[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-52
__________
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
63-815 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
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 CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
JEN KIGGANS, Virginia MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
ABE HAMADEH, Arizona HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
Mariana Islands
TOM BARRETT, Michigan
Jon Clark, Staff Director
Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
JEN KIGGANS, Virginia, Chairwoman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois, Ranking
American Samoa Member
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
KEITH SELF, Texas HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
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
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jen Kiggans, Chairwoman............................ 1
The Honorable Delia Ramirez, Ranking Member...................... 2
The Honorable Mark Takano, Ranking Member, Full Committee........ 5
SPEAKING FROM THE DAIS
The Honorable Jack Bergman, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-
01)............................................................ 6
The Honorable Nikki Budzinski, U.S. House of Representatives,
(IL-13)........................................................ 7
The Honorable Nancy Mace, U.S. House of Representatives, (SC-01). 8
The Honorable Timothy Kennedy, U.S. House of Representatives,
(NY-26)........................................................ 9
The Honorable Kimberlyn King-Hinds, U.S. House of
Representatives, (MP-01)....................................... 10
The Honorable Keith Self, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-03). 10
WITNESSES
Panel I
Dr. Ilse Wiechers, Acting Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for
Health for Patient Care Services, Veterans Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............ 11
Accompanied by:
Mr. Rondy L. Waye, Executive Director, Human Capital
Programs, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer,
Human Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Jeffrey Neil, Associate Executive Director, Technology
Acquisition Center, The Office of Acquisitions,
Logistics, and Construction, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Panel II
Mr. Cole Lyle, Director, Legislative Affairs Division, The
American Legion................................................ 21
Mr. Joseph Avila, Administrator, Sterile Processing Department,
University of Virginia Health System........................... 23
Ms. Brittany Madni, Executive Vice President, Economic Policy
Innovation Center.............................................. 24
Sgt. Dennis Guerrero, Vice President, Local 3511, American
Federation of Government Employees............................. 26
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Dr. Ilse Wiechers Prepared Statement............................. 37
Mr. Cole Lyle Prepared Statement................................. 65
Mr. Joseph Avila Prepared Statement.............................. 79
APPENDIX--continued
Ms. Brittany Madni Prepared Statement............................ 86
Sgt. Dennis Guerrero Prepared Statement.......................... 96
Statements For The Record
U.S. Government Accountability Office Prepared Statement......... 101
National Alliance to End Homelessness Prepared Statement......... 119
National Homelessness Law Center, National Health Care for the
Homeless Council, National Health Law Program, Funders Together
for Housing Justice, and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Prepared Statement............................................. 121
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans Prepared Statement...... 124
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Prepared Statement................ 130
Center for Procurement Advocacy Prepared Statement............... 138
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jen Kiggans
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kiggans, Radewagen, Ciscomani,
Self, Ramirez, Kennedy, and Conaway.
Also present: Representatives Bergman, Mace, King-Hinds,
Takano, and Budzinski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JEN KIGGANS, CHAIRWOMAN
Ms. Kiggans. Good afternoon. This legislative hearing of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will now come
to order.
Before we begin, I would like to thank all of the members
and witnesses testifying at today's hearing. I would also like
to welcome the members present from the Subcommittee on
Technology Modernization who will be joining us today to
discuss their bills. With that, I ask unanimous consent that
all non-subcommittee members be waved on to speak on the bills
from the dais. Hearing no objection, we will move forward.
Today's hearing will examine 12 bills covering a wide range
of issues, all aimed at strengthening accountability, improving
care, and ensuring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
delivers on its commitments to those who served. These bills
address critical areas, including oversight of VA operations,
protection of veterans data, workforce retention and
accountability, small business opportunity, payment reform, and
improvements to the quality and safety of healthcare veterans--
the quality and safety of the healthcare veterans receive every
day. While each proposal plays an important role, I want to
focus on a few bills before us today that highlight exactly
what is at stake if the VA fails to meet the standard our
veterans deserve.
First, my bill, the Veteran Infection Prevention Act, gets
at the heart of patient safety. This legislation responds
directly to a pattern of serious and well-documented failures
within VA's sterile processing protocols, failures that have
led to catastrophic consequences for veteran patients and need
to be fixed. At facilities like the Dublin VA Medical Center
findings show that lapses in oversight and breakdowns in
sterile processing protocols created unacceptable risk to
patient safety.
These cases and many others demonstrate that this is not an
isolated issue, but a systemic one. They demonstrate the urgent
need for reform and reinvestment in the VA's workforce,
particularly in the roles operating behind the scenes, those
that, if they are not done properly, can have serious
consequences for patient care. My bill is about ensuring that
Sterile Processing Technicians (SPT) are properly trained,
properly supported, and held to the highest standards so that
no veteran is ever again put at risk due to preventable
failures in the system. As a former nurse practitioner, I take
this responsibility seriously.
I also want to highlight the VA Site Neutral Payment Act
led by my colleague and friend Dr. Miller-Meeks. This bill
addresses a long-standing inefficiency in how veterans' care is
reimbursed, where the same service can cost dramatically
different amounts depending solely on where the veteran goes
for care due to oversight regulations. By moving forward site
neutral payments, we can eliminate unnecessary cost
disparities, promote fairness, and ensure taxpayer dollars are
being used responsibly without compromising the quality the
veterans receive--the quality of care the veterans receive.
I also want to recognize General Bergman's legislation to
strengthen financial oversight at the VA. Empowering the VA's
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and improving financial
transparency is essential if we are serious about
accountability and restoring trust in how taxpayer dollars are
managed.
Finally, I want to acknowledge Representative Self's bill,
the VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act. This legislation
closes a loophole that allows former VA employees to avoid
repaying bonuses, awards, or relocation expenses that should
have never been paid in the first place. By extending the VA's
recoupment authority to former employees, this bill helps
ensure taxpayer dollars are protected and accountability does
not end when someone leaves government service.
I want to thank our witnesses again for being here today
and I look forward to our discussion.
I now recognize Ranking Member Ramirez for her opening
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DELIA RAMIREZ, RANKING MEMBER
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chair Kiggans. I want to first
start by thanking your staff for their collaboration on the
bills that were prepared for today's legislative hearing. I am
pleased that we have found areas where we can work together and
improve VA functions and its delivery of care and benefits to
veterans.
I first want to go ahead and start off by also
congratulating American Federation of Government Employees
(AFGE) for its monumental win in court 2 weeks ago that
resulted in the reinstatement of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) with the VA. We know we say this often,
especially in Chicago, when we fight, we win. We also know that
the fight is far from over. I want to make sure that I tell you
that I am in the fight with you every step of the way to ensure
that workers have the resources they need to continue to show
up for our veterans.
The past year demonstrated Secretary Collins' race to the
bottom. He created and celebrated toxic workplaces and
demoralizing conditions. He demeaned and disrespected VA
employees. He attacked bargaining rights and could not even
comment on the murder and criminalization of one of his very
own employees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The
administration wants to take bargaining rights away because
they know that those rights offer every employee the ability to
speak truth to power, to voice unpopular opinions, to demand
dignity as in labor, to ensure the resources needed to do the
job well, and to defend workers or veterans when they are being
abused. We know that collective bargaining rights help us
recruit. They help us hire, retain best in class workforce, to
provide our veterans best in class service and care.
You see, when unions collectively bargain, they contract
terms that will benefit all VA employees, even those that are
not in a union. That is why I am so proud of there are bills on
today's agenda that would strengthen protections and benefits
for VA workers.
I introduced H.R. 7948, the VA Employee Family Care
Expansion Act, that would enshrine in statute the right for VA
employees to use family and medical leave to care for their in-
laws, their family. Congresswoman Bynum introduced the
Supporting VA Families Act, which would also restore the
guaranteed right to use 4 additional weeks of unpaid leave
after welcoming a new child, whether by birth, by adoption, or
foster care. We know that those 4 extra weeks can be critical
for paternal bonding or handling unexpected health issues that
may arise after welcoming a newborn. Congresswoman Bynum's and
my bill would restore basic worker rights that were stripped
after Secretary Collins illegally terminated collective
bargaining agreements at the VA.
I want you to see this slide here, this board. This is a
real slide from the VA supervisor training for how to handle
employee issues after the collective bargaining agreements were
terminated. It reads, as you can see here, quote, ``No
additional 4 weeks of leave without pay or substitute paid
leave for maternity/paternity leave in addition to Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) family member no longer includes
parents of an employee's spouse, previously a contractual
right,'' end quote.
That is unacceptable. For the self-proclaimed pro family
party, there is nothing pro family about what Secretary Collins
is doing to VA employees and you can see that right here in
writing from the VA's own training for supervisors. Now, I will
not steal Congressman Kennedy's thunder, he will talk to you
about his bill in just a few moments, but I want to make sure
that we ensure that veterans and others have workforce
opportunities.
Last, Ranking Member Budzinski's VA Data Accountability for
Third Party Actors (DATA) Act, which would prevent third-party
vendors partnered with VA for monetizing or misusing veterans
data.
Turning to the majority's bills, I appreciate there are
bills on the agenda that our staffs are working together on to
move forward in a bipartisan manner. I know that the Veterans
Care Protection Act was pulled off the agenda and it was
replaced with H.R. 7950, a bill to codify VA's Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA).
I could not agree more than that the OCLA is in desperate
need of reform because, frankly, the lack of transparency and
accountability for the office tasked with communicating with
Congress has been appalling. When I get responses to my letters
or requests for information, which, unfortunately, is pretty
rare, my questions mostly go unanswered.
I have heard that the average wait time for casework
through the VA congressional Liaison in OCLA is 105 business
days. That is a 5-month waiting period for casework-based
congressional inquiries. I look forward to continued
discussions with the majority on this bill and how we can work
together to compel the VA to provide us the answers we are owed
as we fulfill our oversight responsibilities to the American
people and to veterans.
I want to make a few comments about the VA's new harmful
guardianship initiative. Chair Kiggans, I appreciate your
staff's willingness to work with mine before any bill is
introduced to give VA any additional authority related to
guardianship of veterans. Two weeks ago, Pam Bondi and
Secretary Collins signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
that authorizes the appointment of VA attorneys as special
assistant U.S. attorneys who can petition State probate courts
of guardianship of veterans. I have received pages and pages of
whistleblower documents that clearly show VA's true intent
here: to target homeless veterans.
Bondi and Collins' actions are all about Project Safe
Harbor, an initiative through which VA plans to try to
weaponize the guardianship system to force homeless and at-risk
veterans into treatment. Their actions are intended to appease
Trump. Last year, he issued an executive order calling for his
agencies to force people experiencing homelessness into
institutions against their will. Weaponizing guardianship and
institutionalizing veterans will do nothing to address the root
causes of homelessness in our country and, in fact, would lead
to worse outcomes for the most vulnerable veterans in in our
Nation. I am very concerned about what VA is doing here and how
Secretary Collins is sidestepping Congress to work with Pam
Bondi to undermine the freedom of veterans. I look forward to
performing extensive oversight on this issue with you, Chair.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
continued unsustainable attrition at the VA. I think it is
important I revisit these numbers every time we are in the
subcommittee. In January alone, a net of 195 physicians and 140
registered nurses left the agency. We cannot quit talking about
this. I want to continue doing my part in oversight and hold
the Secretary accountable for the cuts to the workforce and to
veteran care. I look forward to our conversation together here
as we, hopefully, do more bipartisan work to center everything
we do on our veterans.
With that, Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Ranking Member Ramirez.
