal controls in
place.
We are making sure that political appointees are held to
the same standards as our career employees. You have two
examples sitting in front of you. Mr. Boerstler is a non-career
Senior Executive Service (SES). I am a career SES.
We go through the same process. Our plans, our end of year
appraisals go to a performance review board and then they go to
the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs for
approval. We have internal controls. We follow the guidance
from the Office of Personnel Management to make sure that those
processes are in place and that they are fair and equitable and
everybody is being held accountable.
Our concern with the bill as drafted--and we welcome the
opportunity to discuss these concerns--is the exclusive focus
on political appointees. We want to be able to balance the need
for accountability with the need for protecting the
confidentiality of these personnel records that are private and
sensitive in nature.
We look forward to working with the committee to ensure
that the intent and the goals that you have whether through
data, through reports or other mechanisms are met by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you for comments. My time has expired
and I now yield to Ranking Member Mrvan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairwoman. Ms. Therit or Mr. Perry,
thank you for your testimony on the VA Correct Compensation Act
ensuring VA Title 38 employees have access to the same
collective bargaining rights as their hybrid VA other Federal
agency employee peers is a priority for me.
VA's testimony states that you are actively focused on
correctly paying employees and plan to seek input from labor
partners on a new internal process.
Can you please describe what this internal process will be
and how it will be different or it will differ from the current
grievance procedure for hybrid employees?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Representative Mrvan for that
question. The internal process that we are referring to would
be a new process to establish a review to allow us to address
errors when they do occur.
Title 38 as you mentioned is covered currently under 7422,
which does not have that ability now. This process would be a
joint effort that increases the transparency so when errors do
occur that are pay impacting we have that review process that
gets adjudicated to ensure that those corrections do occur.
Title 38 hybrids do cover--or fall under the GS or the
general schedule provisions now so they do have the ability to
grieve errors which is different than what the Title 38
employees currently have. This internal process seeks to
address that to give more parity along with fixing errors when
they do arise.
Mr. Mrvan. How does the VA position on the VA Correct
Compensation Act square with the statement of the
administration policy issued by President Biden in 2022 in
support of the VA Employees Fairness Act?
Mr. Perry. I think our position on that bill is again, we
seek for the same goal. We do want to make sure that we do not
allow errors to occur and when they do we get those fixed
promptly.
I think the legislation that we are seeing--that we have in
front of this draft we support the intent, like I mentioned,
but we do need some modifications and want to work with the
committee on those modifications.
As written now it actually allows for the negotiability and
grievance of pay setting and pay change, so when we make
changes to rates of pay. That is different than when errors
occur and so that is what we want to work with the committee on
to get those modifications addressed so we can get to the
intent of what this legislation is seeking to fix which is the
pay errors that need to be corrected.
Mr. Mrvan. Just off the cuff, the new process in what you--
what you are speaking of, nurses who are working overtime who
are not paid, what does that mean to them as far as the
timeline, even though you have this new process and you use
term promptly, what should they be looking at as far as when
that will be corrected and when they will actually get paid?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, and I think that is where we are
looking to work collaboratively with our labor partners to
establish what those timelines should be so that it is done
expeditiously. I think we want to get them fixed as quickly as
possible.
As Ms. Westbrooks had testified to, we absolutely know that
employees deserve to be paid and compensated for the work they
have done and so we want to work collaboratively to set up what
that timeframe should be to get to the resolution of pay
errors.
Mr. Mrvan. Okay. Ms. Westbrooks.
Ms. Westbrooks. Yes.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you again for being here today and for
your tireless commitment to caring for our Nation's veterans as
the VA nurse.
In recent congresses this committee has taken up pieces of
legislation that would ensure key bargaining rights to the
Title 38 VA medical staff. Some members of this committee have
argued that providing these rights would affect patient care.
However, I am glad that many of us on both sides of the aisle
agree that the VA medical professionals deserve the pay that
they have earned.
Can you describe the impact the VA Correct Compensation Act
will have on the VA's ability to recruit and retain the best
workforce to care for our Nation's veterans and does this issue
matter to your membership?
Ms. Westbrooks. Thank you Ranking Member for that question,
Mrvan, thank you so much. Yes, actually this is very important
to our clinicians, our Title 38 at our VAs. I understand what
you are saying about another process, but we are asking that
the process be the process that is already in place for the
hybrid Title 38s.
I have nurses that onboard, physicians, physician
assistants that onboard with the wrong salaries, with--they do
not get their--the nurses they do not get their differentials,
their holiday pay, their weekend pay and presently they do not
have the ability to grieve these instances as the hybrid Title
38s.
Unfortunately, some will stay. We try to work with the
agency to work through them. The process can be sometimes a
year or 2 years getting settled because nurses, doctors,
physician assistants, hybrid practice, podiatrists, they have
many, many choices. A lot of times they will not stay.
This is what I say. I have been with the VA a long time and
I believe in its mission but if we say that we want to take
care of America's heroes then we have to retain the best and
the brightest.
You will never pay them what they are worth. There is no
salary. They should be paid what they are due. They should be
paid what is--what we say that we owe them and they should not
have to fight about it.
I understand about doing things expeditiously but that does
not happen unfortunately. We lose wonderful staff because of it
and I have seen it over these 40 years time and time again.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Ms. Westbrooks. With that I yield
back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. The chair now yields 5
minutes to Representative Rosendale.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kiggans for
holding this hearing. During the 118th Congress in my role as
the chairman of the Technology Modernization subcommittee, we
have had two hearings on the problems with VA.gov. They were
major problems and we have had to shed light on the negative
impacts they have caused for our veterans
In January 2023, the VA notified the Veterans Affairs
Committee that roughly 31,000 veterans had been identified
whose disability compensation claims submitted to the VA.gov
were rejected due to processing errors going back to November
2018.
Worse yet the website did not notify the veterans of their
failed submissions leaving them in them in the dark about not
receiving their benefits. It is actually quite disappointing
that the veterans would wait so long, months, 6 months, a year,
not even recognizing that their benefits had not been
registered for because they are so conditioned to having these
delays to receive any kind of information, communication, or
benefit from the VA. Think about that. That is how conditioned
that the veterans have become. That is disappointing.
During the week of August 7, 2023, approximately 5,600
veterans received an error message on VA.gov that their
submissions did not go through. This was the last week for the
veterans to submit intents to file under the The Sergeant First
Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address
Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act that we had a lot of discussion
about earlier today. Upon learning of this I immediately worked
with Secretary McDonough to move back the deadline a week
allowing more veterans to get the retroactive benefits that
they deserve.
On September 5, the VA disclosed that roughly 56,000
veterans request to add or remove dependents were not processed
potentially causing them to be underpaid or overpaid going back
to 2011, causing major problems in either direction.
These errors by the VA are unacceptable and have caused a
lot of stress to veterans and their families. Our veterans
should not be having difficulty accessing benefits that they
have earned because of failures by VA.gov.
My bill H.R. 6874, the Watching Over Electronic Benefits
Act, would address these problems by requiring the VA to
implement a process to actively monitor the VA.gov website for
any adverse events that would impact the facilitation,
maintenance, or receipt of the VA benefits. The legislation
would ensure that the errors are identified and improve
Congress's ability to conduct proper oversight.
Additionally, my legislation would require a testing
strategy by the VA to reduce the number of adverse events that
happen by improving testing for each modification or software
update to anything that might impact the facilitation,
maintenance, or receipt of the benefits. This would get to the
crux of the issue by preventing problems before they occur and
create the potential harm for our veterans. We owe it to our
Nation's heroes to have the VA.gov website that is easy to use
and mistake free.
Mr. Worthington, it is good to see you again here today. I
am glad the VA supports the intention of my bill and I am
willing to work with you to refine the definitions and refine
these timeframes to make sure that we can find something that
actually works.
The testimony provided by the VA states in part, the
Department has many performance accountability mechanisms in
place but we still have a lot of errors that are going on. Do
you think the current mechanisms are adequate or is there room
for improvement helping us to reduce these errors which deny
the benefits delivery?
Mr. Worthington. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
As you know we definitely agree with you that the errors
encountered earlier this year are unacceptable and we are
working hard to make sure that nothing like that would happen
again.
I think that the--we would love to work together on
refining those definitions. I think that the ability to
identify problems is much stronger than it was earlier this
year in part thanks to the oversight work that you all did with
us. I think that the main, as you mentioned, the main concerns
we want to work through with you are refining those reporting
requirements so that we are really focusing our teams on those
most important issues that are really impacting veterans as
they were by those earlier incidents.
