H.R. 6654, the “Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act”

Good afternoon. This legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 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'd 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 waived 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 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 that operate behind the scenes, those that if they aren't done properly, can have serious consequences for patient care. My bill is about ensuring that sterile processing technicians 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 of 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 and improving financial transparency is essential if we are serious about accountability and restoring trust in how taxpayer dollars are managed. And 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.

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'm 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 AFGE for its monumental win in court two weeks ago that resulted in the reinstatement of their collective bargaining agreement with the VA. We know we say this often, especially in Chicago, when we fight, we win. But we also know that the fight is far from over. And I want to make sure that I that I tell you that I'm in the fight with you every step of the way to ensure that our workers have the resources they need to continue to show up for our veterans. The past year demonstrated Secretary Collins's race to the bottom. He created and celebrated toxic workplaces and demoralizing conditions. He demeaned and disrespected VA employees, he attacked bargaining rights, and couldn't even comment on the murder and criminalization of one of his very own employees by ICE and 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're being abused. And 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's why I'm so proud that 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 four additional weeks of unpaid leave after welcoming a new child, whether by birth, by adoption, or foster care. We know that those four 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. So 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 four weeks of leave without pay or substitute paid leave for maternity, paternity leave in addition to FMLA, family member no longer includes parents of an employee's spouse, previously a contractual right," end quote. That's 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 won't 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. And lastly, Ranking Member Budzinski's VA DATA Act, which would prevent third-party vendors partnered with VA from 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. And 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. I could not agree more than the 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've heard that the average wait time for casework through the VA congressional liaison in OCLA is 105 business days. That's a five-month waiting period for casework-based congressional inquiries. So 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 a memorandum of understanding that authorizes the appointment of VA attorneys as special assistant U.S. attorneys who can petition state probate courts of guardianship of veterans. I've received pages and pages of whistleblower documents that clearly show VA's true intent here, to target homeless veterans. Bondi and Collins's 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. But 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 our nation. And so I'm 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's important I revisit these numbers every time we're 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 VA 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. And with that, Chairwoman, I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Ramirez. The Chair, as a reminder, may also declare recess at any time. I know we have votes at 3:00 p.m., so we may need to recess then. But I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Takano for any remarks he might have.

Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, for extending this opportunity. And also Ranking Member Ramirez. I echo Ranking Member Ramirez's 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 its collective bargaining requirements, 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 in how it cares for our most vulnerable veterans. Now let me connect the dots. Since 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. 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. And housing costs continue to skyrocket across the country. What will it matter if a veteran is assigned a guardian if there's 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. Now 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 is precisely at stake here. Veterans who fought for our rights will lose theirs to VA, the agency that is supposed to care for them. And 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's 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 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, IAVA, the 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. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now will recognize members for three minutes each to speak on the bills they are asking to be considered for reauthorization. The chair now recognizes General Bergman for three minutes.

Thank you, 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. But 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.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Budzinski for three minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to waive onto this subcommittee. There's 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 impact. 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 EHR vendor disclosed that fraudulent entities 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's not a stretch to imagine that the same thing happening here could happen here. Additionally, the exposure of artificial intelligence 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 de-identified data is not safe. AI has proven that given enough information, the technology is more than capable of re-identifying 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 one 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'll yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Mace for three minutes.

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, don't worry Congress, we have it covered. We don't need you to make us fix our messes. Actually, I think we do. Just this week, the Government Accountability Office 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. So with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for three minutes.

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'd 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're 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's 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. And they're doing this job right now while severely understaffed. According to the VA Office of Inspector General, nearly 60 percent of VA facilities report police staffing shortages, making it the most severe non-clinical 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 OPM classification review. In Buffalo, a two-grade downgrade could mean a pay cut of roughly $10,000 a year. And remember, they're considering up to as many as four pay grade downgrades. So at the very moment we're struggling to recruit and retain officers, we're about to tell them that they'll be paid less to do the same dangerous job. And we're already seeing what happens when staffing isn't 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 on site 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's 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're not cutting their pay while they're being asked to do more with less. I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. King-Hinds for three minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman Kiggans, for the opportunity to speak on a critical new piece of legislation that I'm 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's a structural barrier, one coming from the CNMI that I'm all too familiar with. The VA Subcon Act offers a straightforward and low-cost solution. It directs the VA to establish a centralized, vetted database 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's about fairness, and it's 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's make sure our vets are not just thanked for their services, but truly supported when they run small businesses. Thank you, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Self for three minutes.