The chair, as a reminder, may also declare recess at any
time. I know we have votes at 3 p.m., so we may need to recess
then.
I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Takano for any
remarks he might have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER, FULL
COMMITTEE
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, for extending
this opportunity and also Ranking Member Ramirez.
I echo Ranking Member Ramirez' congratulations to AFGE for
their win in court a few weeks ago. Judge DeBose rightly found
that AFGE's claims defending union rights are likely to succeed
on their merits and that Secretary Collins is causing
irreparable harm to VA employees. I look forward to VA
following the law and swiftly reinstating this collective
bargaining requirement--bargaining agreements.
Now, Chair Kiggans, I commend you and your staff for
pulling the Veterans Care Protection Act from today's agenda
while we wait to get more information from VA about Project
Safe Harbor and VA's Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Justice. Now, I have to say I was shocked to see
VA double down on its request for this authority by including
it in its testimony for this hearing, which is why I am here to
comment.
VA has spent the last few weeks trying to cover up its
plans to force homeless veterans into guardianship to carry out
President Trump's executive order that calls for locking
veterans away instead of getting them the help they need. That
is the crux of what Project Safe Harbor and the Memorandum of
Understanding between Collins and Bondi were designed to do.
This administration continues to prioritize handcuffs and jail
cells instead of getting to the root of what really causes
homelessness in America: a lack of affordable housing and a
lack of supportive services for those who need them.
At last week's full committee hearing, VA tried to assure
us that they are no longer planning to round up homeless
veterans off the street and institutionalize them. I asked for
written confirmation of this change in strategy, but have yet
to receive it. Even if we accept VA's claim that it is no
longer targeting homeless veterans with this initiative, the
Department still has not shown that guardianship will fix the
underlying problems and how it cares for our most vulnerable
veterans.
Now, let me connect the dots. Secretary Collins took the
helm--since Secretary Collins took the helm, VA closed over 840
living center beds, community living center beds. VA has lost
more than 40,000 employees, 88 percent of which come from the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Job applications are down
45 percent. VA's workforce is shrinking at unsustainable rates
due to Secretary Collins' hostile leadership, which will
inevitably lead to more bed closures and decreased access to
care.
Housing costs continue to skyrocket across the country.
What will it matter if a veteran is assigned a guardian if
there is no place for the veteran to go to, no beds, no
affordable housing, no community-based facilities? Instead of
stripping veterans' rights away, VA should focus on actually
providing care to the most vulnerable veterans.
I want to read a quote from the late Congressman Claude
Pepper, former chair of the House Select Committee on Aging. At
a 1987 hearing, titled ``Abuses in Guardianship of the Elderly
and Infirm: A National Disgrace,'' he said, quote, ``The
typical ward has fewer rights than the typical convicted felon.
By appointing a guardian, the court entrusts to someone else
the power to choose where they will live, what medical
treatment they will get, and, in rare cases, when they will
die. It is in one short sentence the most punitive civil
penalty that can be leveled against an American citizen with
the exception of the death penalty,'' end quote.
Now, that is what precisely is at stake here. Veterans who
fought for our rights will lose theirs to VA, the agency that
is supposed to care for them. Sadly, I do not believe VA has
given the practicality of this initiative much thought. In
reality, using VA attorneys to petition for veteran
guardianship creates a bizarre power dynamic and conflict of
interest in State and county probate courts. VA attorneys will
be directly advocating against the interests of the veterans in
their care.
Even worse, these veterans for whom guardianship is sought
will likely lack the means or ability to retain their own
defense counsel to go up against the Federal Government. Now,
this is not fair to veterans. It is especially unfair when we
consider what is on the line: a veteran's freedom and autonomy
to make decisions on their own behalf.
Now, VA asked for feedback on this proposal and I hope they
are listening. I want to thank the following organizations for
educating my staff about all that is at stake with VA's
guardianship initiative and for submitting statements for the
record for today's hearing. They are to include the National
Alliance to End Homelessness, National Homelessness Law Center,
National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National Health
Law Program, Funders Together for Justice, National Coalition
for Homeless Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, and the Consortium for
Constituents with Disabilities, which includes 18 additional
organizations.
Every person, veteran or not, should be concerned with what
the Federal Government is doing here. VA is intentionally
misleading the public and will use Project Safe Harbor and this
MOU with Pam Bondi to strip veterans of their freedom and
independence. If the Trump-Vance administration is willing to
take away the freedom of those who fought for our freedom, they
are willing to take away the autonomy of anyone. This is just
the beginning.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now will recognize members for 3 minutes each to
speak on the bills they are asking to be considered for
reauthorization.
The chair now recognizes General Bergman for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JACK BERGMAN
Mr. Bergman. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
opportunity to waive onto this hearing to discuss my bill, the
VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act.
As the title suggests, this bill would modernize how the VA
prepares and manages its budget while building on prior
oversight efforts, like my VA Budget Shortfall Accountability
Act, which President Trump signed into law earlier this year.
The Shortfall Accountability Act was prompted by the VA's 2024
shortfall scare when the Department came to Congress claiming
that a $3 billion shortfall and the need for supplemental
funding to avoid disruptions to critical veterans benefits,
only to later carry over more than $5 billion in unspent funds.
That bill was an important first step in bringing transparency
to the budget failures that left Congress, veterans, and the
public asking how the VA's financial planning had gone so
wrong.
Identifying what went wrong and holding the VA accountable
after the fact is only half the battle. My bill before the
hearing today, the VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act, is
about preventing the next failure before it happens. It would
clarify and strengthen the authority of the VA's top financial
official by requiring the Secretary to designate the Assistant
Secretary for Management as the Department's chief financial
officer and by spelling out that official's responsibilities in
statute. That designation matters because accountability
becomes diluted when responsibility is unclear, fragmented, and
spread to many other offices. This bill addresses that by
creating a clear chain of command for financial management,
establishing dedicated leadership for budget strategy and for
financial operations and internal controls, and requiring
employees with key financial authority to report exclusively
through the CFO.
The bill also creates a Legislative and Congressional
Budget Information Office whose sole purpose is to provide
Congress with accurate, timely, and certified budget and
financial information. This is significant reform. Congress
cannot conduct real oversight if the information it receives is
delayed, incomplete, or filtered through offices with competing
institutional interests. At the end of the day, this bill is
about accountability, transparency, and making sure the VA has
the structure in place to get its budgeting right the first
time. Our veterans deserve a VA that manages taxpayers' dollars
responsibly, and Congress deserves accurate and timely
information to conduct its oversight.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Budzinski for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NIKKI BUDZINSKI
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity
to waive onto the subcommittee.
There is an unspoken agreement between the VA and the
veterans it serves during the Department that will protect them
from harm. In my role as ranking member of the Technology
Modernization Subcommittee, I have major concerns about the
privacy and security of veterans' protected health information
and personally identifiable information. The exposure of this
data could have a lasting financial and reputational impacts.
The more connected we become as a society and the more
interoperable VA systems become, the more we risk exposure.
Just a couple of months ago, a major Electronic Health Record
(EHR) vendor disclosed that fraudulent entities were
addressed--were accessing the records of patients in its system
and selling patients' data to less scrupulous actors. While
that vendor is not currently associated with the VA, it is not
a stretch to imagine that the same thing happening here--could
happen here.
Additionally, the exposure of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
creates a whole other set of concerns. As vendors are given
access to VA's data, what safeguards are in place? We know that
even deidentified data is not safe. AI has proven that given
enough information that technology is more than capable of
reidentifying individuals. What are the vendors doing with that
data? Are they turning around and selling it or the product of
their work outside of the VA? Are they then selling other
products created using veterans' data back to VA at a premium?
We owe it to our veterans and American taxpayers to provide
answers to these questions and more.
My bill, H.R. 7280, the Veteran Data Accountability for
Third Party Actors Act, or Veteran DATA Act, will prevent the
VA from entering into a contract with a third-party vendor that
permits them to sell or otherwise monetize veterans data. It
gives the Secretary 1 year to ensure that all of the VA's
relevant contracts have been modified to ensure the veterans
are prevented from selling or otherwise monetizing veterans'
personal information. It also requires that the Secretary
develop policies to instruct employees on how to recognize when
contractors are monetizing veterans' personal information.
Finally, the Veteran DATA Act requires VA to provide a
report to Congress detailing the clause added to all VA
contracts, guidance provided to VA employees, and any other
relevant information. I want to thank Chairman Barrett for
working with me on this bill. We owe it to our veterans to do
everything in our power to ensure that their data is locked
down and that when it is used, that it is in the service to the
veterans. My bill does just that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Mace for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY MACE
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair. Among the 12 proposals we
are discussing today is my bill, the Veterans Affairs
Management and Oversight of Software Assets, or the VAMOSA Act.
This bill would address the VA's lack of a comprehensive
inventory of its software licenses, leading to duplicate
purchases, unused licenses, and a significant amount of waste.
This is money the VA could be spending to better care for our
veterans.
In the VA's prepared testimony today, they essentially say,
do not worry, Congress, we have it covered. We do not need you
to make us fix our messes. Actually, I think we do. Just this
week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reaffirmed the VA still does not effectively track software
licenses that are currently in use and does not regularly
compare the inventories of software licenses that are currently
in use to purchase records.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY KENNEDY
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Chair Kiggans, Ranking Member
Ramirez, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak today in support of my bill, H.R. 8010,
the VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act of 2026.
I would like to start by congratulating AFGE on the court-
ordered reinstatement of their collective bargaining agreement.
Strong labor protections matter because they directly affect
recruitment, retention, and morale across the VA workforce,
including the VA police officers, which brings me to my bill,
the VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act, which would
prohibit Secretary Collins from downgrading VA police officers
to lower pay grades for doing the exact same job they are
already doing. At a time when VA is already struggling to
recruit and retain officers, we should not be cutting their
pay.
To understand why this bill is necessary, it is important
to understand what VA police officers do every day. These
officers are responsible for protecting veterans, doctors,
nurses, and staff inside VA hospitals and clinics, facilities
that are often open 24 hours a day and deal with everything
from mental health crises to violent incidents. They are doing
this job right now while severely understaffed. According to
the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), nearly 60 percent of
VA facilities report police staffing shortages, making it the
most severe nonclinical staffing shortage across the entire
Department.
At the same time, VA is considering downgrading more than
95 percent of VA police positions by as many as four pay grades
due to an U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
classification review. In Buffalo, a two grade downgrade could
mean a pay cut of roughly $10,000 a year. Remember, they are
considering up to as many as four pay grade downgrades. At the
very moment we are struggling to recruit and retain officers,
we are about to tell them that they will be paid less to do the
same dangerous job.
We are already seeing what happens when staffing is not
there. In Pickens County, Georgia, a VA social worker was shot
inside the clinic and later died from his injuries. There was
no VA police officer onsite, and someone had to go looking for
an officer during an active shooting situation, something that
should never happen at a facility serving our veterans.
If these downgrades go forward, many experienced officers
will leave for other Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies that offer higher pay. When they leave existing
staffing shortages will get worse, response times will
increase, security gaps will grow, and our veterans and the
healthcare workers who treat them will pay the price. That is
why my bill is so important. This bill is about recruitment,
retention, and ultimately safety.
We ask VA police officers to protect the people who serve
this country. We must make sure we are not cutting their pay
while they are being asked to do more with less.