Mr. Rosendale. Okay. Again definitions to me are critical.
In any kind of legislation that we develop at all, it really
needs to be, to be a very objective and refined to the point
that everybody understands that they are talking about the same
thing and the timeframes again I am willing to work with.
Identifying a problem, this timeframe should be very, very
short. Notifications should be very, very short and then
response, we have to, have to work on. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. The chair now yields
5 minutes to Representative Landsman.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this hearing and
the opportunity to participate. I want to thank my neighbor and
colleague, Representative Mike Turner, who represents the
future VA history center in Dayton. He introduced this
legislation on the House side. He has done a lot of work as you
all know in securing the funding and private sector support to
allow the project to succeed.
I just wanted to say a few words on behalf of the bill. I
also want to thank Senator Sherod Brown for taking the lead on
the Senate side along with Senator Vance and for always keeping
us organized and working together for Ohio.
The Dayton VA is one of three historic VAs in the country.
It was one of the branches of the National Home for Disabled
Veteran Soldiers and is older than the VA itself, the
Department of VA. In fact, several of the buildings were
actually built by Union war veterans who lived there after the
war.
Today the facility serves thousands of veterans on its
unique campus including many of my constituents in Warren
County. Many additional constituents of mine travel from the
district to work at the Dayton VA campus.
Once completed the history center will house a VA museum,
event center, education center, archives, and research
facility.
The VA Centennial and Heritage Act would ensure that VA
employees, veterans and their families have access to Southwest
Ohio's rich history with the VA for years to come. It is a
bipartisan, bicameral bill and it would establish a veterans
affairs history office within the VA to coordinate and build
ongoing--this ongoing effort.
The bill gives the secretary of the VA also--it also gives
the secretary of the VA the authority to accept gifts and
donations and work with nonprofits to help fund the office and
carry out its mission.
It is my hope that the VA history center will help educate
Americans on the history of the VA and remind them of the
importance of delivering for those who have served our country.
I also hope that the centralized archives will serve as a
helpful resource for veterans and those who have loved ones who
served and have enrolled in the VA system.
Ultimately we believe that this will help increase
awareness of VA programs and benefits and will help bring more
and more VA--veterans into the VA family and being the VA
closer to communities and with that I just want to say thank
you again, Madam Chair and I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Landsman. The chair now
recognizes Representative Franklin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My bill H.R. 7734,
requires transparency in how the VA records disciplinary action
against retiring or resigning personnel under investigation for
inappropriate behavior. Specifically, it directs the VA to make
permanent notation of any investigation and its findings in the
permanent record of employees.
This is especially important in cases involving staff who
resign or retire to avoid scrutiny or evade repercussions. In
2016, House Veterans Committee hearing, this panel discussed a
troubling recurring practice at the VA. The VA often enters
settlement agreements with resigning employees or those under
review for disciplinary actions instead of following
established procedures through completion.
Between 2014 and 2016, the committee reviewed more than 200
settlements provided by the VA of personnel who resigned while
under investigation. Shockingly in 96 percent of these
settlements, the disciplinary action proposed or taken against
the employee did not appear anywhere in their permanent record
form.
More recently in September 2023, my colleagues and I
learned of allegations of sexual misconduct at the VA by
credible whistleblowers who did not trust the VA's internal
investigations process. On November 13, 45 days after the
committee initially contacted Secretary McDonough about these
allegations, the alleged perpetrator and staff believe to have
knowledge of the incidents were either reassigned by the VA or
allowed to retire. That is unacceptable.
The VA staff should never be allowed to hide behind
settlement agreements, resign or retire to evade accountability
for their misconduct. I fully believe in due process but the VA
is not exercising due process. Cutting deals sweeps potential
wrongdoing under the rug. Our veterans and all Americans
certainly deserve better than that and I urge colleagues to
support my bill to close this loophole and hold VA personnel
accountable. Thank you, Madam Chair and I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Representative Franklin. The chair
now yields 5 minutes to Representative Radewagen.
Ms. Radewagen. Talofa, thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, and
Ranking Member Mrvan for holding this hearing. Thank you to the
panel for your testimony.
Ms. Westbrooks, what challenges and problems do you hear
from your members about the management style of their
supervisors? Do you believe the workplace culture is dependent
on good leaders?
Ms. Westbrooks. Thank you for that question. Some of the
challenges that we face with supervisors and managers is that
we need to do more joint trainings, more partnerships so that
everybody understands the master agreement, we are all in
congruency with how things are supposed to go because that
makes for a better working atmosphere.
At the end of the day, AFGE as well as the agency wants the
veteran to have the best experience that they can have. I
believe that we have the same mission but a lot of times we get
supervisors that are not trained, that do not know anything
about the procedures and policies of the VA or the master
agreement and so it creates an atmosphere that does not have to
exist because we are on the same page, if we can stay on the
same page. Sometimes they do not know where the page is and so
that is where we come into play.
I--at Houston I can tell you though our leadership, they
are partners with us. We have a partnership across the board
and then we even have a nursing partnership there. We are very
proactive but that is not the case across the Nation. I think a
lot of times we get a lot done.
Houston is large. We are complex. We understand, you know,
that there are going to be issues but we also want to come to
the table to resolve the issues at the lowest level possible
and to make sure that the veteran is always the center of what
we do. That is what I tell the staff. We are going to always do
what is best for that patient.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you. Ms. Therit, does VA often suspend
an investigation when the subject of that investigation resigns
or retires? Mr. Franklin talked about that a little bit.
Ms. Therit. Representative Radewagen, VA supports the bill
on annotating personnel records when an individual is under--
during a personnel investigation. We currently are looking at
ways that we can work with the committee to strengthen the bill
as well as to look at the legislation, regulations, and statute
that is currently on the books.
We mention 5 USC 3322. That is currently in place and how
that works is that when an individual resigns during a pending
investigation as defined in the legislation an annotation is
made in their record.
We also have mechanisms that the Office of Personnel
Management has given us to the question that you mentioned
about suspensions. If a suspension or a removal is proposed
there are ways that an individual's record can be coded with an
lieu of involuntary action coding.
When we look at the bill as it is written we want to make
sure that we clarify the intent and understand how it compares
to things that we already have in place or how it adds to those
things that we have in place.
Some of the ways in which we would identify strengthening
the current bill are making sure that it covers hybrid Title 38
employees, making sure that it covers senior executives as
written. We also acknowledged that I think as written it covers
resignations. We also want it to reflect retirements and
transfers between Federal agencies.
Ms. Radewagen. Right.
Ms. Therit. And the due process provisions that are in 5
USC 3322 as well.
We also want to make sure that we are clear in terms of
what personnel investigations would fall under the legislation
so that we can comply and we can meet the intent of the law
with the resources that are needed to be able to do that.
Ms. Radewagen. If ongoing investigations are not annotated
in an employee's permanent file is not there a risk that the
employee could come back to VA or another Federal agency a few
years after they have resigned or retired?
Ms. Therit. I know as a hiring manager I would want to know
that information as I am considering someone for a position. I
think the key is to be able to understand as Representative
Rosendale mentioned earlier, what is the definition of a
personnel investigation? What is the expectation of the VA in
annotating that record either during the investigation or after
an adverse action has been proposed or after somebody leaves
the agency, so I think seeking clarification so that we are
clear in the law as written and that we can meet those
expectations that you and the other members of the committee
have.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mrs. Radewagen. The chair now
recognizes Representative Valadao for 5 minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member
Mrvan and all members of the subcommittee for your time today.
Our veterans sacrifice so much for our Nation and we owe it
to them to provide the highest quality of care. Sadly, many of
our disabled veterans in my district and across the country are
facing barriers in accessing the critical services they need.
From struggling with physical infrastructure at VA
facilities to navigating the red tape in the benefits process,
disabled veterans are getting left behind. Doorways are too
narrow, elevators that are constantly out of service and exam
rooms that are not big enough to accommodate wheelchairs are
just a few of the obstacles veterans face when trying to
receive care.
Serving disabled veterans is a critical part of the VA's
mission but they need to do more to ensure unique needs of
disabled veterans are being heard. By establishing a permanent
advisory committee within the VA, this bill ensures disabled
veterans have a seat at the table in providing feedback so they
can easily access the benefits, services, and facilities they
have earned.