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 recover bonuses, awards, or 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. And secondly, I would like the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 7950. It addresses the persistent and bipartisan concern that the Department of Veterans Affairs 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.

Thank you. Before hearing their testimony, I will introduce the witnesses on today's first panel. And since they just called votes, what we'll do is we'll introduce the panel and then we will recess for votes and the return. Representing the Department of Veteran Affairs, we have Ilse 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'll ask the witnesses on the panel to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you, and let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. And we'll go ahead and recess now for votes and we'll return and then we'll recognize the witnesses.

Thank you members and thank you to the witnesses for being here. Dr. Wiechers, you are recognized for five minutes to provide your testimony on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 intent but has concerns about potential duplication with 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 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 government-wide 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 subcommittee's commitment to 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.

Thank you, Doctor, for testimony. The written statement of Dr. Wiechers will be entered into the hearing record. We will now turn to questions and I yield myself five 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'm proud to have introduced the Vets CLEAR Act, legislation focused on the simple but crucial goal, making sure every dollar owed to the Department of Veterans 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. But 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. So, 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?

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 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. And it does so, that fund has no fiscal year obligation requirements and so it's more flexible in that's one of the reasons why we're supporting the bill but with some concerns as we noted in our written testimony.

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?

Thank you for the question. Certainly, anytime we have additional funding that that could possibly go towards filling jobs or positions.

Can you expand on that a little bit, please, on how maybe using some examples on how the support can help?

Well, I mean, obviously again, if we're 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 towards setting up a recruitment plan to fill positions in those shortage categories.

Mr. Neil, if I'll squeeze in one more question here. Does legislation like this align with broader efforts to modernize VA systems and improve financial management and how?

Thank you for the question. To the extent that it returns money and makes money available for 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 towards critical areas that are unfunded at the time.

Great, thank you. Now I yield to the Ranking Member Ramirez and then yield to members going back and forth between sides. You're recognized.

Thank you. 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. So I want to get into the questions. Mr. Waye, my bill, the 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. So my question to you, Mr. Waye, is why did the VA eliminate this right? What was the rationale?

Thank you, thank you for the question. Are you speaking towards the actual collective labor agreement?

I'm 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?

Thank you for the question. We didn't eliminate the right. I mean, right now, employees still can take care of their in-laws, they can use sick leave to do that.

Give me one 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, they wouldn't have that time in order to be able to take care of their family after. So let me, let me ask you a question because the policy did in fact change, right? They now can use sick leave but they're not able to take the leave that they were able to prior, is that right?

Well, they don't have the, right, those aren't covered by the collective bargaining agreement.

So is it the VA's position that because it's specifically to in-laws, that they're not considered family?

No, that's not our position. What we're saying is that for this particular one, we are deferring to the Office of Personnel Management on the bill overall because it's something that would apply not just to the VA but typically would apply across the board to federal employees. And so typically, when OPM looks at this, they normally don't have carve-outs for a particular federal organization.

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?

No, I don't have exactly a number in terms of how many it would affect because we still, again, the Family Medical Leave Act, paid parental leave, and the other leave is still available.

But it doesn't apply for your spouse's parents, correct?

Not for the spouse's parents.

And what I heard you say is that you can just use sick leave to care for your in-laws. But 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?

Well, 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 and those determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.

So, 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's now been nearly two weeks and the VA has done absolutely nothing to comply with this injunction. Instead, what we're seeing is that the VA human resources officials across the country say they're waiting for guidance from the VA central office before restoring critical benefits and workplace rights to AFGE represented employees. So 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?

Well, thank you for the question. Ma'am, VA is not defying the order. We've reviewed the order and engaged the Department of Justice and we're basically working with the Department of Justice for guidance on how to correctly implement the order.

Okay, so 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?

Well, ma'am, right now, I'm deferring again, deferring to the Department of Justice further guidance. We're continuing to collaborate with them and once a determination is made.

So you're not able to give me any specific steps at this moment.

Well, at this time, we're deferring to the Department of Justice.

Unfortunate. Okay, well thank you. Time's up, but if we have another round, I'd like to follow up. Thank you. I yield back.

I recognize Representative King-Hinds for five minutes.