I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Ms. King-Hinds for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, for the
opportunity to speak on a critical new piece of legislation
that I am proud to lead, H.R. 7795, the Veterans Affairs
Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network Act, also
called the VA SUBCON Act. At its core, this bill addresses a
simple but significant oversight gap within the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Today, while the VA sets goals for contracting with
veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses, we lack clear visibility into how subcontracting
decisions are actually made. Too often, large prime contractors
rely on the same group of preferred partners, which leaves many
qualified veteran-owned businesses without a meaningful
opportunity to compete and grow. This is not just a missed
opportunity, it is a structural barrier, one coming from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) that I am
all too familiar with.
The VA SUBCON Act offers a straightforward and low-cost
solution. It directs the VA to establish a centralized vetted
data base of certified veteran-owned small businesses that
government contractors can access when developing their
subcontracting plans. By making this information available at
the right time during the solicitation process, we can expand
access while increasing competition and ensuring subcontracting
goals are more than just a box to check.
Importantly, this bill uses resources and includes a sunset
provision ensuring accountability and allowing Congress to
evaluate its effectiveness. This is about transparency, it is
about fairness, and it is about making sure that the businesses
owned by those who served our country have a real opportunity
to succeed.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7795. Together, let us
make sure our vets are not just thanked for their services, but
truly support it when they run small businesses.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Self for 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH SELF
Mr. Self. Thank you, Chairwoman, for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of my bill. H.R. 7319, the VA Bonus and
Relocation Recovery Act.
Currently, the VA is authorized to report--to recover
bonuses, awards, and relocation expenses that should not have
been paid to VA employees due to misconduct or poor
performance. Unfortunately, the statutory authority only
applies to current VA employees and does not clearly extend to
individuals who have already separated from the Department.
That means a VA employee who engaged in misconduct, received
taxpayer-funded bonuses or relocation payments that they should
not have received and then separated from the Department on
their own volition may be able to keep that money. This is a
failure in responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
These are not insignificant funds. For Fiscal Year 2020
through 2023, VA OIG identified at least 17.5 million in
incentive payments that should have been subject to debt
collection, with an additional 4.6 million in improper
retention payments that should warrant recoupment. My bill, the
VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act, corrects this. It
clarifies that the VA's authority to recoup bonuses and awards
extends to former employees.
Second, I would like the opportunity to speak on behalf of
my bill, H.R. 7950. It addresses the persistent and bipartisan
concern the Department of Veterans Affairs is too often
struggling to provide Congress with timely and complete
information. That breakdown does not just affect this
committee, it affects our ability to serve veterans. When
Congress cannot get clear answers, oversight suffers and the
issues veterans face take longer to fix.
Too often this committee has encountered delays, incomplete
responses, or filtered information. This slows down our work
and it limits our ability to act and allows known problems to
persist longer than they should. This bill would restructure
and codify the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs. In order to facilitate a
better flow of information between the VA and Congress, a clear
structure and lines of responsibility will be established.
I ask for my colleagues to support both of these bills and
I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
Before hearing their testimony, I want to introduce the
witnesses on today's first panel. Since they just called votes,
what we will do is we will introduce the panel and then we will
recess for votes and then return.
Representing the Department of Veteran Affairs, we have
Ilsa Wiechers, Acting Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for
Health for Patient Care Services, Veterans Health
Administration. Dr. Wiechers is accompanied by Mr. Rondy Waye,
executive director, Human Capital Programs, Office of the Chief
Human Capital Officer, Human Resources Administration; and Mr.
Jeffrey Neil, associate executive director, Technology
Acquisition Center, Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and
Construction.
I will ask the witnesses on the panel to please stand and
raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
We will go ahead and recess now for votes and we will
return and then we will recognize the witnesses.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ciscomani. [Presiding.] Thank you. Thank you, Members,
and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr.--I am sorry, Dr. Wiechers, you are recognized for 5
minutes to provide your testimony on behalf of the Department
of Veteran Affairs.
STATEMENT OF ILSE WIECHERS
Dr. Wiechers. Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to share the Department's views on the legislation before you
today. I am joined today by Mr. Rondy Waye, executive director,
Human Capital Programs; and Mr. Jeffrey Neil, associate
executive director, Technology Acquisition Center at the VA. In
the interest of time, my remarks will focus on seven bills with
fuller analysis provided in our written statement.
First, the VA Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity
Network Act. VA supports the bill's intent, but has concerns
about potential duplication with U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) mechanisms and the risk of unintentionally
excluding qualified veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-
owned small businesses.
On sterile processing technicians' certifications, VA
supports the goal of strong sterile processing practices, but
notes that legislation is unnecessary because VA already has
authority to set qualifications and certification expectations.
Turning to modifying the rate of pay under the Veterans
Community Care Program, VA must express significant concerns.
Implementing location-specific rates would require
renegotiating thousands of agreements and major operational and
Information Technology (IT) changes potentially affecting
provider participation, payment timeliness, and clarity for
veterans.
Regarding the FMLA expansion for VA employees, VA defers to
the Office of Personnel Management which oversees
governmentwide FMLA policy.
On the VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act of 2026, VA
cannot support the bill as written due to conflicts with title
5 classification principles and risks of inequitable or
prohibited personnel practices.
For the Clarify and Expand Assistant Secretary for
Management Authority Bill, VA supports the intent subject to
amendments and available appropriations and is assessing
potential resource implications.
Finally, regarding the draft OCLA bill, VA's evaluation
remains ongoing and the Department will provide its views to
the committee after the hearing.
In closing, VA appreciates the strengthening veteran care,
oversight, and the workforce that serves our Nation's veterans.
We look forward to continued collaboration as these proposals
progress. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Ilse Wiechers Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony. The
written statement of Dr. Wiechers will be entered into the
hearing record.
We will now turn to questions and I yield myself 5 minutes.
I want to thank you again for being with us and I want to
just start off with talking about a specific bill here. I am
proud to have introduced the Vets Collections, Liquidity, and
Efficiency Accountability for Reinvestment (CLEAR) Act
legislation focused on the simple but crucial goal, making sure
every dollar owed to the Department of Veteran Affairs is
recovered and reinvested into care for our veterans.
Right now the VA provides millions of appointments every
year, including care that should be reimbursed by third-party
payers, like private insurance. Too often, these funds are
delayed, lost in bureaucracy, and not effectively returned to
where they belong, back into the care of our veterans. The Vets
CLEAR Act fixes that. The bill improves how the VA recovers and
collects revenue, gives the Department more flexibility, and
ensures funds are properly deposited in the Medical Care
Collections Fund, and strengthens oversight so Congress and the
American people can see exactly how these dollars are being
used. At its core, this is about accountability and results.
I am sorry. Yep. Doctor, to you as well, how will this bill
that I just described, the Vets CLEAR Act, which reinvests
recovered funds into the Medical Care Collections Fund, improve
patient care?
Dr. Wiechers. Thank you, sir, for the question. VA supports
this bill in part because we share the desire that the
legislation has in consolidating more funds in the Medical Care
Collections Fund (MCCF), which is more flexible in its ability
to directly return funds to our facilities, which then can be
used directly to provide medical care and services for our
veterans. It does so, that fund has no Fiscal Year obligation
requirements, and so it is more flexible. That is one of the
reasons why we are supporting the bill, but with some concerns,
as we noted in our written testimony.
Mr. Ciscomani. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Waye, if I can go to you real quick. If the VA is able
to recover and reinvest more funding efficiently, as it was
mentioned, how could that support hiring, retention and
workforce stability?
Mr. Waye. Oh, thank you for the question. Certainly,
anytime we have additional funding, that could possibly go
toward filling jobs or positions.
Mr. Ciscomani. Can you expand on that a little bit, please,
on how--maybe using some examples and how the support can help?
Mr. Waye. Well, I mean, obviously, again, if we are talking
about having additional funds that are coming back in the
coffers, we could actually be able to use that to identify
where we have critical positions that need to be filled, and we
can put that money toward setting up a recruitment plan to fill
positions in those shortage categories.
Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Neil, I will squeeze in one more
question here. Does legislation like this align with broader
efforts to modernize VA systems and improve financial
management, and how?
Mr. Neil. Thank you for the question. If to the extent that
it returns money and makes money available, whether it be for
hiring or for acquisition of supplies and services that are
needed by the agency, then, yes, it does support acquisition in
the sense that every dollar can go further and dollars that
would might otherwise not be available become available and can
be directed toward critical areas that are unfunded at the
time.
Mr. Ciscomani. Great. Thank you.
Now I yield to the Ranking Member Ramirez, and then yield
to members going back and forth between sides. You are
recognized.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first, I want
to--I know I mentioned this at the beginning of our committee
hearing, but I want to once again commend the unions for their
hard fought win in court ordering the restoration of AFGE's
collective bargaining agreements. I want to make sure that I
also put on the record that I urge Secretary Collins to comply
with this order fully and to reinstate the remaining union
agreements as well.
I want to get into the questions. Mr. Waye, my bill is a VA
Employee Family Care Expansion Act. It codifies the basic right
of employees to be able to use Family Medical Leave Act to take
time off to care for their in-laws. My question to you, Mr.
Waye, is why did the VA eliminate this right? What was the
rationale?
Mr. Waye. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Are you
speaking toward the actual collective labor agreement?
Ms. Ramirez. I am talking about specifically the Family
Medical Leave Act that would allow for staff of the VA to be
able to take care of their in-laws. Why did the VA eliminate
this right from its workers?
Mr. Waye. Okay. Thank you for the question. We did not
eliminate the right. I mean right now employees still can take
care of their in-laws. They can use sick leave to do that.
Ms. Ramirez. Give me 1 second, Mr. Waye. I figured you
would say that, but, in fact, that was not the case. Prior they
were able to take the time off and now they have to use their
sick leave, which means that if, in fact, an employee gets sick
and needs to take time off, the they would not have that time
in order to be able to take care of their family after. Let me
ask you a question. The policy did in fact change, right? They
now can use sick leave, but they are not able to take the leave
that they were able to deprive, is that right?
Mr. Waye. Well, they do not have the--right, those are not
covered by the collective bargaining agreement.
Ms. Ramirez. Is it the VA's position that, because it is
specifically to in-laws, that they are not considered family?
Mr. Waye. No, that is not our position. What we are saying
is that for this particular one we are deferring to the Office
of Personnel Management on the bill overall because it is
something that would apply not just to the VA, but typically
would apply across the board to Federal employees. Typically,
when OPM looks at this, they normally do not have carve-outs
for a Federal organization.
Ms. Ramirez. Well, let me ask you, Mr.--okay. Mr. Waye, let
me ask you a follow-up question on this. With the shifts and
changes, do you have a sense of how many employees this change
in policy would affect?
Mr. Waye. No, no, I do not have exactly a number in terms
of how it would affect because we still--again, the Family
Medical Leave Act, paid parental leave, and the other leave is
still available.
Ms. Ramirez. It does not apply for your spouse's parents,
correct?
Mr. Waye. Not for the spouse's parents, that is correct.
Ms. Ramirez. What I heard you say is that you can just use
sick leave to care for your in-laws. You know, let me make sure
that I ask you this question on the record. What happens if
they exhaust their sick leave? What leave can they use to help
their family if an in-law has long-term illness?
Mr. Waye. If an in-law has long-term illness, they can also
request and receive approval for annual leave. We also have
leave without pay that is available, that can be requested.
Those determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Ramirez. Mr. Waye, can you do me a favor for the
record, could you try to get me information of how many people
would be impacted by the policy change? We can follow up later.
I appreciate it.