We cannot leave our disabled veterans behind. I urge all
members of this committee to support this legislation. Thank
you.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Valadao. The panel is now
excused from the witness table and let us see, thank you again
to our witnesses for being here today. I ask unanimous consent
that all members shall have 5 legislative days in which to
revised and extend their remarks and include any extraneous
materials. Hearing no objections so ordered, this hearing is
now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of John Boerstler
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss pending legislation affecting a wide
variety of administrations and program offices at the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). Accompanying me today are Ms. Tracey Therit,
Chief Human Capital Officer, Human Resources and Administration/
Operations, Security, and Preparedness; Mr. David Perry, Chief Officer,
Workforce Management and Consulting, Veterans Health Administration;
and Mr. Charles Worthington, Chief Technology Officer, Office of
Information and Technology.
H.R. 6452 - Veterans Scam and Fraud Evasion (VSAFE) Act
H.R. 6452 would establish a Fraud Evasion Officer within the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This position would be responsible for
scam and fraud prevention, reporting, and incident response plans at
the Department.
VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to the availability
of appropriations.
VSAFE has existed as a cross-enterprise project team since January
2023. At that time, it was recognized that there are a number of
offices all doing great work in the Veteran targeted fraud space.
However, there was opportunity for coordination of efforts, cross-
pollination, and partnered response both within VA and in conjunction
with Federal, State, local, tribal and community partners.
Examples of this work include robust consumer protection outreach
efforts in all formats by the Veterans Benefits Administration, the
Veterans Health Administration, Office of Technology, and Office of the
Inspector General. This includes electronic media, print media,
targeted outreach events, sharing of resources with community partners
to get the word out, and a dedicated call center for reporting. Larger
outreach campaigns, conducted nationwide and in concert with our
partners, can reach up to 31 million Veterans.
VA fraud protection and response groups also engage in advanced
detection capabilities and proactive response wherever possible. A good
example of proactive response comes from the Veterans Benefits
Administration, which sent email notifications via GovDelivery to
587,720 Veterans within 24 hours of a change being made to their direct
deposit banking information in Fiscal Year 2023. Such alerts tell
Veterans what to do if they did not make these changes. They also
investigated 12,474 referrals for potential benefits fraud and provided
one-on-one remediation support for payment redirect fraud to 1,164
victims, protecting $847,494 of Veterans benefits from being stolen by
fraudsters through prevention or recovery (returned by Treasury from
the fraudulent bank account).
The same is true for our fellow VSAFE Federal partners, to include
the Department of Education, Department of Justice, Department of
Defense, Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service,
Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ongoing conversations and
partnering have resulted in simplifying navigation for Veterans and
their families as well as creation of the ``no wrong door approach''.
The goal has been to amplify the efficacy of outreach, detection, and
shared response to Veteran targeting attempts by ``bad actors.''
Several prime examples include the most recent socialization of the
combined tool kit resource, several jointly developed one-page consumer
protection fliers, and jointly released blogs. These materials were
force multiplied by sharing them with over 400 community partners,
through the same channels just mentioned, and with Federal and
community partners. Ongoing collaborative work will continue to hone
this ``no wrong door'' and ``easy to find'' front door for Veterans and
their families to find the information and support they need to
recognize predatory activity, to protect themselves, and to get help
when, where, and how they need it.
While VA appreciates H.R. 6452 and its codification of a permanent
Veteran Scam and Fraud Evasion or ``VSAFE'' program office function, VA
seeks to further expand the language to increase the success of the
program office and would support the bill if amended as described
below.
The recommendations are based in the foundational tenets of VSAFE,
which are to simplify and coordinate the navigation of resources, and
to enhance backstage partnership for detection and response regarding
Veteran targeted predatory activity. It is recognized in all sectors
that fraud is continually evolving and is more prevalent than ever. It
is critical for organizations like VA to act as force multipliers to
effectively fortify Veterans, their families, and caregivers against
such predation. With that in mind, VA suggests the following revisions:
VA recommends that the bill require the Fraud Evasion
Officer to report to the Chief Veterans Experience Officer within the
Veterans Experience Office. This placement would ensure appropriate
prioritization of coordinated and unified fraud prevention and response
internal and external to VA. Furthermore, the position would support
partnership engagement to increase access, build trust, and participate
in conversation at the appropriate high-level decisional tables needed
for the program to effectively carry out initiatives across VA,
including setting strategy, framework, policy, and other guidance for
the Department.
VA recommends that the Fraud Evasion Officer lead the
recent VA-established VSAFE Program, which also resides within the
Veteran Experience Office. This program was formally established as a
permanent program by VA leadership on December 19, 2023.
VA recommends that, in Section 2, the Veterans Scam and
Fraud Evasion Officer work with all VA offices to effectively
coordinate and disseminate Veteran fraud prevention messaging and
resources.
VA recommends that, in Section 5, the Veterans Scam and
Fraud Evasion Officer develop comprehensive curriculum and training
materials for Department employees. In VA we feel that it is all
employees' responsibility to be able to recognize potential
vulnerability factors, to actively monitor for any predatory activity,
and to know when, how, and where to connect Veterans, their families,
and caregivers with appropriate and correct support resources.
VA recommends that, in Section 7, Tribal governments be
included among the list of non-Federal Governments as valued partners.
VA does not believe the authorization for only one person
to serve the function of the VSAFE office will be sufficient; instead,
we recommend that, in Section 7(c), up to and no more than five (5)
full-time employees be authorized to successfully manage the VSAFE
operations in VA and across partnering Federal agencies. Given the
number of partners involved and the need to develop strong
collaboration as well as backstage intervention strategies, a
significant investment of time, attention, and expertise will be
required. While a single officer may have significant expertise, a team
will be needed to be able to forge the deep partnerships, insights, and
robust communications necessary for the success of this program.
Costs associated with H.R. 6452 - to cover salaries, administrative
contract costs, travel, Government-furnished equipment, and
miscellaneous expenses - are estimated to be $1.2 million in the first
year, $6.1 million over 5 years, and $12.2 million over 10 years.
H.R. 6531 - Training Responsible and Informed National (TRAIN) VA
Employees Act
H.R. 6531 would require VA to develop a training program after
consulting with heads of at least three other Federal Departments and
agencies, including the Department of Defense, and requires all
supervisors to complete the training no later than 18 months after
enactment. The bill also requires VA to develop a refresher training
program that supervisors would complete every 2 years. The bill
requires the training be delivered by an instructor and in-person. The
training shall focus on performance management, mentoring and
engagement and managing misconduct and poor performance, addressing
harassment, collaborating with human resources on hiring and
recognition, and the overall duties and responsibilities of a
supervisor.
VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to appropriations.
VA takes seriously the responsibility to develop supervisors and
leaders to manage the workforce to best care for our Veterans. In
alignment with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' priorities to invest
in our workforce and retain the best talent in the marketplace, VA
offers an array of training and development opportunities, including
mandatory supervisor training. VA requires all new supervisors to
complete 7 hours of training that focuses on many of the subjects
covered in this bill (``Super U for New Supervisors'') supplemented by
learning opportunities on a collaborative learning site for
supervisors. There are segments that are asynchronous and self-paced
online, a virtual instructor-led segment, and training that ends with a
week of instruction for an in-person segment. VA also requires
supervisors to complete refresher training every 4 years (``Supervisor
Manager Refresher Training''). The training is delivered online and
tracked in VA's Talent Management System to ensure compliance. The
training satisfies the Office of Personnel Management's new supervisor
requirements and complies with Federal mandates (5 C.F.R. Sec.
412.202).
VA supports continuing to require that supervisors complete
training within 12 months of appointment to a supervisory position and
can modify the requirement for refresher training from every 4 to every
2 years consistent with this bill. As a standard practice in developing
training, VA benchmarks with other agencies to research/share best
practices, training models, and related information. In evaluating the
training VA will benchmark with other Federal agencies and industry to
ensure this training aligns with these findings as is practicable.
VA supports the position that investing in developing our
supervisors is critical to the organization's mission, as outlined in
VA Handbook 5015, Employee Learning and Professional Development, and
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1052, Appropriate and
Effective Use of VHA Employee Mandatory and Required Training. VA
requests that continued flexibility in our methods of delivery be
maintained (particularly for the refresher training requirement). The
funding needed to meet the requirements as stated in the bill would be
excessive and place an undue burden on the administration if enacted.