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've introduced and this legislation is personal to me because there's a lot, you know, we have a lot of folks who are returning home who are vets. And 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 spending or Department of War spending on the islands to build facilities for the Department of War, you know, construction and whatnot, right? And I want to make sure that they're able to fully participate. And what I've been seeing as a trend is that, you know, these big primes, they come and build relationship with small sub with these small subcontractors and emerging small businesses, they just get boxed out in perpetuity. And so this is kind of like the underlying thought and the driving, I guess, rationale behind this bill. And in reading your feedback, you pointed out that you weren't clear with regards to some of the intent behind one of, you know, the exclusions in the bill, right? And I just kind of want to have a conversation with that with you. So one, you're worried that basically excluding any company that has ever participated in a joint venture or like the mentor-protégé program, for example, is going to have an impact on unnecessarily excluding types of participation. But I guess for me, the goal is to prevent large firms from hiding behind joint ventures or these mentor-protégé structures to dominate subcontracting opportunities meant specifically for small veteran small businesses, veteran small businesses. And so 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 CPARS rating threshold, right? And if I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that a contractor could receive many poor ratings but still qualify with just two satisfactory ratings. And 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. And so because you have stated that it is not clear 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'm 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 subcontractors efficiently?

Thank you for the question and thank you a lot with the explanation on some of the areas that were that were unclear. So 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. And 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. And then we ask for a subcontracting plan that is tied to the goals of the agency for specific categories of small businesses, and we review that plan as a requirement prior to the award of a contract. But also understand some contracts really have no or limited subcontracting opportunities. And so 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, and we oversee and approve the plan and reach out to other agencies such as the Small Business Administration to assist when we're unsure as to what's being proposed to us by the prime contractors. So I hope that helps you understand that we identify the contracts where it's appropriate, we include the clauses that are relevant, and then we consult with other agencies who assist in the development of those plans.

I'm out of time. I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you and looking forward to working with you.

I would now like to recognize Representative Kennedy for five minutes.

Thank you. I'd 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?

Thank you for the question. We have approximately 3,700 that are on board right now. And the breakout, the number of positions potentially impacted by the downgrades, approximately 900.

You said 900?

Correct. Positions impacting up to impacting a couple of thousand employees.

Just for the record, I want to make clear, first of all, thank you for your answer. That is the first answer that we've been able to get out of the VA. We've heard 95 percent of VA police officers are facing this potential downgrade. As you know, the VA conducts exit surveys for departing employees. And for the 357 police officers, that's 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?

Thank you for the question. I don't 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're 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'll continue to do that. We understand and acknowledge the concerns regarding the downgrades. It's 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.

And just simply yes or no, because I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are the police officers at the VA, are they included in the exit surveys?

I'd have to verify that. I believe they I believe all employees have an opportunity to participate in exit surveys.

Okay, good. I'd like to see how they've classified their reasons for leaving. We've 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, and during these trying times, that's just not acceptable. Would you agree that the VA police force has faced longstanding recruitment challenges and sustainability challenges?

Thank you for the question. Well, sir, I would say that there's it's been there's certainly we certainly have recruitment challenges. As you know, the classification standards apply to other federal agencies as well. We know that's an issue in terms of the grade levels. And again, our goal is to continue to collaborate with the Office of Personnel Management. I know one thing they're 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. And there's certainly a possibility that that's something that will be reviewed in the near future and perhaps have some impact on the outcome of grades.

And 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. And then you add that to the fact that we are now downgrading potentially 95 percent of the police officer positions. Don't you believe that that has a major impact on retention and sustainability of officers and recruitment?

Well, sir, I believe thank you for the question. I believe it could it does have some it could have some impact on on retention. I will say this, one, we're still hopeful that we won't be downgrading 95 percent of 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 would come into play where employees would not feel any immediate loss in pay and then they have saved pay as well.

I'm out of time, but let me I'm just will say briefly that this is not about pay grades, but it's about whether clinics and hospitals have trained law enforcement personnel to keep veterans, doctors, nurses, and other staff safe. I yield back. Thank you.

I would now like to recognize Dr. Conaway for five minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, I thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member Ramirez, for holding this hearing. Certainly want to thank our witnesses for presenting themselves to us today. It is, you know, pay is about how you respect other people who work there, and there needs to be understanding that these systems, these institutions are systems that need everybody working and respecting the job functions that they have. Let me turn to one of the bills being taken up today, H.R. 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 ensure timely and accurate responses to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. We know that this office often struggles to provide responses to Congress, and this has to be addressed. I know our office in in my district has a number there's a lot of casework that comes to us related to veterans who are concerned about their their benefits and other issues related to their service. And so we rely on on the Office of Legislative Affairs to help us help the veterans in our in our district. Was this department, was the OCLA impacted by DOGE in its reduction in staff initiatives or voluntary early retirement authority?