I want to follow up with one of my last questions here
given time. Mr. Waye, on March 13th, a Federal judge in Rhode
Island issued an injunction ordering Secretary Collins to
restore VA's collective bargaining agreement with the American
Federation of Government Employees. It has now been nearly 2
weeks and the VA has done absolutely nothing to comply with
this injunction. Instead, what we are seeing is that the VA
human resources officials across the country say they are
waiting for guidance from the VA central office before
restoring critical benefits and workplace rights to AFGE
represented employees.
My question is, Secretary Collins talks a lot about so-
called accountability, but what authority does the VA have to
defy orders from a Federal judge?
Mr. Waye. Well, thank you for the question. Ma'am, VA is
not defying the order. We reviewed the order and engaged the
Department of Justice, and we were basically working with the
Department of Justice for guidance on how to correctly
implement the order.
Ms. Ramirez. Okay. My follow-up to you is, can you tell me
specific steps that the VA is taking to restore the CBA for the
320,000 employees impacted?
Mr. Waye. Ma'am, right now I am deferring, again, deferring
to the Department of Justice further guidance. We will continue
to collaborate with them. Once the determination----
Ms. Ramirez. You are not able to give me any specific steps
at this moment?
Mr. Waye. At this time, we are deferring to the Department
of Justice.
Ms. Ramirez. Unfortunate. Okay. Well, thank you. Time is
up. If we have another round, I would like to follow up. Thank
you.
I yield back.
Ms. Radewagen. [Presiding.] Representative King-Hinds for 5
minutes.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of
all, I want to say thank you very much for your thoughtful
assessment of the VA SUBCON Act that I have introduced. This
legislation is personal to me because there is a lot--you know,
we have a lot of folks who are returning home who are vets. One
of the very few economic opportunities that are available on
the island is a direct result of a lot of this defense
spending, Department of Defense (DOD) spending--or Department
of War spending on the Islands to build facilities for the
Department of War, you know, construction and whatnot. Right? I
want to make sure that they are able to fully participate.
What I have been seeing as a trend is that, you know, these
big primes, they come and build relationship with these small
subcontractors and emerging small businesses, they just get
boxed out in perpetuity. This is kind of like the underlying
thought and the driving, I guess, rationale behind this bill.
In reading your feedback, you pointed out that you were not
clear with regards to some of the intent behind one of, you
know, the exclusions in the bill. Right? I just kind of want to
have a conversation with that with you.
One, you are worried that basically excluding any company
that has ever participated in a joint venture or like the
Mentor-Protege Program, for example, is going to have an impact
on unnecessarily excluding types of participation. I guess for
me, the goal is to prevent large firms from hiding behind joint
ventures or these Mentor-Protege structures to dominate
subcontracting opportunities meant specifically for small--
veteran small businesses. I want to work with you to be able to
further refine and clarify that language to ensure that we
accomplish that goal.
I think you also had concerns about the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating
threshold. Right? If I am understanding you correctly, your
argument is that a contractor could receive many poor ratings,
but still qualify with just two satisfactory ratings. I guess
my intent basically is not to create an elite list, but to
ensure newer or smaller veteran firms are not locked out
because they lack performance histories. Because you have
stated that it is not clear what the intent is behind the
exclusion, I just want to put that on record and, hopefully,
work with you to be able to achieve the objective that I am
seeking with regards to this bill.
With that being said, I do have a question for Mr. Neil, or
whoever in the panel who can answer this, and I want to get a
better understanding from you as to how do contracting officers
ensure primes are flowing down task orders to their contract
subcontractors efficiently.
Mr. Neil. Thank you for the question and thank you a lot
with the explanation on some of the areas that were unclear.
Encouraging work to be shared with subcontractors,
particularly subcontractors that are service-disabled veteran-
owned small businesses or veteran-owned small businesses is a
part of the responsibilities of the contracting officer. When
awards are made to other than small businesses, we have
requirements in the Federal acquisition regulation to encourage
that degree of sharing the work and trying to develop those
small businesses. Then we ask for a subcontracting plan that is
tied to the goals of the agency for specific categories of
small businesses. We review that plan as a requirement prior to
the award of a contract.
Also understand, some contracts really have no or limited
subcontracting opportunities. For contracts that are going to
other than small businesses for which there are subcontracting
opportunities, that is something that we put in the contracts
to require the development of a plan. We oversee and approve
the plan and reach out to other agencies, such as the Small
Business Administration, to assist when we are unsure as to
what is being proposed to us by the prime contractors.
I hope that helps you understand that we identify the
contracts where it is appropriate, we include the clauses that
are relevant, and then we consult with other agencies who
assist in the development of those plans.
Ms. King-Hinds. I am out of time. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Thank you and looking forward to working with you.
Ms. Radewagen. I would now like to recognize Representative
Kennedy for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I would like to follow up on some
of the issues I raised in my opening statement, particularly
when it comes to staffing levels, recruitment, and the
potential impact of these downgrades.
Mr. Waye, how many VA police officers are currently
employed across the Department and of those officers, how many
are currently facing potential downgrades as a result of
reclassification?
Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. We have approximately
3,700 that are on board right now. The breakout, the number of
positions potentially impacted by the downgrades, approximately
900.
Mr. Kennedy. You said 900?
Mr. Waye. Correct, positions, impacting up to--impacting a
couple thousand employees.
Mr. Kennedy. Just for the record, I want to make clear,
first of all, thank you for your answer. That is the first
answer that we have been able to get out of the VA. You know,
we have heard 95 percent of VA police officers are facing this
potential downgrade. As you know, the VA conducts exit surveys
for departing employees. For the 357 police officers, that is
the number I have, who have left since January of last year,
what were their top reasons for leaving and were the proposed
downgrades mentioned in the exit surveys?
Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. I do not have the
specific information with me concerning the actual, you know,
kind of what they provided in the exit surveys. I will mention
this, that we have paused any downgrades for these positions.
We are currently collaborating with the Office of Personnel
Management, looking at additional options to address, you know,
the classification and so forth of those positions, and we will
continue to do that.
We understand and acknowledge the concerns regarding the
downgrades. It is not something that we are--we necessarily
look forward to doing. However, we do have an obligation to
comply with the Office of Personnel Management classification
standards and then applicable regulations and laws.
Mr. Kennedy. Just simply yes or no, because I want to make
sure I understand what you are saying, are the police officers
at the VA, are they included in the exit surveys?
Mr. Waye. I would have to verify that. I believe all
employees have an opportunity to participate in exit surveys.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay, good. I would like to see how they have
classified their reasons for leaving. We have heard that a
number of individuals are leaving because or considering
leaving because of the downgrades in salary, being asked to do
more with less. During these trying times, that is just not
acceptable. Would you agree that the VA police force has faced
long-standing recruitment challenges and sustainability
challenges?
Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. Well, sir, I would
say that there is--it is been--that there certainly--we
certainly have recruitment challenges. As you know, the
classification standards apply to other Federal agencies as
well. We know that is an issue in terms of the grade levels.
Again, our goal is to continue to collaborate with the Office
of Personnel Management.
I know one thing they are looking at now is kind of looking
at having a review of all of the classification standards. The
classification standards for the police officers I think was
last updated back in 1988. There is certainly a possibility
that that is something that will be reviewed in the near future
and perhaps have some impact on the outcome of grades.
Mr. Kennedy. Just as a reminder from my opening statement,
the VA's own inspector general has reported a severe staffing
shortage, upwards of 60 percent at VA facilities, the largest
staffing shortage across the entire Department. Then you add
that to the fact that we are now downgrading potentially 95
percent of the police officer positions. Do not you believe
that that has a major impact on retention and sustainability of
officers and recruitment?
Mr. Waye. Sir, I believe, thank you for the question, I
believe it could--it does have--it could have some impact on
retention. I will say this. One, we are still hopeful that we
will not be downgrading 95 percent of our employees. In the
event that we get to a point where we have to conduct a
downgrade, then obviously we have grade and pay retention that
will come into play where employees would not feel, you know,
an immediate loss in pay and then they have saved pay as well.
Mr. Kennedy. I am out of time, but I just will say briefly
that this is not about pay grades, but it is about whether
clinics and hospitals have trained law enforcement personnel to
keep veterans, doctors, nurses, and other staff safe.
I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Radewagen. I would now like to recognize Dr. Conaway
for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Ramirez, for holding this hearing. Certainly I want to
thank our witnesses for presenting themselves to us today.
It is--you know, pay is about how you respect the people
who work there. There needs to be understanding that these
systems, these institutions are systems that need everybody
working and respecting them, the job functions that they have.
Let me turn to one of the bills being taken up today,
specifically H.R. 7950, which would codify the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs, OCLA. It provides a
number of authorities and functions that the OCLA is to
perform. Specifically, this bill would ensure timely and
accurate responses to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committees. We know that this office has often struggled to
provide responses to Congress and this has to be addressed.
I know our office and in my district has a number--there is
a lot of casework that comes to us related to veterans who are
concerned about their benefits and other issues related to
their service. We rely on the Office of Legislative Affairs to
help us help the veterans in our district.
Was this department, was the OCLA impacted by Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE) in its reduction in staff
initiatives or voluntary early retirement authority?
Dr. Wiechers. Thank you for the question, sir. I am not
prepared to speak to this bill as the Department is still
conducting its review and I do not have information at this
time to address your question specifically. I would be happy to
take it back and provide you an answer after.
Mr. Conaway. Well, thank you, Ms. Wiechers. I would say
that it would appear that this office, as it is currently
staffed, is simply not able to keep up with the amount of
requests that come to it. In some cases I am told that it takes
almost 105 business days to give a response to Congress and
congressional offices. When we looked up on the website, it
seems that there are only four people working in that office
that is going to have to handle casework inquiries that come in
from around the country. It would seem to me that four people
are going to have a very difficult time, just with the amount
of requests that come in through my own office, keeping up with
the amount of correspondence that they have to provide back to
districts. You can understand if there are only 4 people there,
why it would take 105 business days to get these responses out.
I hope that you will look at it and give some consideration
to the functioning of that office and how important it is for
us and our responsibility as Congresspersons to address the
inquiries that come into our offices no matter what community
is bringing their issues to us. Particularly when our veteran
community comes to us, I think there is a particularly
important responsibility that we have to meet.
Let me move on to H.R. 7280, the Veteran DATA Act of 2026.
It would prevent third-party vendors that work with the
Department of Veterans Affairs from selling, monetizing, or
otherwise misusing veterans' data.
Mr. Neil, with the VA granting vendors access to data to
train AI models, how is the VA protecting veteran data and
setting parameters on what contractors and their AI tools are
able to access and be trained on?
Mr. Neil. Thank you for the question. Let me just say that
we do support the bill. There are just some issues that I want
to highlight in my response to your question.
The risks that you identified there with training on AI,
let me just say there are a number of things within the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, within VA policy, specifically
Directive 6500 and Handbook 6500.6, that address how data that
is provided to contractors can be used appropriately and what
cannot be done with that data. From the regulation, from VA
policy, the concerns with the use of data and the inappropriate
use of data is pretty comprehensively addressed in existing law
and regulation. That is how it has been handled within the
Department, that it is done through contract language. It is
also done by overseeing the data that is being shared. It is
just some of the----
Mr. Conaway. Let me just reclaim my time for a minute
because I want to ask another question on the record. Are you
aware of whether or not these DOGE operatives have absconded
with any of the data in the VA?
Mr. Neil. Thank you for the question. I am not aware of any
DOGE employee or other employee that may have absconded with
data, but I can certainly take that question back and see if I
can find out.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. Please do and get a response to us.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Radewagen. I would now like to recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Dr. Wiechers, in your testimony you state that legislation
is not needed to certify sterile processing technicians, yet
less than 50 percent of the SPT workforce is certified. If VA
has this authority, why is it not using it?
