.. enough resources, and of everything for the veterans to be taken care. they will have to suffer. >> think you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the ladies and gentleman that are here today. i want to thank mr. nicholson

for the whistle blower harmelin that your association is set up. we heard from the veterans affairs to rent again began. it is always things are fine. curious, were you all hearing that from your association, from your about the secret waiting lists? and never heard that coming from your groups. i'm curious about how this can happen. i just was looking through the article from may of 1970. burst on the scene. no, here's his spirit and in this committee we have heard one of the spectrum folks inside. talk a little bit about the budget question, but what you were hearing from members. >> all say as i mentioned in my oral statement, the one luxury is our side is that we conduct.

we have trained medical staff to go in two centers and see what's going on. the and see firsthand where the shortages are. in the for nurses, social workers call what have you. the difference is we have an agreement and we worked those differences out to come to a resolution that will benefit veterans. this is all played out before the public eye, which is fine in as much as trying attention to the larger problem. but tonight we have identified the. >> the hit to the va. >> the secure waiting list. >> on friday everything is fine. and then within five days they admit they have seeker waiting lists that they knew about. my question is -- and i cannot tell look through the data this

is the thing that when, they falsified the data and presented to us. trying to see how you continue to help with how far you can dig into that to help provide more transparency. >> we have been complaining that they were under resource all along. circlets of a former undersecretary, people who are not direct service providers, congress -- rihanna speculating this is what congress gives you more money. it is exactly what the barriers to los, more people who are hands-on delivery. lee. >> and again. appreciate that because we get reports. again, as you heard on the other panel, every single bureaucrat, every undersecretary, every

paragraph came here and said we have plenty of resources. it's a cultural problem. and so either they are totally wrong or you are totally wrong. we're trying to figure out what we can do about it. policy-makers when the date is unclear because of the lack of integrity, and give them more money. in the past decade it's been a 250 persons, 256% increase. the number of veterans of 30 to 40%. why did i get them? and maybe that's what's happening. what to overhead. what is frustrating to me is when they lie about the data, making it applicable refuse to be transparent we can make decisions and to hear from top-level folks and say the way union rules work we can't get through some one. right now we don't have all the

facts. we want to make sure that happens. or via the things we heard, what can they stay open. why can't they do that? >> major significant changes. >> appreciate your input bradley showing up and sing were going to show you what's happening. >> i would like to make a comment. a cabin here and say they have sufficient funds doing this role long-term the secretary, most of the tunnel as we hear during the clinton ministration to when they were flat line in the

budget covers agree with those numbers. up until recently congress always provided more than what the masters and his last war. they're part of a teen. while it's frustrating de hear them say they have the resources, don't think there would be honored position very long if they told to, as a secretary did, but the term or asking for over $3 billion more when he said he needed one. would be leery of asking him that question and expecting an actor responsiveness to put him on the road to. it's just a concern. >> the saying the secretary to tell the truth? >> and saying that he a bad that he harassed more we were asking for almost twice the amount. >> would you say the other secretaries were not being

truthful? >> not under oath. >> they can tell the truth whether they are under oath or not. >> but when have you heard anyone commit to you as part of another team, other than the secretary. >> so you were recognized. >> mr. chairman, i think and understand what your sank. they know, all the of ministers tow the administration line. fox it's a matter of just that the way it is in the illustration. that would be true of a republican or democratic assertion. you won loyal people underneath. so to grow quickly if you answer yes or no would you say that your organization and members

basically want to mend, not end the va? >> we'd like to restore the va. >> thank you. we absolutely want to restore trust and a va and build a system that has the capacity to care. >> we want to save the va but fix it. >> absolutely. where are all in favor. >> let's turn the other way. >> does your organization support the 17 billion supplemental requested by the va ? >> the service support giving the two for more resources and believes that it does need more whether or not they have an exact number, i don't believe we

know. our concern with the number is just making sure that it is well justified. but making sure the resources. >> that number we're not going to defend because we have no idea how it came here. how much additional is appropriated? at the specific appropriations. a year later they could not show you what happened to the money. >> i can send a share with the appropriate numbers. i think the idea of

strengthening the va three more doctors and more nurses is a key point. >> the dollar enough, but we do support is providing the data resources and the news they could demonstrate that they need it. like i mentioned before, just as end users of the va it seems clear to us will we ever from arbors of something -- >> we don't have enough impression right now to support or not support. >> again. i take that information -- i appreciate it. and i see the conference as the liquid. need to really get a temp to the business of finding a with an appropriate number is. the shortage of doctors is something have been concerned about some skeptical of a

personally funds access to more non va care as the solution. i'm skeptical of us being able to find that there are shortages in communities. is not point to work was we increase the underlying supply of doctors. i appreciate your support. even if we send these medics to medical school we're still frozen. what you all consider supporting , the expansion of -- the builder would expand residencies by 2000 and let the designation be made with the need is. >> the increased capacity. and i think the important thing to keep in mind is that those will the intermediate to

long-term solutions. it takes awhile for recruitment to happen in the state senate should become practice. the support for private sector is a short-term solution to address the crisis going on. i don't think it has to be either warp 31 is short-term solution. >> are think we support access. and instead we have 2,000 medical students presently. we actually have people in the pipeline him get into residencies right now collects every one of your answer. this is an issue that has been thrust into the middle of the committee. that is the 17 and a half billion dollar request it's an unfunded list with all of your

resources and all of your people and all of your expertise you sit here today and tell me exactly will we sang his there is not enough clarity to know whether not this is i could request or a badge request, too much money, not enough money. i don't think you have heard a single member of this committee say that they are not willing to find what is necessary. of what to make sure folks know that no one up here is trying to tear the va dam. which 90 to 24 to serve the veterans of each of you represent. i hope you understand that that there was all letter that was signed yesterday. while you may not have intended for a, say you support the entire 17 billion, you put the

full weight and supporter of your folks behind at in the middle of a very tenuous negotiations. rittenhouse of a senate. remain a prudent officer. unfortunately the senate democrats were not there. thank you for holding the fork back here. mr. patrick was there. i think the reason that we did it the way we do it was we have not had a public meeting for four years our intent was to publicly say that the house is off -- i say the house, my offer was not cheap on the money in regards to what cbo its court egregious error in no.

the author was taken up the senate bill, pay for it by putting tim billion dollars in emergency, mandatory up,. eckerd, solid down payment. the second number is 25, which is what the cbo has said. extend that 10 billion out as long as it will go because i don't believe there will spend it in the year. adjust salt think it will go into the second year. and for the second 25 million go through regular water which is written. and exactly what your saying just a second ago. oversight. each of you will probably not on purpose is said when need more doctors to more this to more than a. i have not heard, and you may have set it before, deficiencies

in the system whereby doctors only seeing six, eight tibetan patients a day. that's not enough. mental health providers that are only seeing patients two hours of the day. as my colleague has said cantor expand the office hours so that the and frustration that is already in place can be used to supplement the doctor's letter they're police earlier all and is trying to work together. let's to the $25 billion through normal appropriation process core regular order. we are right now negotiating. the senate is not even passed the va bill.