VA further suggests strengthening legislation in this area around
reporting, benchmarking, and evaluation. VA can provide the Committee
with suggested language for Sections 2(a), (b) and (e) to clarify and
strengthen these requirements but allow VA the flexibility to
implement.
If VA is required to change the delivery of current new supervisor
and refresher training from online to in-person, appropriations would
be needed to cover the costs of salaries, benefits, and travel to
deliver the training to VA's more than 50,000 supervisors nationwide.
In the absence of the appropriations to deliver in-person training, VA
would propose that a test-out option be made available in place of the
full refresher training.
VA estimates the mandatory costs for H.R. 6531 of $4.7 million in
the first year, $27.4 million over 5 years, and $64.4 million over 10
years. In order to limit the travel associated with each participant,
these costs are based on the use of decentralized teams of instructors
who would deploy regionally, conducting training 48 weeks each fiscal
year. There would be 4 teams comprised of a Senior Training Specialist
and 2 Junior Training Specialists, with each team conducting 3 classes
of up to 100 participants per week. There are no discretionary costs
associated with the bill.
H.R. 6538 - VA Correct Compensation Act of 2023
Under current law in section 7422(b) of title 38, collective
bargaining (and any grievance procedures provided under a collective
bargaining agreement) for certain employees described in section
7421(b) may not apply to any matter concerning or arising out of the
``establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee
compensation'' under title 38. H.R. 6538 would amend section 7422 to
provide for a definition of ``establishment, determination, or
adjustment of employee compensation''. Currently, that phrase is
understood to include all kinds of compensation decisions, including
the initial setting of rates of pay, the determination of awards,
adjustment of compensation such as physician market pay reviews , and
other compensation determinations.. The proposed definition would be
limited to the setting of a rate of pay as required by applicable law,
rule, or regulation. The proposed definition would further specify that
the term would not include a grievance challenging whether an employee
described in section 7421(b) of title 38 has received ``the correct
compensation as required by law, rule, regulation, or binding
agreement.''
VA cites concerns with the bill and suggests replacing the proposed
text with a requirement to establish an internal process through which
title 38 employees can challenge compensation errors in violation of
law, rule, regulation, and policy. This new internal process would
provide an enforcement mechanism for compensation errors for title 38
medical professional employees while preserving VA's statutory
authority for compensation decision-making.
VA is fully invested in paying all of its employees timely and
accurately and demonstrates this commitment by the fact that it is
currently developing an internal process for title 38 medical
professional employees to utilize when they believe they have not been
paid correctly, in violation of law, rule, regulation, or policy. VA
takes proactive steps analyzing data from our human resources (HR)
system to identify systematic data issues which could cause employee
pay errors. We also have quality review and auditing processes at the
national and servicing HR level to proactively find data issues which
may cause employee pay errors. When there are compensation errors that
are brought forward to HR and leaders, we work to correct these errors
and prevent future occurrence. Finally, it should be noted that title
38 employees have access to other enforcement processes such as FLSA
claims.
The proposed modification of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7422 would have far-
reaching, negative consequences on VA's ability to adjust clinicians'
salaries in response to market conditions at the appropriate speed. In
an ultra-competitive health care market, VA needs to retain the ability
to be flexible and maintain independence to compete for top-level
talent in direct patient care positions while operating in the current
VA policy framework for title 38 compensation. The proposed definition
of exclusions from collective bargaining for title 38 medical
professional employees is limited to setting a rate of pay for an
employee pay. Given the limited definition, this bill would, therefore,
result in VA being required to bargain over the ``determination'' and
``adjustment'' of title 38 medical professional employee compensation
which would make decisions of management discretion in compensation--
such as the bi-annual salary adjustment amount for a physician--
negotiable and likely place such decisions in front of external impasse
panel members and arbitrators. Currently, the bi-annual salary review
process relies on prescribed salary ranges based on provider
specialties and takes into account individual provider skills and
market factors. This change could result in all facets of this process,
to include salary ranges, being negotiable. It would also allow unions
and employees to grieve their compensation, as well as management's
decisions concerning employee compensation, which is not linked to
setting a rate of pay for an employee as required by law, rule, or
regulation. This is problematic because this would give title 38
employees more rights than are currently provided for title 5 employees
within VA. Unlike title 5 pay setting, title 38 pay setting is not
standardized - and not specifically governed by law, rule, or
regulation - in order to provide flexibility given the varying market
conditions and skill levels of title 38 medical professionals. The
flexibility within the current statutory framework also addresses the
individual circumstances of a medical center and the healthcare field
generally. Additionally, the phrase ``rate of pay'' could be
interpreted to solely mean an employee's rate of basic pay--which would
significantly expand topics for negotiation and grievances.
Consequently, the proposed definition would require bargaining and
allow for grievances over myriad pay setting and compensation decisions
for title 38 employees that are not specifically governed by law like
title 5. For instance, when a physician is brought on board, the
initial salary is set considering rates paid in the local labor market
to the same specialty, rates paid internally to the same specialty,
board certifications the provider may hold, and any additional skills
that will be utilized in position. Holistic compensation reviews, like
those undertaken under title 38, do not have rigid outcomes. The
specific framework of laws, rules and regulations in title 5 is
replaced with analysis flexible enough to meet the varying
circumstances of medical centers across the country. Because of this
approach to title 38 compensation, the definitions in the associated
bill do not specifically address the underlying premise of the bill -
namely, compensation errors for title 38 employees.
Moreover, limiting the proposed definition of ``establishment,
determination, or adjustment of employee compensation'' to pay-setting
situations limits the bargaining and grievance exclusion for
compensation matters to situations where VA is solely establishing or
setting pay for title 38 medical professionals and does not address the
clear current statutory exclusion of the ``determination'' and
``adjustment'' of title 38 medical professional ``compensation'' from
bargaining and the negotiated grievance process in 38 U.S.C. Sec.
7422(b)(3). After the initial onboarding of an employee, decisions to
adjust and determine title 38 employee compensation are performed on a
regular basis when determining promotions, awards, schedule
adjustments, and numerous other management decisions under title 38.
Implementing the proposed definition of compensation as drafted would
require VA to bargain and engage in the negotiated grievance process
over tens of thousands of routine compensation decisions. These
provisions would impact the compensation strategy development and
delivery across title 38 market-based pay systems. They could result in
grievances that then go to arbitration regarding each of the
approximately 31,000 compensation reviews conducted at least biannually
for physicians and the approximately 6,000 Title 38 Locality Pay
schedules reviewed annually.
In addition to decreasing and correcting pay errors, VA is
committed to proactively managing pay for title 38 employees. The James
M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
requires Medical Center Directors to ensure competitive compensation
for nurses and physicians assistants. Competitive pay reviews for all
remaining title 38 occupations have been proactively directed through
VHA's Hire Faster and More Competitively initiatives. We have also
invested in additional technology and are actively working on the
development of a compensation analytics module within our personnel
system to assist approving officials in ensuring vital health care
staff are compensated commensurate with market trends. Last year, VA
invested in improvements to our personnel systems to automate the pay
schedule development, approval, and processing timeframes for title 38
locality pay schedules. This allowed VA to reduce the wait time for
employees to see pay increases in their checks from 4 months down to 2-
3 weeks. We have concerns that adding additional process steps will
further delay employees from receiving appropriate compensation.
VA is actively focused on correctly paying employees and will seek
input from its labor partners on an internal process being developed
for title 38 medical professional employee compensation claims
resulting from law, rule, regulation, or policy violations. This new
internal process will provide transparent accountability and an
enforcement mechanism for compensation errors for title 38 medical
professional employees while preserving VA's interest in keeping our
statutory authority for compensation decision-making, which includes
the establishment and the determination and adjustment of employee pay.
It would also provide trackable metrics for complaints and outcomes and
allow VA to take a proactive approach to solving recurring issues. For
instance, this process will cover situations such as a nurse not being
paid time and a half overtime per the statutory requirement found at 38
U.S.C. Sec. 7459. It will also cover a nurse being paid incorrect
night differential per policy or any loss of pay resulting from an
untimely promotion for a nurse. These employees would be able to submit
a claim to correct these pay issues through this new process that VA is
currently developing.
