And help them do their jobs helping whistleblowers frouds the agency. Mr. Chairman, i think to summarize the themes, 1 of our coalition recommendations, one would be to close the loopholes in reprisal protection, such as a. I. B. Proceedings or referrals to licensing boards that can cause black listing. A second is to restore due process by an internal proceedings. The idea is to eliminate roadblocks to accountability but actually its backfired and the lack of due process is being used to Railroad Whistleblowers out of the agency. The 1 3 is to abolish the conflicts of interest for the agencies checks and balances institutions. Thats kind of the core causes of behind our frustration. And i would just add, i think to your note of ensuring that employees know about the different channels and how they interact, i think theres massive confusion and i think thats evident from the first panel today. That employees simply dont understand the different lines between the i. G. , the o. S. C. And the office of whistleblower protection. And i would also just add that ensuring that the v. A. And its i. G. Are both certified under the office of special counsel certification program, thats a separate program at the o. S. C. That allows that trains and ensures that training within each agency is up to par, and my understanding is that they are not currently certified. Mr. Pappas i was going to follow up of training by oawp and how important a tool that can be once that matures and i wonder if you can make sure that is fully implemented. Ms. Jones sure, absolutely. I believe when the full Committee Heard from oawp, the v. A. Last year on the oneyear anniversary when the office was created, my understanding from that was they hadnt yet implemented all the training requirements in the authorizing statute. That they had trained certain h. R. Professionals but the broad training had yet to be implemented and i would just, again, point out theyre not the v. A. , nor the i. G. , is certified under the program. Mr. Devine there needs to be training of oawp in the whistleblower protection act. There doesnt seem to be in practice consistently familiar with its provisions. So many of the staff have come from institutions where they spent their entire lives on assignment to conduct what turned out to be retaliatory investigations against whistleblowers. This accumulated a real bias. That doesnt change whether a new location and job description. They need to get it. Mr. Pappas thank you. I dont know if you want to respond to that. If not ill have another one. No. I think they covered it. Mr. Pappas thanks. Just real quickly, weve been hearing a lot in other areas of the v. A. About the need to have a steady hand at the ship, ensure we have permanent officials in place at Senior Leadership positions. Right now 48 of the Senior Leadership positions within the v. A. Are held by individuals serving in interim or acting roles. In your experience, does this have an impact on the picture around whistleblowers and a cause for retaliation . I mean, i would just say, you know, high turnover rate can be troubling for many reasons. One is the institutional buyin at the top about changing the culture of retaliation, ensuring the people who are leading the agency are determined to make the change. Where there is a high turnover, it becomes less clear who theyre replaced with will really understand the underlying culture of retaliation and whether they will be as determined as others to ensure that theres reform. Mr. Devine mr. Chairman, the lack of appointments certainly had a destructive impact, but the problems go long before that current phenomenon. I would say there are three basic causes weve identified. The first is that this agency has an almost uniquely futile structure, a bureaucratic barnes that have far too much authority and they are frustrated when tried to do the right thing. Second, theres a culture that allows those barnes to put their own personal selfinterest above the Agencies Mission of patient medical care or rule of law. Finally, theres been a conflict of interest in almost all of the agencys institutional mechanisms but to old itself accountable and those are three strikes against an effective mission. Mr. Pappas thank you. So if i may, ive listened to this committee and i attended a couple hearings over the last few months. And it strikes me when you dont have the right leadership or have inexperienced leadership or you have a revolving doorg of leadership what youre losing is expertise and a commitment to the right doing part of this and i wish miss rice was here. Ms. Garrick the why comes down to the money and if you cant follow the money and you dont know how to manage the money, i mean, thats the trickle down. Thats where these contracts, the idiq, these enormous amounts of money, how do you follow it, how do you put something on contract . I heard us talk about when you obligate money, execute money, budget money, those are all Different Things and they mean Different Things in the world of government contracting. I spent 16 years, a lot of that in management position at v. A. , at d. O. D. , up here with the congressional staff. I understand how the money flows. If you dont understand the difference between an award, a deliverable, a sole source, a sub, a prime, a purchase order, all of those things are how the money gets manipulated and trust me when i tell you, theres your reason for whistleblower retaliation. The panel that was up here, theyre at the bottom receiving end of when this money trickles down and when it doesnt trickle down. Thats the incentive to cover all this up. Thats the incentive to retaliate. Follow that money. Mr. Pappas thank you very much. Id now like to recognize general bergman, the ranking member, for five minutes. Mr. Bergman thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for the panel for being here. You bring very broad, unique and necessary insights to the process. First couple questions are going to be simple yes or no. Well start with ms. Jones, walk across, yes or no. Whistleblowers can file separately with the office of special counsel, oawp, and the i. G. . So three different ways. This has the potential