we want to begin the initiations -. want to interject reinject multiple dollars that is bearish to do with. it is not the the money may not give we don't know when you don't even we're asking for clarity from the va, the secretary and i have talked about. two pages of documentation for a 17 and half billion dollar request. then we have an undersecretary of came here yesterday. when asked particularly about the request she did not know how answer. whenever they're calling weekend work their way. you would not want us working man or a. you couldn't do your job is working that way.

we have got to know what the money is going to go for, what it is being benchmark against. we get this right. the other members of the democratic side, all of their of publicans have done everything that we can to make this a bipartisan issue. i have tried not to walk too far out in front of my ranking member when it comes to subpoenas of letters to or anything add u.s. the chairman of this committee. his trouble with signing some pass for his signature. if he's not, that's just fine. not a problem because we do come from different districts, serve on different caucuses, and i get where that comes from. but of a sudden this morning it

is being said in the press that this has devolved into a partisan negotiation. notice not. it is an american negotiation. it's where the men and women that we serve. we cannot quiberon. the have to get in right. it takes a little bit longer to get it right, but we are going to get it right. i promise you we're going to get it right, and we are going to do it with your help. you have all been a great help to us as we have gone through this process. >> i think you.

>> thanks you, mr. chairman. i think the ticket away to hear what you have to say. i can start on either and pre-christmas to chairman, i was just going to say, i don't think i disagree with anything you had to say. if we have a concern is that i'm not sure there's been enough focus of the ban on the culture priscilla of discussion on fixing the culture. as i said my statement. and i sure there's been much of a discussion about what to do about the capacity problem. >> will the gentleman yield? >> and he sat right up there and asked, how much is the cost connected could not answer the question.

what is a typical panel? how much do they see on a daily basis? some people could not answer the question. yes, the focus is on doing whatever we need to do efficiencies' inciting capabilities outside. that's why the choice may be -- and you guys, i'm going to be real honest with you, some of the thankfully have not got really spun up of the choice of peace sits awaited teardown. i don't think there is going to be this fleeing out of the system. i think many people will stay in the system. so we have focused criminal versa perspective. wind up and able to get the answers the information that we avast warrant had now received. the secretary gets it every week

i agree. yes, there has been a lot of focus on the outside, but that has been focused on the inside. >> 1. i would make, i must as cost? what is the impression that they publish in their budget book's characters a particular line item that says perris group one and the cost associated. i interpret that to mean exactly what the question was last. >> to why can't they answer the question. >> you need to go work for va. >> from of vfw perspective we certainly understand everything the you're talking about i just returned from a national commission in sin los with a passed a resolution and system of congress passed the bill.

and the frustration comes from the fact of this was a major priority two months ago for a celebrity to get on one. they get pregnant. what are members of told us is that they don't see progress. in fact what they have seen is a narrative changing where it used to be about caring for veterans and now it's about cost. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, mr. chair. >> we had a meeting today of the first time in four weeks. we were trying to tell the american. trying to negotiate behind closed doors. do this in public praetor will sell you this. there has been a tremendous amount of work that is gone on behind-the-scenes in an attempt to negotiate this. i think everybody has said, the intent is not to leave unless this is finished. we appreciate the urgency with

which a vfw expressed, but there has been a lot going on and we hold a public meeting. >> and i did not mean the tickets aren't prepared for. >> thank you. we're using a time on this. >> this is a bipartisan effort. he knows me well on out that he knows no one loves purpose of aggressiveness like minnesota's. so to characterize i was in bed before notice of that meeting was we weren't given that. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield with you. >> this is our time to be honest

. >> of be honest with you. all be doing back some of the very beginning. the last conference committee, many of you were probably here in 1999 the senate chair the conference. it comes to the house to chair this conference. at the beginning of the conference there was discussion between myself, mr. sanders who was going to chair. as of let's be cochairs. >> s the sender at a later this week. return to negotiate all day yesterday, trying to figure out when we could do this time and time and time again done better

not unilaterally call me. no the house position that could be its shares of the committee and for senator sanders to take a good effort on my part to make him the kutcher and to stop us from having a public meeting. sitting down this year i did share the offer. i said to share at the ready here. is not a conference report, it's an offer. it's on -- our offer is on the same amount of paper is va justification. so it was not done as a bipartisan move.

we made it 930. >> we met at 930. it was an offer. it was not intended to be a house offered a spirited rally was not. i was not trying to get because and you can't do that. it was just to say the house is prepared to put money, $10 billion that has been in the negotiations properly the second day. hard money. have you seen it in the press one time? probably not. the house is trying to do it on the cheap. here is where we are. the house position is it is difficult to fund any of the 17 and a half billion dollars without justification. in the offer i think we put

102 million in to finish out through the end of 2014. so, you know, the intent is command will tell you this, wrote a letter to senator. don't know when can i don't know where. just so everybody knows, we will be back in time. what has happened is my negotiating behind closed doors and we have been pretty darn close, you know, the soul-searching i just saw reported in the media little while ago that this thing is doomed. no it is not. as long as we work together, i did not want to put you in a position to say you're making as decide whether we wanted to rebuild.

and i did. yeah, i could have told you until 8:00, with the offer was actually going to be. the only lasted 15 minutes. >> my commitment to you is to do this together because of these folks know in the public knows they don't care. it's our responsibility. in a scene this song and dance. we have got to get it done. i stand with you to get it done. [laughter] >> i did lean over to the chair earlier to ask him what his proposal was. ..

hopefully we will be able to work in a bipartisan manner to get this thing done. i'm not interested in blaming anyone. my concern has always been how do we take care of the veterans that we have to take care of? i hope that both sides everyone on the conference committee will focus on that particular issue as well. with that mr. chairman i would just say we probably ought to give ms. bromley her five minutes back. >> with that objection. >> thank you mr. chairman just to chime in on this conversation, i agree that this must be, should not be, must be

a bipartisan approach and we must collectively solve this problem and i will say when the house passed a bill on these -- almost unanimously and when the senate passed a bill almost unanimously i think the expectation is we would go to conference and resolve the smaller differences and move forward. i just don't want to take a large step backward. i think we are making progress. there is movement here so we are making progress. we have got to continue to work to make sure we do indeed have the resources to make sure that we can serve our veterans well once and for all and we all know that this has been a problem that, this crisis has been specific in terms of wait times that we know that we have had issues with capacity and their ability to serve our veterans in the proper way for a very long time. but this is our opportunity i

believe very strongly for us to move forward and once and for all to be able to really try to make a difference in how we serve our veterans throughout our country. i wanted to ask a specific question. i think mr. weidman i think it was in her testimony where you talked about the fact that you believe that the current leadership and the changing culture in leadership is beginning to permeate at the upper levels but it's not necessarily permeating throughout the va hospitals across the country. i think that obviously has to happen. for a culture to change that has to happen. i'm wondering if there is anything that you believe should

be doing to assist the va to making sure that communication does get to the system-level to the hospital level at every corner throughout our country where we are serving our veterans. is there anything you think that we should be doing? >> i suggest you get the staff together with your veterans. i must have you have had and give them a copy of the memo that you will meet with the dsl's every month and you will jointly put together the agenda for those meetings. because we are getting back, i know the memo got out there but people aren't responding and our folks ain't hearing much. the best on spokesman persons you have at the va are the veterans in your district maam and if you give them the right

information they will pick up the ball and start to run with it and they will go to the press. >> thank you for that. mr. blakey where the budget guy. the anointed budget guy here. the vso's i mean he must have done a needs assessment to look at the va and what it costs. you have that information. >> i do. i prefer to have it -- it's a lot of numbers in gobbledygook and i would be glad to share it with your staff. fraudy offices to discuss this very issue. >> based on your needs assessment can you give a figure of what you think the needs are budget fairly to meet those needs.