Dr. Wiechers. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. I would
like to mention first that we agree and are appreciative of the
intent of this bill and the focus and attention being paid to
how sterile processing and our staff who conduct sterile
processing are vital members of our health system and that they
help to ensure the safety of our patients and our veterans and
of our other staff.
I will say that VA does already have authority under our
policies to oversee certification and education requirements
for sterile processing. We have an internal VHA certification
process that is free for all staff to take. That requires 400
hours of hands-on experience to become eligible to take the
certification exam and that requires additional annual
continuing education for maintenance of that certification,
which is on par with some of the other accreditation programs.
We also follow the Joint Commission standards as it relates
to competencies for sterile processing. In so doing, that means
all of our sterile processing staff must show and prove their
competency in reprocessing of reusable medical devices under
direct observation. For our highest risk devices, they have to
recertify on that--or they have to redemonstrate their
competency in that every year. Again, that is in alignment with
the Joint Commission standard.
Ms. Radewagen. Mr. Waye, how does access to the job
training and certifications improve VA's workforce and patient
outcomes?
Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. Certainly having
highly trained folks improve--highly trained employees improve
their ability to deliver services. We do have some concerns
regarding having this as a requirement prior to coming on
board. As most are aware, we compete with a large number of
medical providers and healthcare institutions across the
Nation. We found that the more that is required on the front
end, more folks are screened out who might otherwise be very,
very qualified to come into the position and also receive their
certification after coming on board.
Ms. Radewagen. Mr. Waye, how often does VA recoup bonuses
from current employees if they have substantiated allegations
of misconduct or poor performance? Why do you not use your
authority? Could not those funds be recouped and awarded to
employees who are more deserving?
Mr. Waye. Thank you for the question. First, I just want to
state that our evaluation of this bill is ongoing. We take--we
only take recruitment action whenever it meets the criteria
outlined in the statute and in our VA policy. Specifically,
that is when employees have engaged in misconduct, poor
performance, or, in the case of relocation expenses, fraud or
malfeasance. We--that is not something that occurs all that
often. When it does occur, we take actions. We follow the
process, which includes due process, an opportunity for them to
receive a notice outlining, you know, what they have done, what
we are looking to recoup, an opportunity to reply. Then we
issue an order and decision, and they have the ability to
appeal that.
Ms. Radewagen. Dr. Wiechers, how will Representative
Ciscomani's the Vets CLEAR Act which reinvests recovered funds
into the Medic Medical Care Collections Fund improve patient
care?
Dr. Wiechers. Thank you for the question. By retaining
additional revenue funds into the MCCF Fund from Civilian
Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (CHAMPVA), from our VA-DOD sharing resources, and from
the False Claims Act, taking those additional moneys and
putting them into the MCCF allows us to move those funds back
directly to facilities. Those facilities can then use those
moneys directly for medical care and services of our veterans.
It does so in a way that has more transparency and less
complicated workflows in our accounting and financing, and,
therefore, gets money to where we need it faster and more
cleanly and more clearly with greater transparency.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you.
The first panel of witnesses is now excused, and I would
like to invite the second panel of witnesses to come forward.
On our second panel, we will hear from the following
witnesses. Mr. Cole Lyle, the director of the Veterans Affairs
and Rehabilitation Division in the Washington, DC, Office of
the American Legion. Mr. Joseph Avila, administrator of the
Sterile Processing Department of the University of Virginia
Health System. Ms. Brittany Madni, executive vice president for
the Economic Policy Innovation Center. Sergeant Guerrero, vice
president of the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 3511.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses on our second
panel to the witness table. There you are. I ask you to please
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you all for
your attendance and testimony this afternoon.
Mr. Lyle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your testimony on behalf of the American Legion.
STATEMENT OF COLE LYLE
Mr. Lyle. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Ramirez, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. On
behalf of National Commander Dan K. Wiley and the more than 1.5
million dues-paying members of the American Legion, I thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Across the bills under consideration, one common theme
emerges: the VA must become a better steward of the resources
and trust veterans have placed in it. We see this clearly in
the management of software assets. VA spent roughly 21 billion
on software licenses and systems between Fiscal Year 2022 and
2024. Yet a recent GAO report found the Department still cannot
accurately track how many licenses it uses. According to GAO's
written testimony, without implementing comprehensive guidance
for managing the impacts of restrictive software license
practices, VA is not well-positioned to identify and analyze
the impact or mitigate any risks they present. The result is
wasted taxpayer dollars and inefficient operations.
H.R. 6654 takes a practical step toward fixing that by
requiring a comprehensive inventory, centralized oversight, and
annual reporting. With modest amendments to ensure the most
efficient implementation, we believe this bill will deliver
meaningful long-term savings that can be redirected back to
veteran care.
We see the same need for stronger stewardship over
veterans' sensitive personal data. In the era of sophisticated
scams and rapidly advancing technology, including AI that can
sometimes reidentify anonymized records, veterans are rightly
concerned about who has access to their information and how it
is used. The Veteran DATA Act would seek to close gaps by
prohibiting contractors from selling or monetizing veterans
data and providing training to assist employees to identify
this insensitive information. While we support the overall goal
of the bill, we recommend targeted amendments to avoid
unnecessary renegotiation of contracts that may already contain
adequate protections.
Under 38 U.S.C. 721, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs can
order a current VA employee to repay all or part of a bonus or
award if misconduct or poor performance is later discovered.
However, this authority does not clearly extend to former
employees who have already left the Department, either
voluntarily or through termination. There is similar limited
authority under 38 U.S.C. 723 for recouping relocation
expenses, but, again, it primarily applies to if the person is
still employed.
In practice, once an employee separates from VA, the
Department's ability to recover improperly paid bonuses,
awards, or relocation incentives become becomes very difficult
or impossible. The VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act is
specifically designed to close this loophole. If passed, it
would explicitly authorize the Secretary to recoup bonuses,
awards, and relocation from former employees when the Secretary
determines the payment would not have been made. We support the
bill also with amendments to strengthen due process and clarify
the judicial reviews of major adverse actions under title 38,
include former employees, and shorten the statute of
limitations as we believe 6 years is too onerous on the former
employee.
Strong financial management is foundational to everything
the VA does. For too long material weaknesses in VA's financial
reporting have frustrated Congress and undermined confidence in
the Department's budget requests. The VA Fiscal Management
Modernization Act would give the chief financial officer the
clear statutory authority and structure needed to fix these
long-standing problems. We support the bill, but recommend
clear lines of reporting be included.
We also support the underlying goals of the Vets CLEAR Act,
but recommend clarifying the language to ensure it achieves its
intended purpose without creating confusion in the regulatory
process.
The VA SUBCON Act expanding opportunities for veteran-owned
small businesses is also a good idea. However, the SBA utilizes
an existing tool and should be the lead agency on this effort.
We have further concerns that the specific exclusion of certain
subcontractors would ultimately be detrimental to the bill's
stated goal.
Finally, we strongly support measures to protect patient
safety and workplace security. Requiring appropriate
professional certifications for sterile processing technicians
is common sense, but we recommend a reimbursement of initial
certification and a time requirement for completion so as not
to disincentivize recruitment for these low-paying GS
positions.
Chairwoman and Ranking Member, the American Legion stands
ready to work with this subcommittee to refine these proposals
so they deliver real results for veterans while protecting
taxpayer dollars and maintaining the highest standards of
accountability.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to taking your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Cole Lyle Appears In The
Appendix]
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Lyle. The written statement
of Mr. Lyle will be entered into the hearing record.
Mr. Avila, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your testimony on behalf of the Healthcare Sterile Processing
Association.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH AVILA
Mr. Avila. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Ramirez, and distinguished committee members. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
more than 60,000 sterile processing technicians in the United
States and roughly the 3,400 positions serving within the
Department of Veteran Affairs.
As a veteran and a sterile processing professional, I am
honored here to speak on behalf of the sterile processing
professionals and how to improve credentialing and training
efforts within the VA sterile processing departments through
the Veteran Infection Prevention Act. Sterile processing is not
widely understood by the average patient, yet is the foundation
of surgical safety and directly influences clinical outcomes.
Sterile processing technicians are responsible for the
disassembly, kit cleaning, inspection, sterilization,
reassembly of every surgical instrument used in patient care.
Although many technicians do not hold advanced degrees, they
require to maintain deep technical knowledge of more than
37,000 surgical instruments to perform their work at a high
level of precision.
Take, for example, the average hospital with 15 operating
rooms performs roughly 13,000 surgical cases annually. These
cases require an average of 450 instruments and big picture,
that is over 5 million instruments reprocessed in a yearly
time. That level of complexity underscores the need for
evidence-based standards, clinical risk mitigation, high
reliability processes performed by certified technicians.
Memorial Hermann, where I previously served as a regional
director, and at the University of Virginia Health System,
where I currently serve as administrator, they have voluntary
adopted credentialing requirements. Have seven states that
require all their hospital and surgical centers. However, these
standards do not apply to Federal operated hospitals, like
those ran by the VA.
While the VA has made recent progress requiring certain
staff, such as their facility Sterile Processing Services (SPS)
chiefs, to obtain certification, the rest of the sterile
processing technicians only are required to complete a online
training management tool similar to your cybersecurity. These
modules lack rigor, competency-based assessment, and third-
party oversight provided by accredited certifying bodies.
Chairwoman Kiggans' legislation requires certification from an
accredited institution.
Accreditation is impartial, third party, and sets the
standards for certification program practices and
administration. By holding an accredited certification, you
demonstrate to your employer, your community, and, more
importantly, to yourself that you have the skills and knowledge
required to complete your job as defined by the leading
authority in the credentialing industry.
Similar to many industries, the surgical industry is
constantly evolving and so are the surgical instruments.
Ensuring a culture of safety means that staff are held to the
same high standards like certification and resourced properly
through regular on the job training. We believe that all
sterile processing technicians within the VA should be
certified and trained on a continual basis. This is why we are
supporting the Veteran Infection Prevention Act.
Contaminated equipment exposes veterans to dangerous
pathogens, costly follow-up care, lengthy delays at a facility
when contamination occurs. There has been a number of reported
incidents throughout the VA facilities that have resulted in
over 1,000 cancellations or delays in treatment and over 4,500
veterans exposed to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and
hepatitis. Veterans deserve the confidence that they are
receiving the best care and equipment properly sterilized and
serviced.
On behalf of all of the sterile processing technicians, I
want to once, excuse me, once again thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to any questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Joseph Avila Appears In The
Appendix]
Ms. Kiggans. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Avila. The written
statement of Mr. Avila will be entered into the record.
Ms. Madni, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your testimony on behalf of the Economic Policy Innovation
Center.
STATEMENT OF BRITTANY MADNI
Ms. Madni. Thank you, Chairwoman. Chairwoman Kiggans,
Ranking Member Ramirez, members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to testify today on bills to improve the fiscal
position of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
While I come to you as a budget expert, I am also the proud
wife of an active soldier in the United States Army, so this
legislation is personal to me. I hope you perform thoughtful
oversight of the VA for those who are have served and
sacrificed.
Before we can discuss the legislation at hand, we must
first acknowledge the fiscal situation of the Nation. It is
dire. We are running a $1.9 trillion deficit this year, we are
spending beyond our means, and we are currently $39 trillion in
debt. This raises interest rates, it drags economic growth, and
it results in inflationary pressures on key sectors, including
healthcare provided by the Veterans Health Administration.