VA believes that the internal process will meet the proposed
legislative intent in creating a transparent accountability and claims
process for our title 38 employees when they encounter compensation
errors. Therefore, VA recommends an amendment to the proposed
legislation which requires VA to establish an internal process for
employees to pursue allegations of compensation errors in violation of
law, rule, regulation or policy, outside of the scope of collective
bargaining.
VA cannot project the cost impact due to the complexity of
potential complaints and uncertainty regarding the frequency and
required review time. VA would establish and implement the process at
national, regional, and local levels, but VA does not currently track
the data for title 38 employees that would be required to develop a
cost estimate.
H.R. 6874 - Department of Veterans Affairs Watching Over Electronic
Benefits (VA WEB) Act
H.R. 6874 would require VA to ensure the collection of select
information about the use of VA's main website, provide notice to
Congress within 30 days of a significant adverse event involving the
website, and provide a detailed report to Congress within 30 days of a
request about any adverse event. It would also require VA to provide
Congress with a comprehensive testing strategy for all systems that
support the website.
We have a number of concerns about this bill. VA supports the
intent of this bill to ensure that Congress is timely informed of
significant Veteran-impacting adverse events that occur on VA's main
website. With that purpose in mind, the Department has many performance
accountability mechanisms in place, and the types of system monitoring
required by this bill are a natural part of software development.
However, VA cites concerns with several specific elements of the bill.
As written, the definition of ``adverse event'' in Sec. 2(f)(1) may
be overly broad and include events which do not have a negative impact
on Veterans' use of a covered feature. For example, insufficient
storage in a system component does not necessarily negatively impact
Veterans' use of a covered feature if appropriate system redundancy
measures are put in place. To ensure VA focuses its effort on Veteran-
impacting events, we recommend amending the definition of ``adverse
event'' to ``(1) The term ``adverse event'' means, with respect to the
covered website, Veteran-impacting issues with covered features, such
as--''.
The definitional threshold for ``adverse event'' provided in
section 2(f) of the bill could be implicated if a single Veteran
encountered an issue and, upon request, would require a detailed report
to be provided. By defining an adverse event in this manner, incident
reporting would be magnified and would likely encompass matters not
generally intended to be considered ``adverse'' in terms of overall
impact.
In section 2(c)(1), the bill requires VA to provide notice to
Congress of any significant adverse event within 30 days of the event's
occurrence. However, in some cases it may not be possible to comply
with this requirement as a significant adverse event may not be
discovered until more than 30 days after its occurrence. It would be
more effective to align the reporting requirement to the discovery of a
significant adverse event, rather than an occurrence. In addition, 30
days will often be insufficient time to determine the scope of any
adverse event, determine if it meets the notice thresholds set in this
bill, and draft and approve the appropriate notice to Congress. We
believe 60 days would allow VA to accurately identify, analyze, and
prepare notice for significant adverse events.
In section 2(c)(2), the bill requires VA to provide a report to
Congress on any adverse event within 30 days of request by Congress. It
can take more than 30 days to gather the kinds of information required
in this section, and this is more likely to be the case for instances
of adverse events that did not trigger the significant adverse event
notice requirement under section 2(c)(1). VA believes that 90 days
would be a more achievable timeframe to respond to these requests.
VA notes that the definition of ``significant adverse event''
provided in section 2(f) of the bill is sufficiently broad that VA may
be obligated to report dozens of times per month on issues involving
temporary unavailability of specific covered features, typically due to
intermittent or temporary issues in a downstream system or in VA's
networking infrastructure. Such events may be outside the core interest
of the bill's intent. Changing the definition of ``significant adverse
event'' to a higher volume threshold such as ``10,000 or more users'',
or by time such as ``over a continuous period of more than 24 hours''
will allow VA and Congress to focus oversight and reporting on more
significant or impactful adverse events.
VA additionally notes that many features of the VA website are
periodically unavailable when downstream systems are undergoing
scheduled maintenance. Reporting on periods of unavailability due to
schedule maintenance appears to be outside of Congress's intent with
this bill. Therefore, VA recommends Congress exclude these periods of
unavailability of covered features if this unavailability is due to
planned maintenance, by amending the definition of a ``system outage''
as defined in section 2(f)(1)(B) to read ``system outages, excluding
outages caused by planned maintenance.''
H.R. 6947 - Veterans Affairs Centennial and Heritage Act of 2024
H.R. 6947 would codify the recent establishment of the VA History
Office within the Department. Headed by the Chief Historian, the office
would be supported by professional and administrative staff as
determined necessary by the Secretary to carry out its purposes. The
bill also provides additional gift acceptance authorities, enhanced
funding mechanisms, and additional lease authorities for the Secretary,
and it establishes an internal coordination group comprised solely of
VA employees which will provide a logical governance protocol for what
will likely be a VA-wide initiative (the centennial) and for management
and resourcing decisions related to an enterprise asset (the VA History
Office (VAHO) and National VA History Center (NVAHC)). Not later than
180 days following enactment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would
be required to submit a report to the Senate and House Committees on
Veterans' Affairs detailing the operations of VAHO and the activities
that will mark the centennial. The Chief Historian would also be
required to submit yearly reports to the Senate and House Committees on
Veterans' Affairs through December 31, 2030, detailing VAHO progress.
VA supports this legislation, subject to the availability of
appropriations, as development of VAHO and NVAHC are ongoing projects
of importance to the Department. The upcoming centennial celebration
will draw positive attention to the Department through outreach,
events, and permanent exhibits emphasizing the Department's role in
assisting our Veterans throughout our Nation's history.
Since publication of VA Directive 7777, Implementation of the VA
History Program, VA has undertaken the establishment of VAHO and has
begun work on building a history of the Department to ensure that the
Department, and the Veterans that we serve, are recognized and
celebrated. The Department welcomes the opportunity to engage with
Congress to continue to ensure that both the centennial celebrations in
2030 and the ongoing activities of VAHO and NVAHC continue to celebrate
the important role of Veterans to this country and the support that the
Department has provided to those Veterans.
By statutorily establishing VAHO, which encompasses the National VA
History Center, Congress is recognizing the historical accomplishments
of the Department. Authorizing the Department to ``collect, preserve,
and provide access to relevant historical records, artifacts, and
cultural resources of the Department [will] tell a comprehensive story
of the Department and its predecessor organizations to Veterans,
Government agencies, and the public.'' The bill also allows VA to
engage in public outreach, advertising, and publication, and to
participate in and host centennial events and public activities. VA
Directive 7777 establishes VAHO, and this bill provides statutory
authorities that will allow it to fully execute its stated mission.
H.R. 6947 provides the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority
to enter into partnerships and cooperative agreements; additional gift
acceptance authority; and enhanced lease authorities in support of the
bill's purposes. This language provides a clear path for VA to accept
funds donated by the 501(c)(3) NVAHC Foundation for the NVAHC project
and any donation that may be provided directly to VA for the purposes
and activities of VAHO, which is not an uncommon process for Federal
agency history/heritage center projects like the NVAHC. (VA does
request clarification as to what type of Treasury fund is to be
established. Knowing whether it would be a revolving fund, whether
funds will remain available until expended for these purposes, and
whether the established Treasury fund is anticipated to be the sole
source of VA funding for the VAHO/NVAHC project will allow the History
Office and the Department to fully exercise these authorities.)
H.R. 6947 also provides additional construction and land
acquisition authorities that allow for construction, renovation,
repair, operation, and maintenance of facilities used for the
preservation, restoration, and public access to Department historic
materials, archives, and artifacts. These authorities are needed to
execute the 2017 Memorandum of Agreement between VA and Dayton
stakeholders regarding the development of plans, partnerships, and a
pathway for development of the NVAHC. This language will allow VA to
commit resources to VAHO and the NVAHC project without concern for
violating existing regulations or statutes and would provide agreement
on proceeding with certain planning and developmental tasks.
The mandatory reporting requirements, while creating an additional
administrative burden, will provide a consistent, scheduled reporting
process on VAHO and the NVAHC progress, and we look forward to working
with Congress to achieve the objectives of the VA History Office.
Costs associated with H.R. 6947 represent funds actually spent from
Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 to Fiscal Year 2023 ($3.6 million) as well as
estimates for Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2030 based on the
baseline functions and tasks outlined in the bill and the duties
already specified in VA Directive 7777. Future costs are estimated to
be $3.0 million for Fiscal Year 2024, $32.2 million over 5 years, and
$47.9 million through Fiscal Year 2030. Note that these cost estimates
do not include some key components such as construction of the museum
building, final renovation cost of associated historical buildings, or
additional centennial-specific costs, which we will not be able to
accurately estimate without further time, research, and information.