>> for this year or overall? i can project the way the va said they need $17 million after 2017. what i can tell you is the recommendation is approximately for all medical care $2 billion more than what is recommended for fy2015 which will be starting soon. something less than a billion dollars or approximately a billion dollars more for fy2016 as in advance. when i will also say is over the last 10 years the difference between what they i.d. has recommended overall for medical care is $8 billion more than what has been appropriated and i can tell you for the most part what has been appropriated as equal to what is enough for by the administration. there hasn't been a whole lot of difference and most do so basically over over that period of time what i would suggest if that had been made over that period of time maybe we would have build the capacity in. part of what is hard to stomach about $17 billion right now is

the chairman's concerns about spending resources are properly and all that, they really spend $17 billion in a short period of time time to get the right staff in the right place to do the right thing and that's the concern where is it that have been done incrementally over a greater period of time time in a perfect world it would have been done correctly at least. >> i yield back mr. chairman. >> mr. cook. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate everyone here. i tried to keep up with many of the organizations area i have paid my dues and i get my magazine. i could make my joke but i won't. i'm going to ask you the same question that i've asked other veterans organizations. i will probably get it still around are six months or what have you. you know the military

environment where the unit is combat ready or not combat ready, very simple. as of today is the va combat or mission ready or not mission ready? do you want to start? >> i would say it's not fully mission ready. >> at least half of the hospitals are mission ready. >> i would say they are not mission ready at this time but they are moving in that direction. >> when i was in the army we had circle x for maintenance concerns and i feel a lot of places are circle x. >> i would agree not mission ready and we share that concern. >> not mission ready and we have seen evidence of that throughout the crisis centers throughout the country. not mission ready. >> thank you. your organization, you have got

a lot of credibility. you have a lot of credibility in the united states and on this panel. do you rate different hospitals by region, one, two, three, four, five? you know, and do you give a reason why one is great care and fully staffed what have you. before you answer the reason is coming from the military environment, fitness reports. everyone here. we get -- somebody scores us on this bill and this bill is just a way of life but it almost is, you call attention to it and back when i got out of the marring car -- marine corps and became a professor they have this professor.com and it was oh boy who's disgruntled this week or who loves me this week?

do you think or do you right now rate the hospitals and the other aspects of the bam publish them in your magazine? >> we don't have the capacity. we are on hannity and maddow every night but we don't have the capacity. >> we do not sir. >> we don't rate that we certainly a value with the center specifically. while we don't publish a list i'm sure we can put that question to the senior executives and oversee that. i think you listed in ranking order from best to worst. >> we did not rank hospital systems. >> american legion doesn't rank the system better teams in task force go got two different facilities across the country and do site visits. we look at each individual hospital to see what's going on and we hold a town hall meeting to talk to the veterans in that

community to understand their concerns as well. and we meet with leadership. >> the reason i brought that up is on the previous panel i was very honest. i had problems with trust and confidence in the va. i have a lot of trust and confidence in you guys and maybe because we go back a long ways or what have you and you have helped me so i'm not trying to get you involved in a situation like this but you do have credibility. at least with me so it's something to consider. now mr. weidman i want to ask you about the vietnam veterans. one of the issues i have and maybe it's because i'm a vietnam veteran, i always felt that after the paralyzed veterans and the people that needed care right then and there, i always felt like the va was, vietnam

veterans, and this is something that the vietnam veterans told me. you guys are at that stage where you will probably be dead before you get seen for an appointment little untreated. and i'm wondering and i actually do think because of the age factor and probably a more debilitating illness and what have you, but i'm very very concerned whether that's a perception that your organization and this is based on the history of what happened years ago when the country turned its back. you served in vietnam, you are a baby killer etc. etc.. so if you could address that issue. >> our founding principle is very straightforward and very simple. never again will one generation

of american veterans abandon another. we don't, so we put a lot of resources even though we are by choice a bunch of old guys. >> easy now, i am one of those. >> but we do a lot of things for our vets and we do a lot of things for her father's generation even though they basically told us to go pound salt. having said that much of the character va, most of it is good. some of it is very good and sometimes excellent. the problem in the perception that we get from our members is particularly when it comes to ptsd and narrow psychiatric -- neuropsychiatric wounds that they are being pushed out. in the triage i was a medic and the hardest thing i have ever done in my life is to have to triage for real under fast

changing circumstances. maybe they are triaging but the way in which we regard that, if you don't have the resources you need in order to do the job ask for it and if they don't give it to you at the clinic level than the hospital and the national. if they don't give it to you shame on them but if you don't ask, shame on you. >> thank you and i yield back. thank you for what you are doing. appreciate it. >> ms. titus heuer recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think we all agree there are serious problems at the va but i was very glad to hear you answer mr. takano's question mend it, not ended and i appreciate the chairman saying we are not out to do away with the va but i especially appreciate a very articulate statement that you made mr. blake expressing some concerns that i share with you

about this push to privatize. now i can't help but believe that this is part of an agenda by some, not by all but just to kind of dismantle the federal government and leave citizens in this case veterans out on their own in the so-called private sector. if you look at what happened here with the push to private care maybe this is a short-term fix as one of you mentioned that specifically some of the concerns i have about that are things that we need to address before we go pell-mell down this direction. one of them is just as you raised, there are concerns that doctors and hospitals as they admitted themselves don't have the culture of the va. they don't have the expertise of the va. they are not used to dealing with the kinds of problems that veterans have whether it's ptsd

or agent orange so if we push them out there into the private sector we don't know that the quality of care is going to be any better. second this committee asked over and over give me the hard facts, give me the numbers give me this and that there's no evidence out there to show that if you put patients in the private practice that will be cheaper, faster, or better. in fact we just don't have that information. in fact if you look at a roughly parallel situation like medicare advantage do is find that the evidence is actually to the contrary. the third thing and mr. takano mentioned this too is the lack of doctors in many parts of the country. i am in las vegas in. [roll call] nevada. we just don't have physicians. we are at the bottom of every list with different specialties and also general practitioners. so if we send them out to the private sector that doesn't mean they are going to get it faster.