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 don't have information at this time to address your question specifically. So I'd be happy to take it back and provide you an answer after.

Well, thank you, Ms. Wiechers. I would say that it would appear that this office as it's currently staffed is simply not able to keep up with the amount of requests that come to it. In some cases, I'm told that it takes almost 105 business days to give a response to Congress and congressional offices. And 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 from my own office keeping up with the amount of correspondence that they have to provide back to districts. And you can understand if there are only four people there why it would take 105 business days to get these responses out. So I hope that you'll look at it and give some consideration to the functioning of that office and how important it is for us in our responsibilities as Congresspersons to address the inquiries that come into our offices, no matter what community is bringing their issues to us, but particularly when our veteran community comes to us, I think there's a particularly important responsibility that we have to 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?

Thank you for the question, and let me just say that we we do support the bill. There's just some issues that I want to highlight in my response to your question. The 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. So 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. And so that is how it has been handled within the department, that it's done through contract language. It's also done by overseeing the data that's being shared.

Let me just reclaim my time for a minute because I want to ask another question on the record. 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 DOSE operatives have absconded with any of the data in the VA?

Thank you for the question. I'm not aware of any DOSE 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.

Thank you, please do, and get a response to us. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would now like to recognize myself for five 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. And if VA has this authority, why is it not using it?

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. And 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. And for our highest risk devices, they have to recertify on that or they have to redemonstrate their competency in that every year. And again, that is in alignment with the Joint Commission standard.

Mr. Waye, how does access to the job training and certifications improve VA's workforce and patient outcomes?

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. And we found that the more that's required on the front end, the more folks are screened out who might otherwise be very, very qualified to come into the position and also receive the certification after coming on board.

So Mr. Waye, how often does VA recoup bonuses from current employees if they have substantiated allegations of misconduct or poor performance? And why do you not use your authority? Couldn't those funds be recouped and awarded to employees who are more deserving?

Thank you for the question. First, I just want to state that our evaluation of this bill is ongoing. We only take recoupment action whenever it meets the criteria outlined in the statute and in our VA policy. And specifically, that's when employees have engaged in misconduct, poor performance, or in the case of relocation expenses, fraud or malfeasance. And that's not something that occurs all that often, but when it does occur, we take actions. We follow the process, which includes due process and opportunity for them to receive a notice outlining what they've done, what we're looking to recoup, an opportunity to reply, and then we issue order and decision and they have the ability to appeal that.

So Dr. Wiechers, how will Representative Ciscomani's the Vets CLEAR Act, which reinvests recovered funds into the Medical Care Collections Fund, improve patient care?

Thank you for the question. So by retaining additional revenue funds into the MCCF fund from 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. And those facilities can then use those moneys directly for medical care and services of our veterans. And it does so in a way that has more transparency and less complicated workflows in our accounting and financing, therefore gets money to where we need it faster and more cleanly and more clearly with greater transparency.

Thank you. The first panel of witnesses is now excused, and I'd 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, D.C. office of the American Legion; Mr. Joseph Avila, administrator of the sterile processing department of the University of Virginia Health System; Ms. Britney Madni, Executive Vice President for the Economic Policy Innovation Center; and 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. And I ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you. And 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're now recognized for five minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of the American Legion.

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 FY 22 and 24, 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 towards 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 re-identify 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 sensitive 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 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 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 six 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.

Thank you, Mr. Lyle. The written statement of Mr. Lyle... Thank you, Mr. Lyle. The written statement of Mr. Lyle will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. Avila, you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association.

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'm 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, 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. In big picture, that's over five 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. So 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 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 continued 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's been a number of reported incidents throughout the VA facilities that have resulted in over a thousand cancellation or delays in treatment and over 4,500 veterans exposed to HIV and hepatitis. Veterans deserve the confidence that they're receiving the best care and the equipment properly sterilized and serviced. On behalf of all sterile processing technicians I want to once again thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to any questions.

