mentioned the problem with the referral process. And notwithstanding that the number of referrals, as you point out, is rather low compared to what they could be, we heard from two of our previous witnesses who spoke in high praise of the representation that they received from the Office of Special Counsel.

My question is what kind of backlog do you have? Do you anticipate you'll get more cases? Is there any thought of establishing a special strike unit task force that would focus on this to try to clean up any backlog with regards to this? And do you have timeliness standards?

Mr. BLOCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the issue of backlogs, we are currently engaged in an historic effort to reduce all backlogs throughout the agency which have been there for many years in various areas, including prohibited personnel practices, whistleblower rights, Hatch Act violations, as well as USERRA.

When I joined the agency, there were only eight USERRA cases, but there were approximately 1,500 cases in the other areas that were in backlog and have been in backlog for quite some time.

Now, although there were only eight USERRA cases in the office, a couple of them you heard from today were in our office for approximately two years, actually more than two years having been referred from VETS, and we, of course, consider that time frame unacceptable.

So, we have established guidelines whereby we immediately will get after these USERRA violations. As soon as I came aboard, my deputy had a briefing on all pending USERRA cases, and we immediately realized the Burris case, Mr. Burris and Ms. Hanover Kaplan case, had been with our agency too long, and we immediately went after those cases.

And we're very proud of the opportunity to serve those individuals and to bring these cases to conclusion. So we are definitely desirous of working these cases more expeditiously, and we hope to receive more of these referrals from Labor as the case may present themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have sufficient resources, a sufficient number of attorneys to do the job? And when it comes to changes in USERRA itself, are there recommendations you might convey to us given the fact that you're on the front line of this that we might look to do some draft legislation?

We're looking now at some changes with the Servicemembers Relief Act to make sure that any ambiguity, and we don't believe any exists, but if there is any possibility we wanted to rid the law of that as soon as possible.

Any set of changes you would recommend to us now, or would you, perhaps, tender those changes to us?

Mr. BLOCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very desirous of continuing to work with Labor, and are very grateful that we have been able to get involved in cases with them now at an earlier time frame.

However, we welcome any legislative changes that the committee would see fit to put forth that would get us involved earlier because our office our bread and butter, essentially, is investigation and prosecution of violations of Federal employment rights.

We have highly trained and professional, experienced people in the area of investigation as well as prosecution. Our attorneys get involved in cases at a very early point. Nearly all of the USERRA cases that come to our office also involve prohibited personnel practice issues. Again, prohibited personnel practices are our bread and butter.

So the sooner we can get involved from an investigative and prosecutorial standpoint, the more we can emphasize UŠERRA enforcement, which is better for both the merit system and the government, as well as the individuals involved.

So any legislative changes that might help that to happen more quickly I think would be effective.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, consider yourself asked. If you could provide us every recommendation you think that would be helpful, we will do our best and due diligence to ensure that if we can enact it into law before this session ends we will do it. So I would ask you to do that, if you would.

Mr. BLOCH. We'll be delighted to.

The CHAIRMAN. I'd just like to ask Mr. Blair, you mentioned that 96 federal agencies are voluntarily picking up their share of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and 18 don't. Could you provide for the record the 96 as well as the 18? And if you could tell us why the 18 perhaps are not.

(The information follows:)

Agencies without policies regarding Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) premium payment for Reserves and Guardsmen

During the Office of Personnel Management's poll in late 2002 and early 2003, the following Federal agencies reported no affected employees; therefore, they have no policy at this time:

Appalachian Regional Commission

Bonneville Power Administration

Corporation for National and Community Service

Export-Import Bank of the United States

Federal Housing Finance Board

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Federal Reserve Board

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Library of Congress

National Council on Disability

National Endowment for the Arts

National Endowment for the Humanities

Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Office

Office of Special Counsel

Panama Canal Commission

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Postal Rate Commission

West Virginia Cooperative Extension Service

Wyoming University, College of Agriculture

The following Federal agencies do not have employees in the FEHB Program:

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)

Tennessee Valley Authority

Mr. BLAIR. I'd be happy to. They're primarily small agencies, boards. And when we canvassed them in 2002, 2003, the reason that they don't have a policy in place is because they didn't have affected employees.

So to the best of our knowledge, there is no one at these small agencies who has been called up to active duty who is not receiving the employer and employee shares of their health benefits premium from their agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Does OPM track violations of USERRA by federal agencies both in terms of cases that are settled and those that are litigated in order to identify particular agencies that have policy compliance deficiencies or have education and training needs? Mr. BLAIR. We don't track it per se. Agencies would come to us if they're seeking to have an employee reinstated in another agency, and that's a rather extraordinary circumstance. And according to staff, we haven't had a formal application from an executive branch agency for such a reinstatement.

We would come across those through our operational audits. We do about five a year-we do about ten a year of both large and small agencies. But we don't track it per se. Most of that enforcement authority rests with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Department of Labor, who would have those numbers.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. That's something we would seek perhaps from you or from those other agencies. One of the things we did not so long ago was to ask for and we received how well each agency was doing with regards to set asides and whether or not veterans were getting their fair share, and it was quite appalling to find that while we only had goals in the law, some agencies were doing well, others were doing very, very poorly.

And it might be helpful-nothing speeds accountability and perhaps compliance than when they're juxtaposed next to some other agency and are held to account. So if you could help us with that, we'd appreciate it.

Mr. BLAIR. We will certainly be happy to work with the committee on that.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Mr. Strickland?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blair, in your written testimony you discuss the audits that you've conducted to ensure veterans preference laws are upheld. Would it be possible to provide the committee with copies and the results of those audits?

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly. I'd be happy to provide that for the record. (The information follows:)

1