H.R. 7342 - Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2024
H.R. 7342 would establish within the Department an advisory
committee on matters related to accessibility of the Department for
Veterans with disabilities. This committee would be subject to the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., Ch. 10. The
committee would be comprised of 15 voting members and 4 ex officio
members.
VA does not support this bill. There are several existing advisory
committees that focus on disability accessibility to VA services,
benefits, and facilities, as well as multiple entities within the
Department that already address accessibility to benefits, technology,
services, and facilities.
The bill requires the Department to abolish a discretionary
committee that is currently inactive, consolidate two discretionary
committees, or submit to the Senate and House Committees on Veterans'
Affairs a recommendation to abolish an existing non-discretionary
committee established by an Act of Congress that is also inactive. The
Department is already required to evaluate all existing discretionary
committees to determine an existing need for continuation and engages
in this process biennially. Discretionary committees are terminated
when no longer valid. The nine active discretionary committees have all
been determined to provide necessary insight and advice to Department
operations. There are no discretionary committees that would currently
meet the requirements for abolishment.
Combining an existing committee with this committee comes with
related feasibility concerns and efficiency concerns. Existing
committees are already providing invaluable assistance to the
Department with their guidance and recommendations. Combining
committees would require either including members of the current
committee into the makeup of this committee, or completely
reconstituting a single committee and releasing those members already
serving on a committee. Both eventualities could impact the membership
balance and make it more difficult to constitute the membership.
Further, while there is admitted crossover between the work of existing
committees and this committee, expanding the responsibilities of an
existing committee, or incorporating the scope of work into a single
committee, would risk diluted recommendations owing to the increased
areas of concentration of the committee.
The estimated cost of establishing the committee is approximately
$600,000 per year and $6,000,000 over the initial proposed 10-year
period of existence, unless extended by Congress.
H.R. XXXX - To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out
a pilot program to use weapon detection technology at medical centers
of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This draft bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to carry out a pilot program to implement the use of weapon detection
technology at the main entrance of VA medical centers.
VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
appropriations, which presents a crucial opportunity to enhance the
safety and security of VA facilities. The safety of Veterans, their
families, VA staff, and visitors is of paramount importance, and the
implementation of weapon detection technology can play a vital role in
mitigating potential threats and preventing violent incidents within VA
medical centers.
Supporting this bill aligns with the VA's mission to provide a safe
and welcoming environment for Veterans to receive quality health care
services. By deploying advanced weapon detection technology, the VA can
bolster security measures and better protect the individuals who rely
on VA facilities for their medical needs. This proactive approach to
security aligns with the best practices of other health care facilities
and demonstrates a commitment to ensuring the well-being of our
Veterans, staff, and visitors.
The proposed bill to authorize a pilot program for weapon detection
technology at VA medical centers would merit strong support from police
services. By prioritizing safety and security, the VA can create a
safer environment for Veterans and health care providers while
upholding its commitment to delivering world-class care.
VA notes that while the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
contemplates and permits procurements both contingent upon Support
Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act
designation pre-award, and presuming SAFETY Act designation post award,
such contingencies are not preferred. FAR 50.204(a)(3) states that
``Agencies should not mandate SAFETY Act protections for acquisitions
because applying for SAFETY Act protections for a particular technology
is the choice of the offeror.'' There are additional factors required
if a solicitation is contingent upon either pre-or post-solicitation
compliance with the SAFETY Act designation. The Department seeks
clarification as to section (e)(3)(B) to ensure compliance with the
will of Congress as well as FAR and contracting requirements.
VA estimates the cost for equipment and personnel for the 1-year
pilot program to be $3.1 million.
H.R. XXXX - Required Notation of Investigation in Personnel Record File
Act
Similar to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3322, Voluntary separation before
resolution of personnel investigation, the draft ``Required Notation of
Investigation in Personnel Record File Act'' requires VA to make a
permanent notation in the official personnel record file of an employee
who is the subject of a personnel investigation and who resigns from
Government employment prior to the resolution of such investigation.
The bill also requires an additional notation if any of the allegations
of the investigation are substantiated.
VA supports this bill, if amended, and subject to availability of
appropriations. VA recommends making clarifying amendments to the bill
to improve its applicability. Specifically, the bill does not exempt VA
employees from the mandatory - and more comprehensive - provisions of 5
U.S.C. Sec. 3322. Therefore, it appears that both mandatory laws will
continue to apply to VA employees in the competitive and excepted
service. Further, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7403(f)(3), VA is
required to apply the provisions of Title 5 to employees appointed
under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(3), known as ``hybrid Title 38 employees,''
in specific circumstances. VA recommends clearly addressing the
applicability of this law to hybrid Title 38 employees. Further, the
bill does not include Senior Executive Service (SES) employees because
it only covers competitive and excepted service employees.
Additionally, the Bill does not apply to situations in which a covered
employee retires; it only applies to those who resign. VA recommends
the language in the Bill be modified to include SES employees and
situations in which an employee retires or transfers to another Federal
agency.
VA is concerned that this bill, if not applied in conjunction with
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3322, does not afford employees due process or appeal
rights. An annotation, especially if the allegations are not
substantiated, has the potential to impact an employee's constitutional
rights. Thus, VA is concerned the bill will be found deficient as
written.
Additionally, in paragraph (b) of the proposed 38 U.S.C. Sec. 729,
an annotation will be made in the employee's record if it is determined
the allegations in the investigation would have been substantiated.
This deprives the employee of an opportunity to present a defense to an
action that can impact future employment. Therefore, VA suggests
providing the due process and appeal rights as provided for in 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 3322, with modification to the timeframes.
Of note, if VA is required to query offices internal and external
to VA at the time an employee resigns to determine if there is a
pending investigation and to obtain the results to ascertain if any
allegations were substantiated, this will require staff and technology
to manage. Further, when an employee moves to another Federal agency or
leaves Federal service, VA no longer has access to the official
personnel record file. Determining where the record is located and how
to make a notation in the file will require coordination in these
instances and other options for complying with the intent of the Bill
need to be considered when the record is no longer within the control
of VA.
VA looks forward to working with Congress on this bill, to include
providing technical assistance review, and ensuring VA efficiently and
effectively implements the levels of accountability sought.
Given the many uncertainties associated with determining the
presence of pending investigations and their outcomes, both internal
and external to VA, for employees who have resigned before resolution
of a personnel investigation (and the uncertainty of how many times
such a scenario will occur), we are unable to provide a meaningful cost
estimate.
H.R. XXXX - Reporting Performance Plans for VA Political Appointees Act
The draft ``Reporting Performance Plans for VA Political Appointees
Act'' would amend section 725 of title 38 by requiring VA to submit to
the Committees' on Veterans Affairs of the House and Senate the annual
performance plans of covered political appointees in VA.
VA does not support the bill, and has a number of concerns.
VA administers a performance management system for non-career SES
members and Schedule C employees. VA's performance management system
holds these individuals accountable for individual and organizational
performance and ensures ``accountability for honest, economical, and
efficient Government.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3131.
The VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 added section 725
to title 38 and defined which political appointees shall receive an
annual performance plan and the minimum contents of the plan. Further,
VA's SES performance appraisal system is certified by the Office of
Personnel Management with concurrence from the Office of Management and
Budget. Certification criteria require that all SES members'
performance plans be aligned to the agency's mission, strategic goals,
program/policy objectives, and/or annual performance plan and budget
priorities and that the annual summary rating be based on individual
and organizational performance 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4311, et seq.
VA has concerns with the annual performance plan submission
requirements of this bill because of the exclusive focus on political
appointees. VA welcomes the ability to have further discussions on this
bill and to work with Congress on the best way to balance
accountability and confidentiality of personnel records.
Conclusion
Chairwoman Kiggans, this concludes my testimony. My colleagues and
I are prepared to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Committee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Joycelyn Westbrooks
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Mrvan, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting the American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE) to participate in today's Subcommittee Hearing on
``Pending Legislation.'' My name is Joycelyn Westbrooks, and I
currently serve as the Secretary-Treasurer for AFGE Local 1633 at the
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Most
importantly, for the past 40 years, I have had the honor of serving our
Nation's veterans as a Registered Nurse at the VA.