...hearing record. And Ms. Madni, you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

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 and I hope you perform thoughtful oversight of the VA for those who 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're spending beyond our means and we're 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 CBO's 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'm 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 veterans' services each year. In total, the VA comprises only six percent of the entire federal budget. But it's responsible for the fourth highest outlays to designated susceptible programs behind only HHS, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of War. Last year, the VA susceptible programs outlaid a total of $201 billion to its seven 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. And 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 OMB, the VA was assessed as being high risk for improper payments in the compensation category for the last two 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 waitlist 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. And finally, I will also say that the bill to modify community care rates is a fiscally responsible measure to prevent the VA from overpaying 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'm 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.

Thank you, Ms. Madni. The written statement of Ms. Madni will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. Guerrero, you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Good afternoon, 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 Sgt. 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 affects 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 D.C. 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 LETC for training and receive specialized training in 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 PTSD. The plan to downgrade VA police officers is dire when looked at with the data gathered by OIG. In FY 2025, OIG found that 58 percent of VA facilities designated VA police as a severe occupational shortage. It is the most reported non-clinical shortage. In the field, these shortages harm 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 CBOCs where the nearest officer is often miles away. 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 6C benefits. I want to thank Chairwoman Kiggans and Representative Kennedy for co-sponsoring H.R. 3226, the LEO Equity Act, to achieve that goal. I thank you, and I am looking forward to answering any of your questions.

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 five minutes. Ms. Madni, how would site-neutral payment policies like in Dr. Miller-Meeks's bill, how would they affect the government's financial state and maintain care standards?

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. So you have sort of a dual improvement on our fiscal health. At the same time, you're 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.

Right, thank you. And 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?

Absolutely. I'll just speak to the fact that there aren't 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's an impediment to the entire House's ability to do its work, and there is no reason that the Congressional Budget Office shouldn't be able to get data from the VA just like it is able to secure that data from every other department. So 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.

Right, thank you. Mr. Avila, from your perspective, what are the main differences between a certified sterile processing technician and an uncertified sterile processing technician?

Thank you for the question. So the differences that I've seen in the 25 years of my experience is that a certified technician has complete competency over workspace temperature that are required for sterilization, they know cleaning protocols, they also address chemical safety and handling, bloodborne 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, and then also provide a professional credibility versus the non-certified.

Thank you. And right now less than half of the VA's sterile processing technicians are certified. What risk does that pose to veterans receiving their care at the VA?

Yes. So having uncertified technicians in the VA poses similar to what I've 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.

Right, thank you very much. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for five minutes.

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're very sorry for your loss. I'm hoping you can walk us through what you're 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?

Thank you for your question. And thank you for condolences. What I'm hearing on the ground from my fellow officers, well you've heard the old saying, rats flee a sinking ship? That's what we're having right now with VA police and the potential downgrade of our levels. In San Antonio, we've had four officers leave VA police to become ICE officers because of the pay. In the past year, we've 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 can't, the VA police cannot fill them because there's a hold on hiring these. We cannot fill these vacancies. So therefore it's downgrade, it's not downgrade, we have less officers to perform the duties that we're required to do to provide the security for the veterans and the family members and VA police and the employees at the VA. So the morale has, in the last, like I stated in my statement, in the 18 years I've been a VA police officer, morale is at the lowest level it is right now.

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?

A VA police officer GS-5 step one, their starting pay is $41,334. A 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 officer. So there is a big pay gap from our VA police officers and our civil counterparts.

And if the VA can't compete with starting pay in 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?

A lot of my fellow officers that I work with now, they're on hold right now because they're telling me, say Sarge, I don't want to leave the VA. I like what I do here. I'm 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. So me, it's a sense of pride for me to become a VA police officer instead of going to a civilian law enforcement agency where I'm just out in the streets dealing with everybody. Here I deal with my fellow veterans and it's 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're in times of crisis. For example, there was a veteran, unfortunately he's passed already. He called the VA police desk and talked to my dispatcher and 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. So I talked to the veteran. I says, I says, where do you live? So ah Sarge, I'm not going to tell you because you're going to call the police to have them bring me in. I says, no, I just want to make sure you're okay. So I told my dispatcher, I says, look him up. So she calls San Antonio Police Department, they said he's 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, ah 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's why I do it, because I'm a veteran myself.

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 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's why it's so important that we are not downgrading those police officers in any capacity and we pass my bill. I yield back.