yet if we pass the bill that's going to make national news. veteran center private care. veterans can now use private care. that's just not going to be true and i wonder how are you going to tell your members what to do now under this new scenario? anybody? >> well i think first and foremost one of important things to look at in the access and accountability is we have far too many veterans waiting far too long for care. i am a strong defender of the va system. to be perfectly honest i probably wouldn't be in this position if it weren't for the help i received in the va system when i turn from iraq. that being said i have also had appointments canceled on me. i have shown the two clinics where they said we can't see today. i have had a long waiting periods for appointments and i'm just one example. i guess the problem is we need to balance and correct it. outside care can be appropriate

at times but we can't use it as a catchall as i noted in my testimony. the supplement for the competencies that the va has especially on issues like combat related mental health care, prosthetics or any specialty service serves as my colleague rick weidman said toxic exposures in the war zone. >> you know you are exactly right. i have a secretary in my office who went into a doctor almost four weeks ago now. she needs surgery. she had two appointments that she needed to make before she could have the surgery. one scheduled at that time were this past tuesday. the other one for august so she needs to have both of those appointments before she can go in for surgery. she is waiting over, probably eight weeks in order to do that. the private sector is a much better. you know, it's frustrating

because we have the acting secretary putting forth a plan that would ensure that we have the capacity of the va and build up you know the number of doctors that need to be there plus take care of veterans on the outside when necessary. for an amount that's a fraction of what cbo has processed for the bills pending in conference. they claimed 30 billion for the first two years and an additional 54 billion after that. i mean that's what i don't understand. why they are condemning va and the numbers when cbo is saying it's even going to be more than that. it's just frustrating. >> i would say this. it doesn't matter what bill you passed because at the end of the day the only best option for members is the va. there really isn't another

option out there. yes there are places out out there get back and out there kit that can meet someday that they have but there's room out option. it's almost unfair to answer the question like that but what i would say is we have never said there shouldn't be contracting out for purchasing care. we have said many times that the va had done a terrible job of using that authority in the past. they are now seemingly moving in a judicious manager do that under the accelerated access to care initiative. we have and ddc and p. triples the so they're certainly an avenue to go there. one of the concerns and you mentioned this about the doctors in the private sector, one of the hearings, one of the oversight hearings or one of the daytime hearings mr. luisa made a point that in his district and granted his district is pretty. [roll call] but not like a lot of districts in this country. limited analysis they discovered there was approximately one physician for every 9000 people in that district.

i would suggest that's probably another sinner and underserved districts by large. there are a lot of underserved veterans in many those same area so what happens when they put them into that situation? there are certainly a concern there. >> thank you very much and also at 17.6 billion over and above the cbo score so the fact that the number, i understand that but it's 35 million plus 17.6. mr. walz. >> thank you mr. chairman and that's a valid point. i think we are trying to separate adequate resources from effective use of those resources and if we conflate the two together we end up going in the wrong direction. i would like to point out and i don't know if this has happened since i've been here, it may have but is certainly to me gratifying.

oftentimes we see people testifying and you stand eager to wait and physically behind them. i want to make note that the actions as we all know words are cheap especially as we know around here. this is a pivotal moment. the decisions that are going to be made over the next weeks and months are going to i think have a decades long impacted i think you're absolutely right to flex your ability of pressure points to get situations done but keep in mind and they are right when you can turn up the heat or whatever but now there's going to be a race to get something done by next friday. getting it done and getting it done are not necessarily synonymous. my concern is as we work together and bear down on this because there's no question we all want to get it right. i need all of you to think what

you are doing is how do we get to that point because here is my biggest fear. we pass something in no one goes home in august and in august in pounds in august in pounds or just another va is taking care of. i go back to what mr. nicholson said we have got to multitask here. his point on suicide the chairman and i passed the act. now now they work is done so we will move onto the next crisis of the day whatever it will be an forget we need to make sure we are looking at that national veteran strategy and figure out a way. you guys have said this too. alex when you said you weren' weren't -- don't feel left out, i was not either. i've bring it to the point you have said it and i think carl maybe you said it you took responsibility as an organization. the question i have is and i

will take responsibility until i have no teeth to effect what is being done and i would suggest to you and trying to figure this out this committee took the entry point into the system. i don't even know who's on it. that's what happens and good luck getting in over their or coming over here. i will take responsibility but why is the second-largest agency and the federal government have one of the smallest committee's? we have the resources to do more on that. how come we are not adding you in as partners with va? i think we could look at major reform as you look at what the long-term implication is. don't forget that if the people's influence is going to be felt is going to be felt through this committee and we have to have the resources and the ability. we have to have the backing as partners in getting this done so with that being said i'm going

to leave it all to you. what do all of you hope to see? what is the headline that has to come out of that? what has to be done before we go home but because as mr. gallucci said don't worry about coming back if you're not going to do it. if we are going to come back where we going to get done next week lacks. >> thank you mr. walz for the question and yet what we put out with strongly worded and their members are very frustrated by what we have seen. we had with the frustrations of chairman miller and the rest of the committee in how we get to a quality product. i think from the perspective of the va what we want to see come out of this is inadequately funded or adequately resourced, don't want to say funded, adequately adequately resourced va health care system capable of delivering health care in a timely manner to the veterans and when they are incapable of delivering atomic veterans that they have the resources and protocol to deliver through

contracting for non-va care coronation in addition to that the accountability side would be that ca has the ability to properly sanction for performing employees and replace them in a timely manner. there has been a lot of talk about that front end how many people have you fired. i outlined it in my testimony and have been talking about this for the last two months grade-a thinks va makes trade-offs many times in the way they evaluate their employees. if you can't hire a quality replacement of timely manner why are you really going to give a review to someone or try to fire somebody when he campers play some or when there's a threat of them leaving? if you have a clinician seeing to patients when they should be seeing five are you going to fire them when you don't take a year to replace them and those two patients go without care. >> my time is up and maybe we can come back around on the second round. at the round. at the end of the day we are going to vote yes or no and when he to know what we are going to

do. >> mr. o'rourke for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank you and your organizations for helping me as a new member get up to speed and better represent el paso. your feedback on bills we will be voting on and bills we have offered what has been instrumental in improving the legislation we have been making on. i especially want to thank ms. jones and the american legion. as we were discovering how awful the crisis in el paso was about the gap in coverage and the wait time for disability claims and the wait time on appeals for disability claims and we are hoping to get some kind for sponsoring the va which since then has come. you and your organization stepped in to fill the gap literally set up a command center and saw hundreds of thousands of veterans that are connected them with benefits and connected them with care and i