Every dollar spent in the veterans' budget function should be
scrutinized to ensure it is indeed being used for veterans and
not wasted or lost in bureaucratic morass because the need is
most certainly apparent given the multitude of challenges our
veterans face, from mental health struggles to homelessness,
from job transition to civilian life reentry.
Since 1977, total actual outlays for veterans benefits and
services has grown from $18.04 billion to $377 billion in
Fiscal Year 2025. The rate of growth is notable in the previous
10 years, and the rate increases only get more extreme in U.S.
Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) projections for the coming
decade.
Of course, spending on veterans is directly impacted by
spending on defense, with an observable lag time between Active
Duty related outlays in the defense budget and the shift to
veterans. Given the likely increase in defense spending due to
the Iran conflict, it would be prudent for Congress now to rein
in unwarranted excess spending in preparation for possible
increases in the coming years.
I am not suggesting that all outlays are misspent. Many of
the programs in the VA's budget are essential, such as ensuring
critical access to mental health for veterans. That is where
the tax dollars, a finite resource, should be directed.
However, as outlays increase, so does the risk of fraud, waste,
and abuse. One such example is a million-dollar expenditure by
the VA on forcing ferrets to consume alcohol in a forced binge
for theoretical future research.
A major part of the problem is that autopilot spending in
the veterans budget has grown to 69 percent for Fiscal Year
2026. That means Congress is only reviewing 31 percent of what
taxpayer money is spent on for veteran services each year. In
total, the VA comprises only 6 percent of the entire Federal
budget, but it is responsible for the fourth highest outlays to
designated susceptible programs, behind only U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security
Administration, and the Department of War.
Last year, the VA susceptible programs outlaid a total of
$201 billion to its 7 susceptible programs. Of this, 78 percent
of that falls into the compensation bucket for VA employees. In
Fiscal Year 2025, the VA had $867 million in just known
improper payments for compensation across the agency. No wonder
the VA is struggling to support veterans while hemorrhaging
taxpayer dollars. Oversight must be a core component of any
funding.
As the VA's budget grows, you would expect to see
significant outcomes being improved in the veterans' quality of
life, access to care, and health. That is not the case.
According to the VA's Office of Suicide Prevention, veteran
deaths by suicide rates jumped from 2001 to 2023. In 2001,
there were 23.2 veteran suicide cases per 100,000 veterans. By
2023, this had jumped to 35.2 per 100,000 veterans. Even at the
height of the global war on terror, this rate never increased
above 30. This is, quite frankly, an unacceptable failure.
Another failure is considerable wait times veterans must
deal with before getting care at all. It is appalling that
employees fired for bad behavior are still able to keep their
bonuses, including relocation pay. That was supposed to help
push down wait times, particularly in rural communities.
Instead these individuals have retired and are allowed to keep
their relocation money even while those who served are stuck in
line, unable to access critical care.
That brings us to today's bills. While several of the bills
would improve the operations of the VA, I will focus my
analysis on four.
First, the VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act. According
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the VA was
assessed as being high risk for improper payments in the
compensation category for the last 2 fiscal years. There is no
additional room for overspending or failures here. The VA Bonus
and Relocation Recovery Act would help close an important
loophole, enabling the government to recoup dollars given to
employees who fail to meet their contracts. Otherwise, those
dollars are lost and there is no opportunity to use them to
encourage wait list reductions.
I will also briefly just note that the VA Fiscal Management
Modernization Act and the bill to establish the OCLA are both
absolutely essential. It is unreasonable that this committee
and other committees of jurisdiction, as well as the
Congressional Budget Office, are unable to gain access to
necessary budgetary information from the VA in a timely manner.
Establishing these offices, these responsibilities under the
chief financial officer, and restructuring OCLA are both
necessary to ensure that the executive is responsive to the
needs of you as legislators so that you can perform your
constitutional responsibilities.
Finally, I will also say that the bill to modify community
care rates is a fiscally responsible measure to prevent the VA
from overpowering paying for medical services and costs under
the Community Care Program. Site neutral reimbursement rates
are not only a fiscal saver, but they help veterans by
promoting consistent access to care and reducing out-of-pocket
expenses.
I am more than happy to answer any of your questions, but
all of these bills will improve the fiscal health of the VA.
Not one of them will increase direct spending with a measurable
degree over time and they will leave us better off.
Thank you.
[The Prepared Statement Of Brittany Madni Appears In The
Appendix]
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Ms. Madni. The written statement of
Ms. Madni will be entered into the hearing record.
Mr. Guerrero, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
deliver your testimony on behalf of the American Federation of
Government Employees.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS GUERRERO
Mr. Guerrero. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman
Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting AFGE to participate in today's hearings.
My name is Dennis ``Sarge'' Guerrero. I am a vice president
of AFGE Local 3511 at the Audie L. Murphy VA Medical Center,
San Antonio, Texas. For the past 18 years I have served as a VA
police officer and have attained the rank of sergeant. I also
proudly served in the Air Force for 20 years as a Security
Forces member. It is a privilege to testify on behalf of AFGE
and the National VA Council.
Today I plan to focus my testimony on a bill that--a bill
affecting thousands of VA police officers across the Nation.
AFGE and the National VA Council strongly supports H.R. 8010,
the VA Recruitment and Retention Act, introduced by
Representative Kennedy. This bill will prohibit OPM and the VA
from downgrading the positions of police officers. OPM's action
to downgrade VA police officers is a DC way of saying pay cuts.
It is counter to the VA's mission.
VA police officers have a critical role in protecting the
safety of veterans, their families, and VA employees every day.
VA police officers attend Law Enforcement Training Center
(LETC) for training and receive specialized training and crisis
interventions to help veterans from harming themselves and
others.
Ninety percent of VA officers are veterans themselves.
These officers can tap into their own experiences when
communicating with veterans and understanding the unique
features of their facilities. This is crucial as VA police
officers face dangers at work every day. They encounter
veterans with deadly weapons, under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, or experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
The plan to downgrade VA police officers is dire when
looked at with the data gathered by OIG. In Fiscal Year 2025,
OIG found that 58 percent of VA facilities designated VA police
as a severe occupational shortage. It is the most reported
nonclinical shortage. In the field, these shortages harms our
ability to perform our duties. In some facilities, new,
expensive security scanning equipment sits unused because of
staffing shortages. In certain A1 facilities, VA police
officers can only respond to one emergency at a time because
there are just not enough officers.
The staffing problem is also critical for Community-Based
Outpatient Clinics (CBOC), where the nearest officer is often
miles away. With the shortage--with the staffing shortage at
the level it is, VA facilities rely on extensive overtime,
which leads to the denial of annual leave for officers, leading
to burnout of those that remain.
To be honest, morale across VA police is at the lowest it
has ever been in my 18-year tenure. This is a huge problem. VA
police officers and new recruits can make a lot more money as a
new officer in local police departments than the VA. For
example, in Buffalo, New York, an entry level police officer
makes $15,000 more a year than a first-year VA police officer.
Additionally, an entry level police officer in Hampton,
Virginia, makes $13,500 more a year than a first-year VA police
officer.
Staffing shortages, low retention, and poor morale require
solutions, not pay cuts. H.R. 8010 is a necessary first step to
stop the exodus of the VA Police Department. AFGE welcomes the
opportunity to work with the committee on other bills that will
support VA police officers. These include increased hiring,
addressing higher wages, and granting VA police officers 6(c)
benefits. I want to thank Chairwoman Kiggans and Representative
Kennedy for cosponsoring H.R. 3226, the Law Enforcement
Officers (LEO) Equity Act, to achieve that goal.
I thank you and I am looking forward to answering any of
your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Dennis Guerrero Appears In The
Appendix]
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Guerrero. The written statement
of Mr. Guerrero will be entered into the hearing record.
We will now proceed to questioning and I recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Madni, how would you cite neutral payment policies like
in Dr. Miller-Meeks' bill? How would they affect the
government's financial state and maintain care standards?
Ms. Madni. They would absolutely--site neutral policies
like those in the bill in question today would reduce
government payments not only in terms of reimbursement rates,
but it would also have a positive impact on our debt service
costs, which means that we would have to pay less interest over
time. You have sort of a dual improvement on our physical
health. At the same time, you are ensuring that out-of-pocket
costs for patients are reduced and ensuring that the care
provided to patients is not going to hinge on where they
receive that treatment or whether or not the VA is reimbursing
at an unreasonable rate.
Ms. Kiggans. Great. Thank you. Ms. Madni, from your
experience with budgetary policy, can you discuss the benefit
of the VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act and the creation
of an office to prioritize congressional requests about the
VA's budget?
Ms. Madni. Absolutely. I will just speak to the fact that
there are not a ton of available data points that we had today
going into this hearing. The VA failed to provide necessary
information to the Congressional Budget Office in time to be
able to produce the scores necessary, the cost estimates
necessary. That alone is an impediment to this committee's
ability to do its work. It is an impediment to the entire
House's ability to do its work. There is no reason that the
Congressional Budget Office should not be able to get data from
the VA, just like it is able to secure that data from every
other department.
Having a chief financial officer, having a restructured
OCLA should absolutely improve not only this committee's
ability to do its job, but your ability to move forward with
important legislation that helps veterans onto the House floor
and through the Senate.
Ms. Kiggans. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Avila, from your perspective, what are the main
differences between a certified sterile processing technician
and an uncertified sterile processing technician?
Mr. Avila. Thank you for the question. The differences that
I have seen in the 25 years of my experience is that a
certified technician has complete competency over workspace
temperatures that are required for sterilization. They know
cleaning protocols. They also address chemical safety and
handling, blood-borne pathogens, microbiology, and know the
true safety of proper transportation of soiled goods. In
addition, there have been validated knowledge on regulatory
alignment and care and safety protocols. Then also provide a
professional credibility versus the noncertified.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you. Right now, less than half of the VA
sterile processing technicians are certified. What risk does
that pose to veterans receiving their care at the VA?
Mr. Avila. Yes. Having uncertified technicians in the VA
poses, similar to what I previously reported, the risk of VAs
having their surgical procedures either delayed or canceled,
or, as I previously reported that occurred in Georgia, 4,500
veterans being exposed to HIV and hepatitis.
Ms. Kiggans. All right. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. Mr. Guerrero, thank you
so much for traveling all the way here from San Antonio, Texas,
especially during a time of immense loss within your family. We
are very sorry for your loss.
I am hoping you could walk us through what you are seeing
on the ground regarding these downgrades. What are you hearing
from fellow VA police officers about the proposed changes and
what has it done to morale?
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you for your question. Thank you for
condolences.
What I am hearing on the ground from my fellow officers,
you have heard the old saying, rats flee a sinking ship. That
is we are having right now with VA police and the potential
downgrade of our levels.
In San Antonio, we have had four officers leave VA police
to become ICE officers because of the pay. In the past year, we
have had 120 officers leave the VA, either retirement or
finding--or they found other jobs that pay better than what the
VA does. These jobs, these positions that have been vacated by
these officers that have left, we cannot--the VA police cannot
fill them because there is a hold on hiring these. We cannot
fill these vacancies. Therefore, it is downgrade--it is not
downgraded, but we have less officers to perform the duties
that we are required to do to provide the security for the
veterans and the family members and VA police--and employees at
the VA.
The morale has in the last--like I stated my statement, in
the 18 years I have been a VA police officer, morale is at the
lowest level it is right now.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Guerrero, if someone today wanted to be a
VA police officer and applied at your facility in San Antonio,
what would their starting salary be say at the GS-5 level
compared to a San Antonio sheriff or Texas State Police?