to cause duplicative work and delays work on other disclosures . For each of these organizations, do you agree or not that with multiple offices potentially investigating the same event, this may not be very efficient or effective . Ms. Jones yes. Mr. Devine yes, i do. Ms. Garrick i agree. Mr. Bergman second again, just a simple yes or no. Have you met with the assistant secretary in oawp to share your ideas for improving the whistleblower process . Ms. Jones no. Mr. Devine yes. Before she was received that current job officially. Ms. Garrick i did in february. Mr. Bergman ok. Very good. Ms. Jones now, the yes and noes are over. Ms. Jones, in your testimony you referenced oawp statistics concerning about the disciplinary rates of Senior Executives and Senior Leaders mpared to the gs1 through gs6 category to suggest the distribution is inequitable against the lower grades. What specific distribution of discipline does pogo believe would demonstrate equity and how did you arrive at that number . Ms. Jones i mean, i cant state numbers specifically. I would love to work with the v. A. In terms of figuring out best practices and how we can get there and with this committee as well. My priority would have been any change between 2014 and now. My understanding and part of the reason standing up this office within the v. A. Was to change those numbers, to ensure that Senior Leaders were held accountable. But unfortunately, based on the numbers that you quoted, there hasnt been that change. I believe that. 1 represents only seven individual cases of discipline against senior officials. Mr. Bergman you know, as we struggle with numbers, because sometimes you can look at total numbers or percentage of the population and its kind of like in some cases apples and oranges. You know, you got i think in the at the s. C. S. Level, you have 630 s. C. S. Positions so thats about. 2 of the workforce. Whereas, the g1s through 6s are roughly 54 of the workforce. So we want to make sure if we look at a raw number as opposed to a percentage, trying to get, you know, relative perspective on that, is there an inequity or is there not . And also, again, ms. Jones, you describe what you referred to as a toxic culture in your dealings with former acting Inspector GeneralRichard Griffin in 2014. General, inspector michael, who appeared before this committee several times, assumed the office in may, 2016, what are your observations about the i. G. s conduct in whistleblower protection under the i. G. And do you feel the i. G. Has improved under his leadership and feel free to expand on that . Ms. Jones sure, absolutely. I was heartened to see the Inspector General willing to push back in access to document fathers oawp. You may recall there was a bit of a public spat that went on between the i. G. And the secretary that i believe has since resolved. Thats the kind of pushback that pogo likes to see from ifrlt g. s, those who are independent and willing to investigate properly, to make sure things are operating as they should be. I understand that there is there has been recent complaints from whistleblowers about im not sure if those are from the i. G. Specifically or whether its more broadly at the v. A. , but the i. G. May well be involved. That those whistleblowers have had their identities revealed to the agency. Now, im not sure of the i. G. s involvement in those cases. I think it would be a mr. Bergman your articulation of that, when you have multiple gencies to report to, to interact with, it can be confusing at times. Thank you for your answers. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Pappas thank you. I now yield five minutes to mr. Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, all, for being here today. Ms. Jones, i want to follow up on something you said regarding Senior Leadership and their disciplinary actions. I believe you said Senior Leaders are permitted to investigate themselves and make their own determinations on those investigations whether theyre guilty or not. Is that true at all facilities . Whether it be a hospital, any v. A. Hospital, or is it does it differ anywhere . Ms. Jones well, that information comes from the g. A. O. s report that came out, i believe, last year that looked at all v. A. Conduct. And it looked specifically at what has happened since oawp has been stood up, the office of oawp. I cant speak to whether its happening everywhere. The line managers investigating themselves to misconduct, that should be a huge concern to veterans, to this committee, and to the taxpayers, to be perfectly frank, in how rigorous those investigations are. Mr. Cisneros ms. Garrick, you were shaking your head as to yes there. Can you add to that answer . Ms. Garrick just example after example is sort of popping in my head about people who have old me just that same thing. Where they have gotten the proposing official is the same person and the deciding official has been labeled in the corruption charges in the first place. So we dont see a lot of unbiased, independent investigations. These things all happen within the same chain of command. Oawp sends the letter to do the investigation right back to the facility, and this is we have been talking about the medical centers. This happens at the regional happens and v. B. A. As well. I mean, they see the same thing from the top down. Tends up going right back into the lap of the supervisor who has been the more likely than not, the perpetrator of the wrongdoing. So thats not fair and unbiased. Mr. Cisneros ms. Garrick, i have a question for you. Something you said in your testimony. U said the owap has no whistleblower policy . Can you expand on that . Ms. Garrick correct. As weve seen and we asked a few times to see a published policy, a policy statement, an employee handbook, something that delegates the roles and responsibilities, and weve not been nobody has shared that with us anyway. If there is one i am not aware of it. Really, Something Like a standard operating procedure, an s. O. P. , that outlines roles, responsibilities, and helps manage some of these expectations. My understanding, some of the data that was reported that i questioned, they say about 50 of the people that