can't thank you enough for doing that. really appreciate what you are doing. let me follow-up on one of the achievements that the secretary cited and that i'm very grateful for which is removing the 14 day deadline moving it back to 30 accelerating access to care putting money into local bas to make sure we can access them. why that same model and thinking about el paso where i mentioned earlier if you were here that we had nearly 20 full-time vacancies for mental health and 20 full-time vacancies today. we have a commitment from our va director and dr. jesse that we have those filled by the end of this month. we just checked this morning and they will not be filled. ptsd mental health care committee able to help someone who is in need and who may be in danger to him or herself or her spouse or loved one or to the

community and at best may just be suffering without help is a critical unmet need. certainly in el paso but i understand there are the country. guide me through this idea proposed by the panel the week before last that the va focuses then prioritizes and becomes excellent care for ptsd, tbi, prosthetics, the kind of combat related injuries that we are seeing from all of our -- especially post-9/11 and prefer other care that is not combat or war related out into the community. in other words give me the ability to say to the veteran and el paso if you have ptsd you will come and you'll be seeing quickly and you'll get the best guaranty will have consistency and care. you will see a psychiatrist and get access to medication. i can see none of those things right now and part of my

suspicion is that we are trying to do too much and whether its 17 billion or 30 billion we cannot spend enough to sustain the system today serving 9 million veterans and there will be many more years from now. walk me through my thinking and how can i approach this idea and problem of balancing creating excellency within the va with accessing resources in the community and i will start with this gentleman and work down the line for anyone who would like to respond. >> that's an excellent question. they're so much that needs to be done. as a matter check the american legion has a ptsd committee full time to research tbi and what needs to be done. there are so much especially i have evidence out talking to veterans in crisis. i think there were times when veterans, when purchased care is

necessary. depending on how far they level when weather conditions are whether it's better for them to see -- be seen outside the va or if it's impossible for them to drive in. what has to happen is the va has to become experts in every area where veterans need things, tbi, women's veterans issue. veterans have conditions that need to be taken care than they need to be able to come to the va and expect excellent care and all areas from the va. we cannot use purchased care as a substitute for what the va needs to do. that's a copout. the va needs to be able to do excellently what they have been created to do. >> is anyone else want to comment on the cents way of offering fewer services but doing them better in them better and referring them better in referring to remainder out into the community? >> i would say this.

>> thank you. i would say this. the va is a fully integrated health care system and all the components support one another. one of our member -- members with spinal care injury needs spinal care treaty can't send that veteran now. if they need audiology we set up a basic service which can be purchased in the community. if they know orthopedic switches, and the expertise should reside within the va. if they do orthopedics which is very common expertise should reside within the va because those things all prop 1 another often that's over the course of their life. the concern becomes sent out care is that care being coordinated? is the va managing a? are we keeping track of what's going on so all of the aspects

of that veteran as he is being treated are being properly managed. >> great feedback. thanks again. >> mr. walz did you have an additional question? >> if anyone wanted to follow-up and we are going to nick a decision next week what are we going to come out with? >> mr. walz i would say this. i've resigned myself that something would pass in a particular had concerns with the choice act. the great irony of this is both of the committees went into conference with probably the most difficult part of legislation virtually marrying each other and other provisions the senate bill. you went into conference close to one another and somehow they are going further and further part on your own. i need that happens. it's just amazing. i assume the choice act or whatever the final name is going to be is going to pass. my concern is not that bill.

my concern is what happens next. i don't want this to become the into the debate. mr. chairman that is why he made the point. we don't want to thump their chests you said. we don't want to go home in august and say look at the great things we did for veterans and forget that there are still serious problems that have to be addressed at the va. i just assume you are going to pass legislation. it's going to be what are we going to do after that? >> as long as something gets done. we are under tremendous pressure just like all of you are under pressure to enact something and to start to be aggressive. the process in terms of it not being repeated anytime soon is going to be several years. not just the funding but of effort to rebuild a management structure that you can have and

every time i talk to a va employee they say what do you think about that? i say i think this is before all this blew up. we need va management within va and we don't have family up and had it for a long time. that really needs to be the primary focus. one last thing, there is no fixing it once and for all. it's not a widget. if an institution of people that change the needs of the people change and as the nation itself changes. we regarded much more as a garden where you continue to plant and fertilize them bleed. that's what needs to be done now.

>> mr. dan pfeiffer my concern is -- mr. walz my concern is this is a temporary fix and we are heightening expectations of veterans and not being able to meet those expectations and i think in the end it could be even weakening va instead of making it stronger. we need to make sure in the end that va is stronger and they are able to fulfill their mission successfully. >> and i say briefly my biggest concern right now is the house and the senate passed several really good bills and went into conference with our understanding being that jurisdiction would be to merge the two bills and to pass them out. seems like everybody and their brother see this as one of the only if not the only moving trains. if you all can focus on it you certainly have our support doing

so, merging tweaking and finalizing what you pass and getting that done and not thrilling and all these other provisions that people want to put on a moving train. 17 billion extra, i mean i think you have to pass what you have in front of you now with the jurisdiction of the conference committee and then in my opinion then tackle the supplementals. we would come out with something for sure whereas if we are adding in everything else in considering everything else and having to discuss how to pay for it etc. we may end up with nothing. if we going to august and this doesn't get done and the secretary has confirmed and he has confirmed and he comes in the wants to make adjustments to the 17 billion or maybe at another 17 billion we are not going to get anything done. i would rather see you all finish what he started with and get that done in the move on. >> i appreciate that and i think that it's been my position. we triage triage this and deal with the axis to crisis care and we start to deal with some of those and then we breathe a little bit, have a long range to

put that in place and continue continued to mull through. i too have expressed his great fear. we don't know how this is going to go. this is your one bite off at the apple asked on and don't come back. rick rick i say with the va and health care we need to keep moving forward but there's a danger. if we don't do this and we don't do it now the window will close and it won't get done. i think it's the american people's passion to get this done. a little bit of patience and an awful lot of collaboration continuing the song and the help from you would be to help us keep realistic expectations. don't have it all or nothing by next friday but have something. you had better get some results out of it and then the momentum to keep moving forward. i yield back. >> thank you mr. walz i appreciate it panel for being here today and precisely what

occurred last week when the $17.6 billion number was injected into this conversation is when things started going sideways. we were very very close to resolving our differences and senator sanders feels that the only time that he will ever be able to get this money done is in this bill. i have assured him that is not the case, that if ea can make the case for the dollars in certain areas that they are asking for then we will go to work to see that they get those dollars. unfortunately he has convinced other people that this is the only way to get the $17.6 billion put into this emergency bill. that is not the case. the house had actually narrowed the scope down in our bill to access and accountability.

much more narrowly crafted them with the senate had that we were giving and taking and adding things and taking things out. as i understand senator sanders has just held a press conference. i can't believe he unilaterally held a press conference without letting me know he was holding a press conference are asking for my permission but he did. i think the thing is we are not done. we did not give a take it or leave it offer. we just want to make sure that those that are on the conference committee understand that the house is not trying to say everything has to be paid for. we are going for the same number. the house actually has gone to the senate number. we did that when the cbo came out with the second score holding it to our number which is higher because we had a 14 day trigger.