Mr. Guerrero. A VA police officer, GS-5, Step 1, their
starting pay is $41,334. The San Antonio police officer, a
cadet, starting pay is $56,000. A Bexar County officer,
starting pay is $61,500, significantly higher than our VA
police officers. There is a big pay gap from our VA police
officers and our civil counterparts.
Mr. Kennedy. If VA cannot compete with starting pay and
those other law enforcement agencies, why would qualified
applicants choose the VA police, and especially when staffing
shortages are leading to slower response times in a hospital?
Mr. Guerrero. A lot of my fellow officers that I work with
now, they are on hold right now because they are telling me,
hey, Sarge, I do not want to leave the VA. I like what I do
here. I am a fellow veteran. As myself, I decided to be a VA
police officer to pay forward, to provide security for my
fellow veterans that are at Audie L. Murphy. I get my care
there myself. Me, it is a sense of pride for me to become a VA
police officer instead of going to a civilian law enforcement
agency where I am just out in the streets dealing with
everybody. Here I deal with my fellow veterans.
It is not only a sense of pride to me, but it gives me the
ability to talk to the veterans and communicate with them,
especially when they are in times of crisis. For example, there
was a veteran. Unfortunately, he has passed already. He called
the VA police desk and talked to my dispatcher, says, I want to
kill myself. She gave me the phone. I knew who the veteran was
because I dealt with him in the past because of his mental
issues. I talked to the veteran. I says, where do you live? Ah,
Sarge, I am not going to tell you because you are going to call
the police to have them bring me in. I says, no, I just want to
make sure you are okay.
I told my dispatcher, says, look him up. She called San
Antonio Police Department. They said he is Bexar County
jurisdiction. I told her call Bexar County, give them the
address. While I was talking to the veteran on the phone, Bexar
County showed up. He goes, oh, Sarge. I says, Mike, I need you
here. I need you to get better for us. They brought him in, we
talked, and he was okay.
That is why I do it, because I am a veteran myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
service as well. You have made it abundantly clear our VA
police officers need to be paid----
Mr. Guerrero. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. the way they deserve and earn
each and every day, especially standing up and being there and
providing safety for our veterans and healthcare providers in
those facilities. That is why it is so important that we are
not downgrading those police officers in any capacity and we
pass my bill.
I yield back.
Ms. Kiggans. Thank you.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that a non-
subcommittee member from the majority be allowed to take the
chair. Hearing no dissent, we will move on to the chair will
recognize Mr. Bergman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you all for
being here. Great to see some friendly faces.
Mr. Lyle, we will get right into it. Okay?
Mr. Lyle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bergman. It is about financial accountability and
setting up a system that actually we can see what works. In
light of the budget shortfalls that prompted enactment of the
VA Budget Shortfall Accountability Act earlier this year, do
you believe that VA currently has a sufficiently clear and
accountable financial chain of command?
Mr. Lyle. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. I
think as you alluded to and in previous Congresses, with the VA
having to come to Congress and ask for supplemental
appropriations when there is shortfalls and then carrying over
$5 billion, I think it is fairly clear that they do not have
sufficient reporting structures and accountability,
particularly in this area. I think this bill is a positive step
in the right direction in establishing those lanes of
accountability.
I would like to work with you to identify the specific
reporting structures and how that looks from facility to
facility to the chief financial officer. I think this bill is a
great step in that direction.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you. Is additional statutory
clarification needed to ensure one official is unmistakably
responsible for budget formulation, execution, and financial
control so there is none of this, it is not the other person?
Mr. Lyle. Yes, sir. I believe so.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Mr. Lyle, how would you--how would
strengthening financial oversight--excuse me. Guess it is
almost Miller time. How would strengthening financial oversight
under the VA Fiscal Management and Modernization Act help
ensure resources are being used effectively to support
veterans' services?
Mr. Lyle. Well, I think ensuring that there is proper
fiscal management and the authority for Congress to have
specific points of accountability obviously does a lot of
things, but I think the most important thing is it increases
trust in the VA from the veterans that it serves to ensure that
veterans know that the--and taxpayers, frankly, know that the
money that is being used to serve veterans is being used
efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Bergman. I think what I heard you say, and if you
disagree with this, I think what I heard you say, that clearer
financial accountability at the VA will lead to more consistent
and better services for veterans if we get the structure right.
Mr. Lyle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bergman. Clarity. Okay. Ms. Madni.
Ms. Madni. General.
Mr. Bergman. The VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act
requires certain employees with financial authority to report
exclusively to the CFO and prohibits them from also performing
programmatic or operational functions. From your perspective,
how much of the VA's past budgeting trouble has been driven by
blurred lines, not the song, blurred lines or confusing solid
lines with dotted lines, with dashed lines, with no lines, and
all of that, how has that hindered the financial oversight and
program management?
Ms. Madni. It has been a massive hindrance. I would just
point you back to the data.
Let me take a step back. It is not just about who is
responsible for what? It is not just is this a policy decision
or a financial decision? It is also a question of how these
things compound over time.
I ran some numbers for you. The global war on terror
started in the final weeks of Fiscal Year 2001. Just 25 years
later, in this fiscal year, outlays are projected to be 867
percent higher, 867 percent higher, than when we embarked in
our activities in 2001. The deployment height of the Iraq War
during 2007 to the 2008 surge explains why veteran outlay
increases in the subsequent 4 years increased, particularly as
soldiers returned home after 4-year contracts, and following
the end of the stop-loss program in 2010. It makes sense why
you would see certain spikes along this outlay path.
What does not make sense is that when you start getting
into 2022, suddenly the spike jumps at an unreasonable rate.
You see that growth line just shoot straight into the air. That
is happening even as the veterans population declines.
Mr. Bergman. We could, obviously, we could--thank you for
the detail because it is that kind of detail that is going to
enable us all to get a better view of what is, again, the lines
of command, if you will, the chain of command and the
responsibility and the accountability.
With that, Madam Chair, thank you and I yield back.
Ms. King-Hinds. [Presiding.] I now recognize Ranking Member
Ramirez.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chair. I want to get into the
questions, but first I want to thank the four of you for coming
to testify in our committee and for all the ways that you show
up for our veterans. For those of you that are, in fact,
veterans, thank you for your service. I want to start with Mr.
Guerrero.
First, Mr. Guerrero, you heard from my colleague
Congressman Kennedy, but I also want to be the one to ask you
to accept my condolences on the recent loss of your father.
I want to ask you about my bill, the VA Employee Care
Expansion Act, and Congresswoman Bynum's bill, the Supporting
VA Families Act. In your opinion and with your own personal
experience, why do you think it is so important that VA
employees be given the flexibility to take leave for care for
their in-laws or for a new child? Is it important for
recruitment and retention?
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you for your question. Yes, it is
important for recruitment and retention. As the VA testified
earlier, if the employee wants to take care of their parent,
they can use sick leave. If they do not have enough sick leave,
they can use annual leave. Annual leave is based on workload
and staffing. Regardless if it is I am sick or if I had to go
home and take care of my dad.
FMLA gives us the opportunity to use annual leave, sick
leave, or leave without pay with no question. We cannot be
denied on those three categories for FMLA. If my dad was my
father-in-law and not being able to take FMLA, it had been
devastating for me and my wife. If my wife was unable to take
care of her father because of a physical condition or
something, or she had to go to work and somebody had to be
there to take care of him, I would not be able to do it because
FMLA does not cover in-laws.
It is important that we get this added to the FMLA for
myself or anybody else that has an in-law that needs to be
taken care of by a VA employee, to assist the wife, to assist
the family. It is important.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Sergeant Guerrero. I really
appreciate you really getting into the detail of the challenges
and impacts, which as you have probably heard me ask Mr. Waye
earlier about. Thank you.
I want to turn now to Mr. Lyle. Mr. Lyle, I was happy to
see your support from my colleague, the ranking member of
Technology Modernization Subcommittee, Rep. Budzinski's VA DATA
Act. Her bill, as we know, would bar third-party organizations
from taking veteran data, even if it is deidentified outside
the Federal enclave, and using it to create tools that do not
serve the VA. What are you hearing from your members on the
importance of data--on data privacy, especially as the VA moves
to work more with external parties to modernize the
Department's offerings?
Mr. Lyle. Well, thank you for the question, Ranking Member.
I think veterans across the country are rightfully concerned
about how their data is used. My written testimony contains
kind of a longer explanation of this. There have been instances
of identity theft, fraud in the veteran community as a result
of data leaks in the public sector and the private sector when
it relates to veteran healthcare data. I think one of the main
concerns, as technology so rapidly advances, is that government
protections are not keeping pace with that technological
advancement.
You know, the VA has said that a lot of these protections
are currently in place in contracts. I have not seen the
specifics of those contracts. I think this is an important step
to ensure that those protections, in fact, exist.
Ms. Ramirez. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Lyle.
My last question is for Mr. Avila. Current VA regulations
already require medical supply techs in the sterile processing
field to have adequate education and experience to be able to
complete their job duties. On top of this, the VA also offers
its own internal VA-specific certifications for these
technicians. What more do you think your certification provides
beyond what is already offered within VA? Let me ask you a
follow-up question, you can answer both. How many hospitals
external to the VA require certification of this nature?
Mr. Avila. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member Ramirez. When
talking about the certification, it is based in the VA. I have
no historical knowledge of when that exam was last updated. As
within my testimony, I mentioned that surgical instrumentation
is constantly evolving and so similar to the pieces of
equipment and instruments that we take care of on a regular
basis, so should the exams.
What I can say is that outside my third-party
accreditation, you know, those exams are revamped every 5
years. It is done by a subcommittee and they are looked at on a
different and varying basis, always keeping up with the latest
standard.
Then you mentioned, also--I am sorry, can you repeat the
second question?
Ms. Ramirez. We are out of time. Just for the record, and
we can talk later, was how many hospitals external to the VA
require a certification of this nature? We can talk off record
and I can get that.
Mr. Avila. Thank you.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you. Chair, I yield back.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you. Thank you to all of our
witnesses for attending this hearing and providing testimony to
prove several of these bills and for being incredibly gracious
with their time.
As the committee has previously stated, the work in the
subcommittee relies on hearings like today to advance proposals
that will make the VA work better for veterans and, ultimately,
deliver high-quality care without wasting taxpayer dollars to
fraud and abuse. I want to also say thank you to our colleagues
on the Technology and Modernization Subcommittee for their work
to improve the VA's digital infrastructure.
Finally, thank you to the members who waived on for this
legislative hearing to speak about their bills and the
importance of getting things right for veterans. We look
forward to further discussions on how we may continue to
improve the proposals that we received testimony today.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member Ramirez for her
closing statement.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chair. Well, I want to thank all of
the witnesses that came before us today. I know it was a very
long committee hearing, but it is important work and I look
forward to continuing to work with all of you to always center
our veterans in everything we do.
In closing, I want to also note my own disappointment in
the answers from the VA today related to basic worker rights.
The VA is openly defying a court order to reinstate and abide
by its collective bargaining agreement with AFGE. Secretary
Collins is disrespecting the court and he is also disrespecting
his employees. I want to make sure that I put on the record
that I am going to continue to work as a ranking member of the
subcommittee to hold him accountable and to ensure that he is,
in fact, respecting court orders, not just stating or sending a
note that says that he has seen what the judge has, in fact,
ruled. We want to be able to see the implementation to that
court order, and it is the responsibility of this Congress to
ensure it happens.
Thank you, again, everyone here, and I look forward to our
next subcommittee.