come to this office arent whistleblowers. Well, who are they . Are they veterans . Are they you know, patients . Are they family members . Are they volunteers . Who is that 50 . We have no key for that data to know even what theyre reporting on. It makes no sense. And theyre not reporting on how they assist or what kind of retaliation theyre documenting. Theres a laundry list of things i would love to see in a policy. Mr. Cisneros my last question is, what agency or Government Department out there would you say has a good, strong Whistleblower Program that the v. A. Could probably immolate out there . Is there one . Mr. Devine sir, we represent the executive branch. I am not aware of such. I believe the office of special counsel has been making a good faith effort. Its a relatively small office, just over 100 employees, to guide the merit system for the whole executive branch. All they can do at most is kind of make a point in cases that are cut and dry, kind of lowhanging fruit to send a message to the rest of the labor force. They dont have the resources to be a reliable source of protection. They are independent. We havent seen the conflict of interest there, like all the internal v. A. Structures, but we need a safety belt where whistleblowers at the v. A. And throughout the executive branch can have the same rights as corporate employees who blow the whistle. But to go to court and defend themselves in a jury trial against retaliation. Mr. Cisneros all right. With that i yield back my time. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Pappas thank you. I now recognize mrs. Radewagen for five minutes. Mrs. Radewagen thank you. Mr. Devine, you talk about the mentoring program. How can they program help whistleblowers if its reinstated . And conversely, how can this type of mediation potentially fall short . I believe you referenced cases of mr. Rodriguez and mr. Wilkes as examples in your testimony. R. Devine the mentoring program either delivered some partial results or made it a best effort to in a number of the cases i discussed. Idea behind it is that is an alternative to litigation. Oawp would search out fresh starts for whistleblowers with managers who had welcomed their perspective instead of being threatened by it. It really has some very effective initial results. We dont know why oawp cant fill it. The frustration with the mediation process has been at the office of special counsel, which has tried to resolve disputes through negotiation. I think the reason that it hasnt worked is that the office of special counsel doesnt have the resources to hold those agencies accountable when they play games rather than in good faith trying to discuss a resolution. So weve had too many experiences where they just kind of string out the process for six months to years in bad faith negotiations that prevent the whistleblowers from actually the o. S. C. From investigating the wrongdoing or the whiss you blowers from having a day in court. So instead of being a constructive alternative to conflict it is stanning it and spreading it out. Sustaining it and spreading it out. There really needs to be accountability for this agency. Ms. Garrick whistleblowers of america is a program i started because i was an Army Social Work officer. We view peer support very successfully with dealing with combat vets, ptsd, suicideality, and so when i started bhiss blowers of america, it whistleblowers of america, it is using some of those evidencebased strategies to deal with these issues, building resilience, problem solving that i think our Mentorship Program that could really help v. A. Employees work through their way through this process and maybe eliminate some of the stress, what i call workplace traumatic stress. It could be really eliminated and some of the damages that youre hearing people talk about that have happened to their psychosocial life i think are the things we can maybe do a better job of as well. At mitigate through a more organized structured program. Mrs. Radewagen thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Pappas thank you. I now recognize miss rice for five minutes. Miss rice thank you, mr. Chairman. So i believe this statistic that mr. Devine, you might have said, that 30 to 40 of all whistleblower claims come from the v. A. . Mr. Devine yes, maam. Miss rice i think this kicks off what my colleague, mr. Cisneros, was saying, who is right . Who handles whistleblowers in the right way . Is there any federal agency that does . Or are they all handled the same way, through the same pipeline . Mr. Devine the Structure Problem is whistleblowers in the Civil Service are primarily dependent upon remedial investigative agencies that dont have the resources to provide consistent relief. Maybe do an in depth investigation over a period of two years of 10 or less of the complaints that come in and thats just not compared to the extent of retaliation. We need to restore credible Due Process Rights and the merit systems protection board, the administrative body that defends the merit system currently is not functional in as many, many years from healing. They havent had a board that could issue final decisions in three years. Miss rice area why . Miss rice why . Mr. Devine thats because the senate blocked appointments during the end of the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration didnt make them. Miss rice thats a potential fix that could be made. Mr. Devine its paralyzed enforcement of the merit system. Were on the verge of getting a board again, but they have a 2,000case backlog in the interim over that 2 1 2 years. And even that board is just is really kind of minor league due process compared to the access to court in jury trials that corporate whistleblowers have, every corporate whistleblower statute thats been passed in america since 2002. So we really have secondclass enforcement. Even agencies like the office of special counsel that i believe are making best efforts can only have token impact. Miss rice would it be appropriate to put a time frame how long a whistleblower investigation should take . Mr. Devine sorry . Miss rice how long you say these drag on and on, these investigations, when a Whistleblower