understand what mr. walz has already said, getting this done right is important. it is critical and that is what we are committed to doing. i have assured everybody on the conference committee that if it takes staying the weekend this weekend i'm prepared to do that. i was supposed to be in normandy for the 17th anniversary and is the chairman of the committee who has oversight, did not go because i stayed here to negotiate the spill. i stayed in washington an entire week. and so i'm committed as are all the members of this house committee to make them sure that we get it right and with your help we will and we will get it done in a timely fashion. remember the veteran is the most important thing, not the va and without we are adjourned.

this morning on capitol hill house minority leader nancy pelosi spoke about emergency spending bill to do with unaccompanied children at the border. >> the president put forth a supplemental and the emergency emergency situation map on the border. it mitigated for some of the higher that could be done was comprehensive.

the senate has less resources for shorter period of time commensurate to address due process is more systems for representation to here here the cases more expeditiously. one of those two bills is what i would support. and again whatever the bill is the comes forward we will all review it very carefully but it's not a question of do you support the senate bill? we don't have any idea what else is in the bill. i can't answer that. when i see the bill i will let you know but i very firmly believe that it would be a mistake for us to do immigration law and a supplemental will. we are not supposed to legislate on appropriations bill. we hear that everyday on the floor when we try to improve the legislation. for them it's okay and for us it's not. but it's not a good place to insert a clause that has such

ramifications on a bill that has nothing to do really with the values that are put forth in the wilberforce law. so again immigration, immigration. he wanted a separate bill on 2008, discuss it there but again don't hold children hostage to the cosmetics of how tough you are on the border. >> dan pfeiffer is a senior adviser to president obama. he was asked about immigration by reporters. here are his comments today at breakfast hosted by the "christian science monitor." >> i think we have two separate issues separable issues. one is we have a specific challenge that one portion of the border in the rio grande valley and we have to do with that and that requires sending

additional resources both redirecting resources so we are dealing with that. secondly we have to deal with we were talking about executive action around immigration. they have specific challenges at the border so obviously what's happening on the border is part of the backdrop for decision for the thinking behind this and the decisions that we will make. i think it will probably increase the angry reaction from republicans. we are to have senator cruise threatened that he will not allow the appropriations bill unless we report all the dreamers in 2012. i think that speaks to both the tremendous cross currency on immigration reform and you have people like john mccain and lindsey graham others in the public and house.

we talk about a lawsuit and you have sarah palin out there talking about impeachment. i saw a poll today that a huge portion of the republican party base thing they support the president. i think a lot of people in the town laugh that off. i think speaker boehner by going down the path as long as he can open the door for possibly considering impeachment at some point is a feature and i think that the president acting on immigration reform of certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point.

the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on iraq and syria. former ambassador to to iraq and the cia analysts testified at this hearing. it's 45 minutes.

>> thank you very much mr. acting chairman. to follow-up on what we heard this morning, the establishment of the islamic state by the isil in iraq and syria is changing the geo-strategy of entire middle east and represent a dramatic setback to u.s. policy and interesting requires an immediate response from washington. the situation is competent by the fact that in the fix we are presently in the middle east we have not one but two radical voices in the region from gaza to iran. higomonic voices in the region, from gaza to iran, that are trying to upset the middle east. and we have to deal with all of them in a comprehensive way.

the president's plan to support a unified iraq in this crisis is laid out on june 19th is reasonable. but over a month as gone by, as we discussed earlier today, and little has happened. we've had two important but secondary ste secondary steps, the selection of a speaker and those are important but those are preliminary. the key issue is the election of a prime minister and a new why the initial isil drive on baghdad and areas have been slowed we are seeing new offensive capabilities by the organization institute to study of law came out a with a study on the survey on of attacks of suicide inside baghdad and efforts to try to cut off the city. senator mccain was right that you can't take baghdad but with

over 100,000 troops in 2004 we can't isolate the city and they seem to be trying to do that. meanwhile they are pushing against the currents along the iranian border and they are trying to seize strategic infrastructure. also the haditha dam list of ramadi and the mosul dam on the tigris river to the northeast of mosul. these are extraordinarily important infrastructure. we do have an offensive threat. the present plan is based above all on a new inclusive government and as i said well we i said wealthiest in the preliminaries with a speaker and a president we have gotten to the key issue is going to govern the country. the prime minister essentially governs the country. in my view the inclusive government that the president has quickly set us apart with his attorney action cannot be a

government by prime minister malecki. he simply is not shown the ability to bring in the sunni communities. there's a huge division of both trust and geographic division of the country today. we also need to encourage the kurds as mr. mcgurk described in some detail to try to regain trust among the sunnis. i see this is only possible if we have a new prime minister in a new government. simultaneously i think wildly president is right we can do major campaign until he get inclusive government that can provide essentially people on the ground local forces we need to do limited structures. general dempsey talked about some of the possibilities going after key leaders in strategic infrastructure. we need to do a little better that nagl. to encourage everybody to its

come together. mr. mcgurk taught about the sunni tribes that are trying to fight i suspect they are outdone. helping them would not be undercutting any government. the kurds are fighting on the front and they need help. we heard about some of these highly trained effective iraqi units that are still in the fight. they could benefit from help too. we are striking al qaeda right now pakistan and yemen and direct action to time in somalia and libya lithia. i see reason -- the reason why we couldn't start doing some strikes both in iraq and syria. meanwhile we have to be ready if this doesn't work out. if the iranians remain influence on baghdad and mr. maliki remains in power in the groups cannot come together we have to start thinking about how we going to deal if we do have three separate entities. it will be in kurdistan and

baghdad and effectively a taliban like islamic state that is ever more under the control or under the influence of iran. that's a huge new problem for us if we don't act very quickly. we need to act as quickly as we can. >> thank you mr. acting chairman. >> thank you mr. acting chairman and senator corker thank you for -- i will focus my comments on the iraqi security forces and first i would like to start with several operations -- observations. time improves to the benefit of fisa's wildly assessed they maintained the momentum. they grow stronger as a whole when the population intensifies. isis has established control across the contiguous area in

both syria and iraq and as we discussed in the previous panel must be considered as an iraqi syria front. this isis is a former regional threat. what is most frightening is as they swept into iraq they continue their expansion into syria. they did not have to -- alliance. these forces have serious fundamental flaws involve require significant assistance to be able to undertake counteroffensive to dislodge a rollback ice control. isis is an existential threat to baghdad and a kurds. the kurds have a 1000 plus quamana border and they are largely on their own. chairman menendez asked at the outset what is required and is clearly the iraqi security forces. my estimation is in their present state they cannot successfully meet that i suspect let alone the counteroffensive

without significant assistance. the capabilities necessary does not exist in iraq and will not likely materialize on their own. i'm not talking in the future about ground combat forces from united states. i'm talking about advising and assisting in certain key areas and let me cover this. the first is intelligence and we started that. developing tactical intelligence at targetable actions on the ground. we started then and now we need to turn that into action. the second component is the isis network in iraq syria and original supporters must be a national collection and analysis priority for our entire intelligence community. second we should establish a training program to develop sufficient combined arms capabilities in order to effectively conduct offense of operations to dislodge isis from the areas they now control. the isf has been largely a checkpoint army. since 20 lavender operations have been defensive in nature.