With that, Chair, I yield back.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you again to our witnesses for being
here. Sergeant Guerrero, safe travels back home. To all of you,
be safe out there.
At this time I ask unanimous consent that all members shall
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include any extraneous materials. Hearing no
objection, so order.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of Ilse Wiechers
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Cole Lyle
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Avila
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Brittany Madni
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Guerrero
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, 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 Dennis ``Sarge'' Guerrero, and I
serve as the Vice-President of AFGE Local 3511 at the Audie L. Murphy
Memorial Veterans' Hospital in San Antonio, TX. I am a 20-year U.S. Air
Force Security Forces Combat Veteran who proudly served our country
during Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation
Desert Fox, and in Albania providing security for Kosovo refugee camps.
For the past 18 years, I have continued to serve our Nation and my
fellow veterans as a VA police officer having attained the rank of
sergeant.
On behalf of AFGE and its National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC),
representing over 800,000 Federal and District of Columbia government
employees, 325,000 of whom are proud, dedicated Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) employees, it is a privilege to testify today.
Specifically, I plan to focus my testimony on legislation affecting the
VA workforce, including thousands of VA police officers serving across
the Nation.
H.R. 8010, the ``VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act''
AFGE and the NVAC strongly support H.R. 8010, the ``VA Police
Recruitment and Retention Act'' introduced by Rep. Kennedy (D-NY). If
enacted, this legislation would prohibit the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and the VA from downgrading the positions of VA police
officers, retroactive to October 1, 2025.
OPM's actions to downgrade the positions of police officers, which
is the bureaucratic way of saying pay cuts, is counter the VA's mission
``[t]o fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have
served in our Nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and
survivors.''
VA police officers have a critical and unique role in protecting
the safety of veterans, their families, and VA employees every day. As
AFGE has highlighted to this committee during previous hearings, VA
police officers receive training at the Law Enforcement Training Center
and additional specialized and tailored training in crisis intervention
to help prevent veterans from harming themselves or others. Moreover,
as 90 percent of officers are veterans themselves, these officers can
tap into their own experience when both communicating with and policing
veterans, building relationships with the veterans they serve, and
understanding the nuances of the physical facilities where they police.
As a fellow VA officer from the Great Lakes Region recently articulated
to me:
``VA medical centers are complex environments that present
unique law enforcement challenges. Officers respond to violent
incidents, mental health crises, domestic disputes, narcotics
activity, and threats against staff and patients.''
This unfortunately happens across the country. Officers frequently
interact with veterans armed with guns and knives or under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.
This was tragically put in stark relief this month, after a VA
social worker Nicholas Crews was murdered at a VA clinic in Jasper,
Georgia, demonstrating not only the bravery and dedication required of
VA police officers as well as the broad scope of their
responsibilities.
The plan to downgrade VA police officer positions in the 0083
series is even more dire when considered in conjunction with the
significant staffing shortage facing the VA Police Force. A VA OIG
report entitled ``OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's
Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023'' \1\ noted
that 73 facilities had a severe shortage of VA Police in the 0083
series, with more common shortages found for only seven positions.\2\
An updated 2024 version of the report noted that VA police shortages
``were reported by at least 20 percent of facilities since Fiscal Year
2018.'' \3\ This has further worsened in the current Fiscal Year 2025
report, as the VA OIG states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe
Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023,'' August 22, 2023. VA
OIG 23-00659-186.
\2\ Id at 8.
\3\ ``OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe
Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2024,'' August 7, 2024. VA
OIG 24-00803-22 at 10.
``In Fiscal Year 2025, the OIG found that 58 percent of
facilities (80 of 139) designated Police as a severe
occupational staffing shortage, making it the most frequently
reported nonclinical shortage occupation and most frequently
reported of all occupations. The Police occupation was among
the top five most frequently reported nonclinical shortages in
each year since 2019, when VHA first made official designations
for clinical and nonclinical occupations, and the seventh most
frequently reported shortage among all occupations in 2018.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe
Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2025,'' August 12, 2025. VA
OIG 25-01135-196 at 9.
On the ground in VA facilities, the shortages referenced by OIG
also hinder the ability of officers to perform their duties. In some
facilities, expensive new security screening equipment sits unused as
there are not enough officers to operate this equipment. There are
other facilities where only one or two officers are available to
respond to emergencies. In some cases, short staffing in 1A facilities
limits response to one emergency at a time. The staffing problem is
also acute for Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) where the
nearest officer is often miles away.
Short staffing and inadequate pay harms officer morale. One officer
recently told me, ``[m]orale across VA is low. [D]owngrading people
only pushes more people to leave.'' Additionally, with the staff
shortage at the level it is, VA facilities must further rely on
extensive use of overtime, which often leads to the denial of annual
leave for officers, leading to further burnout of the officers that
remain.
This is particularly problematic when VA police officers have other
opportunities to serve in other Federal agencies or in State, county,
or local police forces that pay starting salaries significantly higher
compared the planned downgraded GS-5 salary. For example, in Buffalo,
NY, a GS-5 Step One makes $42,597 annually,\5\ while an entry level
City Police Officer (Step 1) earns $57,453.\6\ Similarly, a GS-5 Step
one makes $41,341 in the Virginia Beach Region,\7\ while a Police
Recruit at the lowest level of the pay scale makes $54,863 in the city
of Hampton, Virginia.\8\ Severe staffing shortages, low retention, and
poor morale require attention and solutions, not downgrades in
positions and pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See GS Salary Table 2026-BU. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/26Tables/html/BU.aspx
\6\ See city of Buffalo, ``Department of Police Recent Salary
Figure Fiscal Year 2026'' at 176 (10 of 23 on linked PDF) https://
www.buffalony.gov/ImageRepository/Document?documentId=14525
\7\ See GS Salary Table 2026-VB. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2026/VB.pdf
\8\ See City of Hampton Virginia Police Department Step Plan
Effective January 10, 2026. https://www.hampton.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/48497/Police-Division-Step-Plan-PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA should do everything in its power to recruit and retain its
police force. While AFGE is pleased that the planned downgrades have
been ``paused,'' AFGE still fully supports H.R. 8010, the ``VA Police
Recruitment and Retention Act,'' as it is a necessary first step to
stem the tide of departures from the VA Police Department. AFGE
strongly encourages the swift passage of H.R. 8010 to prevent any
future downgrades from OPM and looks forward to working with the
committee to pass this bill. AFGE welcomes the opportunity to work with
the committee on other legislation that would support the VA Police
force, including increased hiring, addressing higher wages, and
granting VA Police Officers Federal Law Enforcement Officer
retirements, commonly referred to as ``6(c) benefits,'' and thanks
Chairwoman Kiggans and Representative Kennedy for co-sponsoring H.R.
3226, the ``Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act'' to achieve that goal.
H.R. 7948, the ``VA Employee Family Care Expansion Act''
AFGE supports H.R. 7498, the ``VA Employee Family Care Expansion
Act'' introduced by Ranking Member Ramirez (D-IL). If enacted, this
bill would codify the ability for a VA employee to utilize the Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for the parent of a spouse. AFGE and
the NVAC had previously negotiated this right into its Master
Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is currently the subject of
litigation.
While no VA employee would ever wish to be in the position to use
FMLA to care for someone, it is unfortunately something that many of
us, including myself, have had to do. Sadly, this month, my father of
blessed memory passed away, and I used FMLA to take care of him and be
with him in his final days. Having the ability to use this leave was a
relief to me and my family and didn't force me to make a choice between
being a son and being a VA police officer serving my fellow veterans.
Had it not been my father, but one of my in-laws in this situation, not
being able to use this leave would have been devastating and forced a
cruel choice for me and my family.
Passing this legislation and restoring this right to VA employees
is a commonsense policy that would allow VA employees to better serve
our Nation's veterans and improve recruitment and retention. AFGE urges
its swift passage.
Draft legislation to establish an entitlement to a supplemental period
of unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs
AFGE supports the draft legislation being considered by this
subcommittee to establish entitlement to a supplemental period of
unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. If enacted, this bill would codify a VA employee's right to
four additional weeks of Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for the purposes of
parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child. AFGE and the
NVAC had previously negotiated this right into its Master Collective
Bargaining Agreement, which is currently the subject of litigation.
Passing this legislation and restoring this right to VA employees
is a commonsense policy that would allow the dedicated workers who take
care of our Nation's veterans, many of whom are veterans themselves,
the ability to stay home with a new child, if they choose, for an extra
month with no pay. Enacting this policy will help VA stay competitive
with other employers who offer similar or more generous options and
improve recruitment and retention. AFGE urges its swift passage.
Draft legislation to establish a professional certification requirement
for certain sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health
Administration
Chairwoman Kiggans' draft legislation would amend Title 38 to
prospectively require that sterile processing technicians attain a
certification from an accredited institution prior to working at the VA
and gives incumbent sterile processing technicians up to 2 years to
earn this certification. The bill also does not apply to positions the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs considers as entry level.
AFGE appreciates Chairwoman Kiggans' intent in improving the
training of Sterile Processing Technicians at the VA. However, the
current version of the bill raises several questions that require
clarification before AFGE can take a position on this legislation.
First, the bill neither defines which certification is required,
nor which institutions are accredited. Further, it does not consider
whether the VA can offer this certification in-house instead of relying
on private companies. Currently, these technicians take an internal
certification course called the VA Certified Registered Medical Supply
Technician (VA-CRMST). Technicians must finish the certification within
their first year at the VA and complete 400 hours of work prior to
testing. Additionally, there are 12 hours of continuing education
requirements for these employees. VA has standardized the VA-CRMST for
VA technicians and allows it to be completed during the workday with no
individual expense for VA employees. What is the extra benefit to VA
and its employees to further require, for example, the Certified
Registered Central Sterile Technician (CRCST) certification, recognized
by the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association?
Second, what is the uniformity of the programs recognized by the
Healthcare Sterile Processing Association? Do all these companies and
their programs cover the same material, or is there variation in the
programs and curriculum? Further, are any of those programs currently
tailored for employees at the VA, as the VA's VA-CRMST program is?
Third, who will bear the cost of attaining the CRCST certification?
Asking incumbent technicians who are between GS-3 and GS-6, making a
starting salary of $36,745 to $51,442 in Washington, DC to pay for a
certification costing thousands of dollars is cost prohibitive,
especially when it can be done in-house. Moreover, while new employees
would be required to have this certification prior to employment, the
burden placed on current employees and earning this certification after
hours is significant and may hurt with retention of these employees.
AFGE looks forward to learning more about this bill as it is
considered by the subcommittee.
Draft legislation to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
recoup awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses paid to former
employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs under certain
conditions
Rep. Self's draft legislation would allow the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to recoup bonuses and relocation expenses of former employees
of the VA. AFGE opposes this legislation as it is an extension of the
powers granted to the Secretary under the Department of Veterans
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017
(Accountability Act). The VA has abused the powers of the
Accountability Act since its inception almost 9 years ago. In turn,
AFGE has justifiable concerns as to how the bill would be implemented.
Granting this power to claw back money from former employees since the
law was enacted on June 23, 2017, poses problems for former employees
who, after potentially almost a decade, do not have the ability to
rebut the VA's claims. AFGE urges the subcommittee not to advance this
bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and present AFGE's
views on these bills. I look forward to answering your questions.
Statements for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of U.S. Government Accountability Office
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of National Alliance to End Homelessness
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of National Homelessness Law Center, National Health
Care for the Homeless Council, National Health Law Program, Funders
Together for Housing Justice, and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Center for Procurement Advocacy
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]