On behalf of AFGE, its National Veterans Affairs Council,
representing over 750,000 Federal and District of Columbia Government
workers, including 300,000 employees at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, it is a privilege to offer insights to the Oversight and
Investigations (O&I) Subcommittee on several of the bills it is
considering today with a focus on H.R. 6538, the ``VA Correct
Compensation Act.''
H.R. 6538, the ``VA Correct Compensation Act''
The primary reason I come before the committee today is to express
AFGE's strong endorsement of H.R. 6538, the ``VA Correct Compensation
Act'' or ``VACCA.'' This bi-partisan legislation is also endorsed by
our sister unions the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE),
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), as well
as the American Association Of Nurse Anesthesiology, and our VSO
partners the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of
America (PVA), and the American Legion. This legislation will help the
VA with retention by limiting the agency's power to unfairly deny
grievances challenging routine payroll errors affecting frontline Title
38 healthcare professionals. Across the VA, AFGE and NVAC represent
more than 75,000 Title 38 employees.
Since the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health-
Care Personnel Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-40) over 30 years ago and the
establishment of 38 U.S.C. 7422 (7422), the VA Secretary has used this
authority to liberally deny collective bargaining and grievances
related to ``(1) professional conduct or competence, (2) peer review,
or (3) the establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee
compensation.''
For years, this committee has examined various bills to amend 7422
and limit its use. Last Congress, this committee considered H.R. 1948,
the ``VA Employee Fairness Act'' (117th Congress), which passed the
House of Representatives, but was not considered in the Senate. During
the spirited debate of that legislation in this committee, in the Rules
Committee, and on the floor of the House of Representatives, while
there were substantive disagreements on policy, there was agreement
that the VA had misused its authority under 7422 as it relates to
routine payroll errors for Title 38 Employees.
At the beginning of the 118th Congress, Chairman Bost and Ranking
Member Takano built on that common ground, rolled up their sleeves, and
worked together to craft a bill that could be enacted in 2024. The
fruit of that labor is H.R. 6538, the ``VA Correct Compensation Act,''
a technical correction to the 7422 statute that provides a definition
for the compensation exception in 7422, and explicitly prevents the VA
from denying grievances contesting that a covered employee has
``received the correct compensation as required by law, rule,
regulation, or binding agreement.'' This is commonsense legislation
that will give employees the opportunity file a grievance and have a
fair process to make themselves whole and help with retaining
clinicians at the agency.
Unfortunately, payroll errors are a common problem at the VA. All
too often, the VA fails to accurately calculate if a covered employee
worked overtime, the night shift, weekend shift, or on a holiday. If
the affected employee is a Title 38 hybrid appointed under 38 U.S.C.
7401(3), that employee could easily file a grievance and receive the
money they are owed under the law. However, if an employee is appointed
as a pure Title 38 under 38 U.S.C. 7401(1), the VA can and does invoke
its 7422 authorities to deny the grievance, with the employee losing
the ability to receive the compensation they are rightfully owed. In
practice, this means that a Registered Nurse does not have the same
rights as a Licensed Practical Nurse, an optometrist does not have the
same rights as an audiologist, and a psychiatrist does not have the
same rights as psychologist. Beyond this inherent inequity, over 30
years, the VA's use of this authority has discouraged employees from
even filing grievances to correct their pay, which harms morale around
the country.
A clear example of this arises from the Asheville, North Carolina,
VA Medical Center.
In the facts shared by the VA:
On February 1, 1999, the American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE) filed a grievance on behalf of the Operating
Room Nurses of VAMC Asheville, North Carolina, claiming
entitlement to premium pay. More specifically, the Union
complained that the Medical Center failed to pay the Operating
Room Registered Nurses night differential when called in to
work overtime during the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., and
weekend pay differential when called in to work overtime on
Saturday or Sunday. The periods of work at issue in the
grievance were outside the nurses' regular work schedule or
tour of duty.
On December 29, 1999, an arbitrator ruled in favor of AFGE and
``granted the union's request for payment of night differential and
weekend pay for OR nurses for these instances.'' In response to the
arbitrators ruling, ``[m]anagement refused to comply with the award
stating that this is a matter to be decided by the Secretary and is not
itself subject to collective bargaining (38 U.S.C. 7422).'' In response
to this, on March 5, 2001, the Undersecretary for Health decided that
``Under the authority in 38 U.S.C. 7422(d), I find that the
arbitrator's decision and subsequent ULP concerns the establishment,
determination, or adjustment of employee compensation.'' He also wrote
that ``Under the authority in 38 U.S.C. 7422(d), I find that the
payment of night differential and weekend premium pay to OR nurses for
periods of overtime work concerns or arises out of a matter or question
of the establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee
compensation under title 38.'' This was the final step in the denial of
the grievance for correctly paying these operating room nurses.
Similarly, in 2007, the VA failed to accurately pay for overtime in
Buffalo, New York. In Buffalo, ``[i]n an attempt to reduce a backlog of
work at the Olean Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC), the
management of the VA Medical Center Buffalo, New York (VAMC) asked for
volunteers to see patients at the CBOC on Saturdays.'' The VA chose
three Nurse Practitioners who proceeded to work on eight separate
Saturdays. ``The CBOC is generally open Monday through Friday and has
no established Saturday tour of duty. All three of the employees who
volunteered to work the Saturdays identified above were paid overtime
for the extra work or given compensatory time in lieu of overtime.''
However, this was not the totality of what was owed. ``On March 9,
2007, the United American Nurses (UAN) [which has since merged with
National Nurses United (NNU)] filed a grievance alleging that
management violated 38 U.S.C. 7453(c) and VA Handbook 5007/6, Part V,
chapter 6, paragraph 1.b. by failing to pay the three nurse
practitioners Saturday premium pay in addition to the overtime pay they
received for working on Saturdays.'' Despite the Union filing a
grievance that was escalated, the VA in its recommended decision stated
``[t]hat the grievance over three nurse practitioners' entitlement to
Saturday premium pay for Saturday work at a CBOC having no established
Saturday tour of duty is excluded from collective bargaining as a
matter or question that concerns or arises out of the establishment,
determination or adjustment of employee compensation within the meaning
of 38 U.S.C. 7422(b).'' In turn, the VA denied the grievance and the
nurses were not correctly paid the weekend shift differential pay they
were owed under law.
The VA is the Nation's best and largest health care system. VA must
continue to recruit and retain the best employees to care for our
Nation's heroes. Congress never intended for 38 U.S.C. 7422 to permit
the VA to deny grievances over routine payroll errors, thereby
unlawfully withholding the compensation due to its employees. By
passing H.R. 6538, the ``VA Correct Compensation Act,'' this committee
can prevent future examples of this occurring and force the VA to give
Title 38 clinicians the opportunity to ensure they are paid what they
are owed under the law.
H.R. 6531, the ``TRAIN VA Employees Act''
AFGE supports the intent of H.R. 6531, the ``TRAIN VA Employees
Act.'' The underlying goal of this legislation is to improve the
performance of supervisors at the Department of Veterans Affairs, both
in helping employees excel and following existing law in how to
correctly, when appropriate, discipline employees. This would further
improve consistency throughout the agency when it comes to evaluating
employee performance, and help employees throughout the VA. As the
committee studies this bill and potentially considers it in a markup
hearing, I would like to make two recommendations to improve the clear
goals presented in the legislation.
The first is that in addition to supervisors, the agency allow AFGE
officials to also receive this training, as if both employer and
employee representatives are being trained together by the same
trainers, all parties will be on the same page when it comes to their
understanding and expectations of supervisors managing their employees
and help avoid obstacles in any potential disciplinary processes.
Second, AFGE recommends that the bill add a new component to the
training identified in subsection (e) of the bill requiring managers
receive training on the ``fundamentals of the collective bargaining
agreement in the Federal Government and employee rights to union
representation.'' This new component would give supervisors a better
understanding of the legal role unions have within the agency,
including in disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, this improved
understanding would lead to fewer supervisory errors, and hopefully,
fewer union grievances needing to be filed.
Draft Legislation, the ``VA Security Screening Pilot Program Act''
AFGE supports the intent of the ``VA Security Screening Pilot
Program Act.'' This bill, in the wake of violence occurring at VA
facilities, is a strong proposal designed to prevent violence at
Veterans Medical Centers and protect veterans and the employees who
serve them. To improve the effectiveness of this pilot program and
avoid any possible unintended consequences, AFGE has several
suggestions to improve the scope and practice of this pilot program.