static and disposition and disjointed in execution. any training. third they need assistance in establishing their wartime sustainment process. they have experienced significant decline in equipment readiness over the years and this will be adopting process but it can be done. fourth, they require changes to their command-and-control network and as we know the system now in place as one created by prime minister maliki directly reporting to him. as we have seen their need to be changes and commanders and changes to develop an effective combat command-and-control capability. fifth the isf continues to need weapons and equipment. we have done some good work to rush some equipment there but we need to do more. just this week the investor the iraq -- when compared to the

rapid rest of support from iran and russia. we should enable materials to the 40 to iraq. six we should support the isf for their strikes to create isis capabilities that let me say you cannot airstrike or drone strike your way out of this. airstrikes must be part of a cohesive and coherent counteroffensive in order to attack isis. seventh we should support the kurds and enable them to defend against this existential threat from isis. the peshmerga are up well -- force but they are likely under them to an undercooked. they are stretched very thin and when isis turns on them they will be outgunned and overmatched. there's a complex relationship between baghdad and erbil, i understand that but why would be from a purely tactical security perspective why would we rapidly enabled the kurds to defend from

isis the oil-rich north falling into into isis hand and forced isis to fight on two fronts in iraq. finally this all depends on two things. a willing partner in baghdad that is willing to accept these changes and to help develop -- and as we'll discussed there must be a political climate for the sunni and kurds to feel that they could make accommodations and join in a unified military action. in conclusion it is an existential threat to iraq to the longer we wait to decide on our response to iraq's success will become and finally in the prevention of vice is controlled iraq is in the national interest of united states than we should ask in april iraq's as quickly as possible. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman. it's always a great honor to appear before this committee. i want to start by talking about some realities because i think

they are critical in understanding what the possibilities are movie is to talk about in the recognize american influence in iraq is continuing significantly to the point where i would argue the united states interests exceed our influence. second we need to come to grips with the fact that what we face in iraq today is a slow war. iraq is not on the prank and it's not sliding into civil war. the dynamics of the civil war now apply. that makes intervention by third powers very -- with that in mind the current approach of the administration within two weeks is probably the best one. it is the only one and that's the idea of forging a new political leadership and reforming iraq's political system is the only option we have that does offer the prospect of ending iraq's civil war in a matter of months rather than a matter of years in preserving american interests in

every other ways. nevertheless we need to recognize that it will be very difficult and it goes well beyond merely replacing the current iraqi political leadership. it is going to mean restructuring iraq's politics in a way that will encompass desires and aspirations and the fears of all anthrax committees and that's not going to be easy. if it fails iraq's central war is going to rely on the dynamics of the civil war and those are very hard to break. we will have some options. fortunately those options are all -- the first one is to recognize as any number of us and the senators pointed out earlier it is now a single civil war and because it will face people have a complex situation and looking to support both moderate sunnis and moderate

shia against the extremists and hoping to forge peace between them. that's very hard. syria offers a little bit of clarity in that the regime are not looking to support them in anyway and at least opens up the prospect and developing a syria first policy by which we would build a new syrian opposition army that might be able to defeat both the regime and the extremists stabilize the country and serve as a bridge and a model to sunni moderates inside of iraq. i see that option as feasible but it is not guaranteed to work and it is several steps beyond what the united states is willing to consider so far. .. illing to commit those -- that level of resources to actually bring the civil war to a close, another option is

partition, something that has been talked about very frequently. i will say that i think that if we don't bring this to a rapid close, we will find that partition is the de-facto outcome in iraq. it will be divided into a sunni stand and shia stand and the kurds will undoubtedly go their own way. the question for us would be, can we find ways to turn de-facto partition and somehow use it to bring about peace. again, i think that's problem but nevertheless, it will be extremely difficult. far more difficult than the pundits around town are making it out to be. i would say that if there's a dangerous mythology suggesting that the partition of iraq could be easy and relatively bluntless. in fact, the communities remain intermingled and the different militias have made claims on territory held by the others. the fear that overwhelms iraqis

remain and dividing up the oil and water and other resource and so the likelihood to bring that about will take years and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. and we will need to flay a policy of containment to prevent the spillover from the iraqi and syrian civil war to iraq's other neighbors and to harm other interested in the region. this is certainly a possible alternative but we need to remember containment is exceptionally difficult it has rarely succeeded in the past and is perhaps the most graphic illustration of just how hard it is to contain the civil war with this bill over to affect the other. the last is the worst choice of all. thank you very much.

>> thank you for your testimony. i am sorry i had to step out but we had that in advance. if maliki is the problem and rises to be the prime minister what is the course of events? >> first of all, is not easy to hang on as prime minister because he will need the votes for the us to the committee to get above that 165 is needed that is what we had in 2010 with the acting prime minister and so

to press to go forward many of those parties believe they need a new leader. if he does stay in power the options as is teeeight nine has adjusted to contain the problem teetwo with iraqi and syria and the jordan and kurdistan to try to both contain if those are threatening as it does not have the buy and but to take over from those areas. >> a and with that aside

what are the immediate things the government will have to do to create the id to fight isis? >> in the iraqis have their list and to keep the records there has to me us deal to talk about some of the options they are readying another of the shelf to bring them into the system. but there needs to be but the kurds that 17 percent that are those from kirkuk and are the pilgrims from

the iraqi central government budget so there is the model on the shelf with of federalism if you want inclusiveness than that will do more good if you want to have economic federalism introduce the policies that will see to that plant capable of doing what mr. barbero said then have a new defense minister that has control over his forces that is not the case now. >> dr. pollack? >> the excellent point* that they put more to the iraqis to make clear what we would

do to help them if they actually took the steps we were looking for. right now my sense is we're demanding a great deal from them but not letting them know if there are very difficult steps getting back to the point where we need to pressure the man pushing for word. it will be very difficult the of the iraqis need to understand in more concrete terms from what they say they're hearing about what they would get. >> i am hesitant to, general barbero, to continue to authorize a or a purves sales when i have seen what has happened with that argument as a result of

being abandoned on the battlefield. and with that iraq and iraqi response to help had to recreate the safeguards? >> it is like loss of equipment. >> but i agree not in basel. and in looking over which are the security forces with advice and training and whenever they need. and take a hard look to

share with them and make decisions but the senior iraqi military - - melete a very leader and are supporting as the iranians are here we want americans. they are frustrated. they have three fixed-wing aircraft you cannot airstrike your way out of this. so those right units with the weapons or equipment that we feel could help. >> i would say millions of dollars or hundreds of lives that is where america has bad.