Thank you. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that a non-subcommittee member from the majority be allowed to take the chair. Hearing no dissent, we'll move on to, the chair will recognize Mr. Bergman for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here. Great to see some friendly faces. Mr. Lyle, we'll get right into it, okay? This 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?

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's shortfalls and then carrying over $5 billion, I think it's fairly clear that they do not have sufficient reporting structures and accountability particularly in this area. So 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, but I think this bill is a great step in that direction.

Thank you. Is additional statutory clarification needed to ensure one official is unmistakably responsible for budget formulation, execution, and financial controls so there's none of this, it's not the other person?

Yes, sir. I believe so.

Okay. And Mr. Lyle, how would strengthening financial oversight, excuse me, it's 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 veteran services?

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.

And I think what I heard you say, and if you disagree with this, I think what I heard you say that clear financial accountability at the VA will lead to more consistent and better services for veterans if we get the structure right.

Yes, sir. Clarity.

Okay. Ms. Madni.

General.

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?

It's been a massive hindrance. But I would just point you back to the data. So let me take a step back. It's not just about who's responsible for what. It's not just, is this a policy decision or a financial decision? It's also a question of how these things compound over time. So 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 four years increased, particularly as soldiers returned home after four-year contracts and following the end of the stop-loss program in 2010. So it makes sense why you would see certain spikes along this outlay path. What doesn't 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. And that's happening even as the veteran's population declines.

We could obviously, thank you for the detail because it is that kind of detail that's going to enable us all to get a better view of what's again the lines, the lines of command if you will, the chain of command and the responsibility and the accountability. And with that, Madam Chair, thank you and I yield back.

I now recognize Ranking Member 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 of the ways that you show up for our veterans. And 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's 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?

Thank you for your question. Yes, it is important for recruitment and retention. As the VA testified earlier, if a VA employee wants to take care of their parent, they can use sick leave. If they don't have enough sick leave, they can use annual leave. Annual leave is based on workload and staffing, regardless if it's if I'm sick or if I have to go 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 on those three categories for FMLA. If my dad was my father-in-law and not being able to take FMLA, it'd have been devastating for me and my wife. If my wife was unable to take care of her father because of a physical condition or or something or she had to go to work and somebody had to be there to take care of him, I wouldn't 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 a in-law that needs to be taken care of by a VA employee by VA employee to assist the wife, to assist the family. It's important.

Thank you, Sergeant Guerrero. I really appreciate you really getting into the detail of the challenges and impacts which as you probably heard me ask Mr. Waye earlier about. So thank you. I want to turn now to Mr. Lyle. Mr. Lyle, I was happy to see your support for 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's de-identified 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 privacy, especially as the VA moves to work more with external parties to modernize the department's offerings?

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, but 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. And I think one of the main concerns as technology so rapidly advances is that government protections are not keeping pace with that technological advancement. So, 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. So I think this is an important step to ensure that those protections in fact exist.

That's right. Thank you, Mr. Lyle. And 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 provide beyond what is already offered within VA? Let me ask you a follow-up question and you can answer both. How many hospitals external to the VA require certification of this nature?

Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member Ramirez. So when talking about the certification, it is based in the VA. I have no historical knowledge of when that exam was last updated. But as within my testimony, I mentioned that surgical instrumentation is constantly evolving and so similar to the piece of the equipment and instruments that we take care of on a regular basis, so should the exams. And so what I can say is that outside by a third-party accreditation, you know, those exams are revamped every five years. It's done by a subcommittee and they're looked at on a different and varying basis, always keeping up with the latest standard. And then you mentioned also, I'm sorry, can you repeat the second question?

We're out of time, but just for the record and we can talk later, was how many hospitals external to the VA require a certification of this nature? And we can talk off record and I can get that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. And 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 your time. As the committee has previously stated, the work on 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. And 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.

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's important work. And I look forward to continuing to work with all of you to always center our veterans in everything we do. So 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. And Secretary Collins is disrespecting the court and he's also disrespecting his employees. So I want to make sure that I put on the record that I'm going to continue to work as a Ranking Member of this subcommittee to hold them 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. So thank you again everyone here and I look forward to our next subcommittee. With that, Chair, I yield back.

Thank you again to our witnesses for being here. Thank you again to our witnesses for being here. Mr. Sergeant Guerrero, safe travels back home and to all of you, be safe out there. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that all members shall have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials. Hearing no objections, so ordered. The hearing is now adjourned.