First, AFGE suggests the bill include a provision on the training
of the VA personnel who will operate this technology to protect
veterans. Additionally, as the bill alludes to VA Police Officers when
discussing which facilities should be used for this pilot program, the
only personnel who should be authorized to operate this technology are
VA Police Officers, who have undergone crisis intervention training
required by statute, and not third-party contractors.
Second, as the VA determines which facilities are being used for a
pilot program, AFGE hopes that the VA casts a broad net and is not only
limited to Medical Centers. As the VA utilizes larger Community Based
Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), it is worth including them within the pilot
to gather a broad cross-section of data. Additionally, while most VBA
facilities have security, not all are administered by VA. Including a
VBA Regional Office or other VBA facilities that do not have weapons
detection technology or whose technology is equal to or less secure
than this technology would also provide valuable data about the
technology proposed in this pilot.
Third, AFGE strongly encourages that in sites where this technology
is being piloted, there are either separate screening lines or reserved
entrances for staff. AFGE is concerned that if separate lines or
entrances are unavailable and staff must stand in line with patients at
a busy time, this can delay employees to arriving at work at the
beginning of their shifts, inadvertently delaying patient care.
H.R. 6947, the ``Veterans Affairs Centennial and Heritage Act of
2024''
AFGE supports the intent of H.R. 6947, the ``Veterans Affairs
Centennial and Heritage Act of 2024.'' If enacted, this bill would
create a VA History Office in Dayton, Ohio. This would recognize the
critical work of the VA over the past 100 years, including the critical
contribution of VA employees. The only additional comment AFGE wishes
to make on this bill, is that as the staffing model is created to
determine what permanent staff is required for this museum, is that
these employees are part of the bargaining unit and receive the same
protections as other VA employees throughout the Nation.
A Draft Bill to require a notation in the personnel record file of
certain employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who resign from
government employment under certain circumstances.
AFGE opposes this draft legislation in its current form.
Specifically, AFGE has significant due-process concerns with this draft
bill, which would require the VA to permanently annotate the personnel
records of employees who leave government during pending personnel
investigations, including a unilateral and unappealable determination
by the Secretary whether any allegations ``would have been
substantiated.'' Such speculative and potentially biased findings
should not be included in the official personnel files without the
investigative, disciplinary, and appellate processes running their
course.
Statements for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of United Nurses Associations of California/Union of
Health Care Professionals
[[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of National Federation of Federal Employees, and
Service Employees International Union
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Senior Executives Association
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Matt Cartwright
Thank you, Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and
members of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, for
allowing me to submit a statement in support of critical legislation
that would benefit our Nation's Veterans. I write today in support of
my bipartisan bill, H.R. 5247, the Expedited Hiring for VA Trained
Psychiatrists Act, which would increase access to mental health
services for our Veterans--to whom we owe a great debt.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychiatrists diagnose
mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions, and provide treatment to
our Nation's heroes after they've answered the call to uniformed
service. Everyone knows the sobering statistic that the rate of suicide
among veterans is almost 60 percent higher than that of civilians.
Whether a Veteran is struggling with the aftereffects of military
combat, adjusting to civilian life, or facing a mental illness such as
PTSD, having access to a psychiatrist at a VA facility could make a
world of difference in a Veteran's journey to mental health and well-
being.
While the VA has prioritized hiring new medical staff at an
unprecedented rate, it is still difficult to hire and retain
psychiatrists at a level sufficient to meet the needs of our Veterans.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously found that
the VA does not have proper staff levels for its suicide prevention
teams, and efforts to fill these vacancies have been significantly
hampered by a long recruitment and hiring process. Furthermore, the GAO
has repeatedly reported that demand for Veterans mental health services
will only increase, exacerbating staffing shortages.
The practical impacts of understaffing include excessive wait
times, lack of proper follow-up care, and Veterans' inability to
schedule appointments in a timely manner. These unnecessary hurdles to
accessible, reliable care and treatment can have terrible consequences.
The Expedited Hiring for VA Trained Psychiatrists Act would tackle
the VA understaffing problem by codifying the VA Secretary's ability to
hire psychiatrists who have completed their residency at a VA facility
if a position has gone unfilled for at least thirty-five days.
Many aspiring psychiatrists do at least part of their residency in
a VA facility. These trainees gain valuable experience working with
Veterans and are already familiar with the issues specific to this
community. By giving the Secretary the ability to directly convert
psychiatric residents to full employment with the VA - pending
satisfactory completion of both the residency and all credentialing
requirements - Congress can help make the VA a more attractive place
for these residents to begin their careers. By reducing the time it
takes to fill critical psychiatrist positions, my bill would reduce the
wait times for Veterans seeking to access mental health services.
Ensuring timely access to quality mental health care for all
Veterans should be a priority for everyone, regardless of party. The
Expedited Hiring for VA Trained Psychiatrists Act is commonsense,
bipartisan legislation that would provide a fast track hiring process
for qualified psychiatrists who train at VA facilities. I am grateful
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this
important legislation.
Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and members of
the Health Subcommittee, I offer my sincere thanks for your consistent
prioritization of the issue of Veteran mental health.
______
Prepared Statement of Brandon Williams
I would like to introduce H.R. 7765, the VA Security Screening
Pilot Program Act. This legislation directs the Secretary to select one
of its networks (VISN) to carry out a pilot program to use new weapon
screening technology at the primary entrance of each VA medical center
no later than a year after the legislation's enactment.
For too long, outdated security equipment has placed unnecessary
strain on police working at VA medical facilities nationwide, who often
already face staffing shortages and daily challenges. The logistical
difficulties that accompany outdated security tech force some
facilities not to use any screening at their entrances. This
combination of antiquated equipment and logistical difficulty puts
employees and veterans alike at increased risk, should an emergency
situation occur.
And we know that, all too often, these situations do occur. Violent
crime has more than doubled on VA medical center campuses in the last
few years, and the tragic occurrence of veteran suicide has persisted
over the same period of time. When I think about how much our Nation's
veterans have done for the United States, and then I see the conditions
they endure well after their service has concluded, it's clear to me
that there's much more to be done. This hits me personally, as a
veteran, myself.
This bill will make sure that the VA has the resources it needs to
protect its facilities from bad actors by allowing them to test
security tech, refining their approach with feedback from security
personnel and veterans alike, to reach an informed decision on what
measures would be most effective in securing their campuses.
Our veterans gave their best to this country. This country owes
every single veteran its very best in return. It is unacceptable that
instances of violent crime have increased so drastically in VA
facilities, and tragic that suicide on VA campuses is as common as it
is. Congress has a long way to go in doing right by the men and women
who have served our country in uniform--this bill is a necessary step
in the right direction.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael Turner
I am proud to be leading the House effort to codify the National VA
History Center (NVAHC) within the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs. H.R.
6947, the Veterans Affairs Centennial and Heritage Act of 2024, would
codify this institution and ensure the story of America's veterans and
the VA is preserved for future generations. This legislation is
bipartisan and bicameral. I want to thank Rep. Landsman for his work on
this issue, as well as Ohio Senators Vance and Brown for their work on
the Senate companion bill.
For decades, the Dayton VA has served the healthcare needs of over
40,000 veterans in our community, going above and beyond to provide our
service members with the benefits that they earned protecting our
freedoms.
The Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center is among the finest
facilities for veterans' services in the United States, and I am
pleased that it is the home for the future museum and archives for VA
history. The National VA History Center currently exists only pursuant
to VA Department Memoranda, but this legislation would codify the
center through an Act of Congress.
Once complete, the NVAHC will be the central location for seminal
artifacts and archives of historic significance from across hundreds of
VA locations. The site will provide storage, preservation, and access
to these materials, as well as a museum and education center. The
project will include robust online access to digitized materials for
researchers, writers, and scholars, and virtual museum exhibits
available to the public.
Located on the Dayton VA Medical Center campus, the NVAHC will
include multiple historic buildings: the Old Headquarters, the
Clubhouse and the Putnam Library. These buildings are some of the
oldest on the 450-acre campus, dating to 1871, 1881 and 1880,
respectively.
The Veterans Affairs Centennial and Heritage Act will preserve the
Department of Veterans Affairs' history of outstanding work and
document the special relationship between the United States and our
veterans. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today and welcome
any questions.
[all]