and then going to pursue to create the wherewithal to solidify sova have to think about the decisions they have made not to relive them but instruct them moving forward. senator? >> thank you for being here. by that time other people have business we figure so much for your help but general barbero responded when senator mendez just mentioned they were not willing to pursue the status forces agreement but instead

it was an expression? >> going through my head that was save moment when both the united states and iraq failed to each other and themselves when the prime minister was confused if you wanted an american presence that history shows it is beneficial about whether or not it wanted to stay in history has proven it would have been better. >> i know with that give and take publicly is that your impression of what happened during that time? >> very briefly the administration following the recommendation of the of military leaders offered to keep the troops and in essence the maliki

government and most political parties agree to have troops that were called up from the of the question of the status of forces agreement they controlled the city's in parliament said he would not move any further to undercut 2008 with there earlier agreement and frankly time ran out. in terms of how enthusiastic the administration was i had my instructions to get an agreement. >> thank you both for that clarification there has been the discussion of the order of steps to take place and talking about the political situation in some of you would like to see take some steps now. what do you think are the elements taking place now

relative if my guess is you talk from time to time but prior to us knowing if there is the inclusive government what are the elements taking place inside the administration touche taking some small steps that i thank you have mentioned that isis is taking? >> there is that reliance that was said of a very deliberate process over the situation. in my view it is a way to not take action. we are in a situation where isis is the existential

threat and gaining strength. with the discussion of airstrikes if you see those entities in the desert but that is just for fleeting defects must be part of the of the effort it could have some effect but but lasting or word decisive there is reluctance to reintroduce american forces. i get that. but if this is the existential threat, if we have heard as a natural interest of the united states ended the iraqi security forces are the way to deal with this wonder not prepared or capable then you cannot close that circle

without an external assistance. i hope it is not a question if we should support the iraqi security forces but at question of how quickly. >> so the fear is paralysis through purposeful long-term analysis? that is fair to analyze this for ever and not taking action? and i also agree to get back involved militarily but maliki may have not been a good prime minister but he understand what takes place and if they have not been laid out specifically what we would do with this

inclusive government is a great point but is there any leveraging taking place by maliki right now space we is there any activity occurring to leverage in other ways? >> with information as well. first of all, he did very well the last electionsv: getting about 700,000 votes even more than 2010. under the constitution he should be given the new president within 15 days the opportunity to form a government. under the process if he can't and i think it will be

hard after 30 days the mandate has to pass to another part a. that is a lot of time to consume this act a minimum he wants to play this out and also feels that the americans of 775 additional forces are ready to help them out regardless of what happened. i and many others say under certain circumstances it is important if they strike the danger but we cannot provide the whole brett the support that they need to have the exclusive government to bring in the sneezing and the kurds. >> just one last question there is a discussion to talk about the regional

approach with syria and iraq obviously having no border between them anymore, welch are some of the dynamics on the of syria and side that complicate with the aside being in power to complicate looking at it regionally? >> one of the most obvious problems is looking only at syria we say we do not like so how best to help the opposition? looking at iraq you have lycia group in charge of the government that will stay there and we want to remain good ties but we also have

the sunni oppositionç those that we really dislike the militants and isis it is a complexities of any support to one of the group's becomes complicated by the opposite effect so we have enormous support to sunni inevitably some of that will flow to opposition to the of the sunni groups in iraq that we don't like or that we help the maliki government baghdad or it will be seen by those in the region to support the wider shia cause that encompasses the aside government and that is the tip of the iceberg but we do need to recognize the complexity introduced by having simultaneously civil wars in iraq and syria by and large that have emerged that the region's seas in a simple way as the sunni / shia fight but we see more

complex. >> as far as a regional approach we note isis is awash with money but a way to choke the organization is the laughter financing. for the near term they have plenty but we know there are regional actors supporting isis and we should employ the intelligence community to use every tool that we have to go after the actor's with the sources of funding and have of a good idea where it is coming from and target them as a regional approach to the growing problem. >> thank you mr. chairman for being here. you served in iraq leading a message month dash condition

to train forces with u.s. forces left iraq seemed they were a capable force. it begs the question what happened? why did the isis capacity rhode so quickly? >> badges is a tough question. it is tough to see what is happening over the last few years i have been back to iraq many times since i left active duty. but the i sfo was built was a low-level insurgency to get them to a state when they were good enough in 2011 and the assumption is that we had with the development plan was a residual force to continue the development.

i did an assessment summer 2010 to which we briefed to everyone in i iraq and every iraqi beater here is where your forces will be december december 2011 we wanted to show them the capabilities and shortfalls of their forces that we identified. some were obvious they cannot control their own air space. your military raids -- readiness is in a death spiral you could not field an army. your command and control structure is not workable. it is peacetime with the of population and is passed to change. fundamentally you must

invest with training and good armies train continuously and we have not seen evidence of that since then. the short answer is the development that needed to take place with the iraqi security forces 2011 through july 2014 has not taken place. we could go back and forth about her advisers and trainers but. >> if that is the case then what will live pfizer's now be able to do at this stage that will make a difference with iraqi forces? >> it did make the difference the first is stopped the bleeding under savvier address the can pay

that was started with direct fire and it isis could lead to up so if this is in our interest we need to help them stop the bleeding and then to build the forces but this will take zero while unless we have the iraqi government willing to except these changes it to place the changes in an end to the structure i would question if we should do that. >> i thank you overdid to this but can air strikes alone make a difference to push back isis' or would

doing that now just be giving the iraqis a boost? >> air strikes can make a tactical difference to help their iraqi forces to relieve pressure were believes the capabilities but we cannot think i would even hold it in advance. but it is not decisive. >> with that training but dash iraqi forces could they possibly recover the country? >> i think they could. >> what period of time? >> months it would not

happen overnight. >> senator if i could support it said general and myself and i was in vietnam as the army officer in 72 when the regular army invaded billions of dollars of the equipment was lost in 10 days. then when we started airstrikes it changed the psychology almost overnight and within three months they recovered almost the entire country. we saw with libya, close the bow, bosnia and they can provide my the equipped forces said difference to take on better equipped forces is as three times described earlier today dealing with the tribe and i

know the government is still holding out than to have volunteers to go into fallujah but they lost with the battle because isis is better equipped and trained. >> one last question are you surprised with those alarming reports of those security forces abuses from the isis militia and lack of accountability? how do we engage to deal with those challenges? >> back from late may a the developments from nozzle -- losel from baghdad and washington but as night drive around other places

over the past year it is a checkpoint army and i have said that. you cannot take on isis with the static position on the defense. what is troubling writing a to a the army checkpoints from baghdad there must me a fundamental change in the forces with participation in the unified effort. it with dead american soldier with their principal for a set of values and the

job is just a job it does not turn out the same way. and it is difficult to get the iraqi army if you don't feel you fight for the totality of the country. shia, sunni and the kurds and that is a real problem. i appreciate all of your insights as we grapple with the choices we have to make the record will remain open through close of business tomorrow. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] . .