Makes a claim. What is the optimum period of time that an investigation like this would take . Mr. Devine well miss rice the insinuations is they drag it out, drag it out for their own purposes and keep all of the whistleblowers in a state of perpetual limbo. Mr. Garrick i think they do that on purpose. Its intentional to drag it out. There are things that say theres 180 days or 240 days. Theyll miss rice those are routinely being violated, no time frame . Ms. Garrick yeah. Heres the rub, the government has all the time in the world. Their attorneys are on you know, they hire their own attorneys. Theyre on staff. I went to an mspb hearing, five Government People showed up and one guy pro se. Most of the people i deal with end up pro se because it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go out and hire a really good attorney. Miss rice its totally secured. Heres no its toldly skewered. There is no let me ask you another question, ms. Garrick. It seems crazy ms. Garrick yes. Miss rice the potential wrong doers are the ones handling with the whistleblowers. How can that be . It seems to me there should be separate track of supervisors that assess a situation were not intimately involved in and dont have a quoteunquote dog in the fight though you can say everyone at the v. A. Has a dog in the fight to keep information from whistleblowers hidden. How can we make that better . Its a per version of the whole system, it seems to me. Miss rice thats why i do believe there needs to be a lot more independence and, i mean, if you look at the budget of o. S. C. Versus oawp. If you compare it to it, you will see they are about the same. When o. S. C. Has the workload for the entire federal government. So there is this disparity how things get funded whether its the osha budget, eeoc budget. So theres a lot of disparities in how the federal Government Funds these programs that are supposed to help all these whistleblowers. And theres no algorithm that says go here or go here as opposed to sending you to three and four different places while youre out of pocket and youre on your own time because you cant whistleblow on the governments dime. There is very little help for that. Mr. Devine the conflict of interest is most fundamental with oawp. They should be an independent watchdog within the agency but in practice their decisions are controlled by the office of general counsel. Its mission is to defeat whistleblower claims. The conflict of interest could not be more hopeless, and oawp needs to be freed. Miss rice these are great things. I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of you. We need to get this right. There are so many wrongs that are glaring and theres no reason why we cant fix them. I just want to thank you all. I yield back. Mr. Pappas thank you. Well, i do want to thank each member of our panel for share your perspective with us today. It was really illuminating testimony that i know we have to continue to contend with as which move forward as a subcommittee. So i really appreciate your time. I do want to recognize general bergman for a closing statement. Mr. Bergman well, i want to thank everybody for coming and the testimony, the questions and the answers. This is an extremely important issue that were dealing with here to keep the environment open to make sure that good people can get their voices heard and not be limited or inhibited. I just wanted to, you know, thank the chairman for keeping in recess open and at our request, the minoritys request. There is just no job is complete until the paperwork is filed, but i just wanted to thank you in advance. We have procedurally here to make sure we get the second panel in here as soon as possible. Again, i thank the chairman for his agreeing to do that. I yield back. Mr. Pappas well, thank you, general bergman. I agree, this cant be the end of the conversation and we need to move forward expeditiously to continue it. Im committed to doing that. Id like to underscore the bipartisan nature of the work of this committee and the issues regarding whistleblowers. The subcommittee will hold additional hearings on the need for v. A. To listen from whistleblowers and protect their rights. As i alluded to earlier, we will hold this hearing open. I think its clear today that all the whistleblowers who have stepped forward are doing Incredible Service to our veterans. On behalf of the subcommittee, i want to thank the three individuals who appeared on the first panel for all of their work and for being with us here today. Der the committee rule, 3c, 5 f5, the committee will remain in recess until such time. Mr. Capuano [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the complete guide to congress available. It has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. Contact and bio information about every senator and representative. Plus, information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. The 2019 congressional districtry is a handy, spiralbound guide. Order your copy from the cspan online store for 18. 95. Im a white male and i am prejudice and the reason it is is something that wasnt taught but kind of something i learned. I dont like to be forced to like people. I like to be led to like people through example. Hat can i do to change to be a better american . That was a remarkable moment. I didnt really realize until i stepped off the set, because there were more calls after that. We had to keep rolling. How powerful it was. It was something in his voice that touched me. You can hear it. Its so authentic as he searches for the words to Say Something to a National Audience that most of us wont admit in our homes, im prejudice. Sunday night on q a, heather mcghee, president of the Public Policy organization demos was a guest on cspans washington journal in august, 2016, when gary called. She talks about that interaction and her followup with him. Part of the part of the reason is it was august. We had a racially charged summer with Donald Trumps campaign, with black lives matter and the Police Shootings and tragic events all in baton rouge and dallas. I mean, it was really a time when people felt like all they were seeing on tv about race was bad news