for his leadership on this issue. because of time constraints, i'm not going to be able to -- to give the speech that i wanted to, so i will try to ask time for tomorrow. i know today is -- today's floor is very busy. so i just want to say it's really important that americans have -- that there is enough transparency in our n.s.a. surveillance that americans can judge for themselves if we are striking the right balance between national security and our civil liberties. thank you, madam president, and i will be back. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the time until -- under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination.

department of veterans' affairs. robert alan mcdonald of ohio to be secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:30 will be equally divided in the usual form. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: as the chairman of the senate committee on veterans' affairs, i rise today in strong support of the nomination of robert mcdonald to serve as secretary of the veterans' affairs administration. madam president, i also want to thank majority leader reid for moving this important nomination forward as quickly as it has, and i hope very much that later this afternoon, with a very strong vote, the u.s. senate will vote to confirm robert mcdonald as secretary of the v.a. madam president, before i talk about mr. mcmcdonald's qualifications, i did want to take a moment to express my sincere thanks to generic

shinseki for his dedicated service to our nation, first as a soldier and then as head of the v.a., working tirelessly to provide for those injured during war and the families of those who perished on the battlefield. he set very ambitious goals, and under his leadership, v.a. made significant strides in reducing veterans' homelessness and transforming a paper-based claims system to one fit for the 21st century, and i thank him and his family very much for his service. madam president, it is my strong belief that mr. mcdonald, robert mcdonald, will bring two very important qualities to the position of secretary of veterans' affairs. first, he is familiar with the military as well as the needs of veterans and their families. mr. mcdonald and his family have a history of service to our nation. mr. mcdonald began his service

at the united states military academy at west point. he graduated in 1975 in the top 2% in his class with a degree in engineering and went on to serve as an infantry officer in the army's 82nd airborne, earning aaron born and ranger qualifications during his military service. his father served in the army air corps after world war ii. additionally, his wife's father was held as a p.o.w. after being shot down over europe. her uncle served in vietnam and still receives care at the v.a. also, mr. mcdonald's nephew is currently serving and deployed with the u.s. air force. in other words, mr. mcdonald and his family have a deep understanding and service with the united states military, and upon hearing mr. mcdonald at the hearing that we held in our committee for the confirmation process, i am convinced that he has a deep passion to do everything that he can to protect our veterans.

madam president, the other quality that mr. mcdonald brings to this job is that he has been the c.e.o. of one of america's leading corporations which -- a company which has tens and tens of thousands of employees. his more than 33 years with procter & gamble gives him the tools to create a well-run and accountable v.a. in other words, he will bring the tools of a c.e.o. in a private corporation to the v.a., a huge bureaucracy which needs a significant improvement in accountability and in management. as we begin debate on mr. mcdonald's nomination, i believe it is important that my colleagues understand the realities that he will face in leading the v.a. madam president, the v.a. operates the largest integrated health care system in the united states, with over 1,700 points

of care which include 150 hospitals, 820 community-based outreach clinics, and 300 vet centers. in fiscal year 2013, the v.a. provided 89.7 million outpatient visits each day -- today, tomorrow, yesterday. the v.a. conducts approximately 236,000 health care appointments. in other words, it is a huge, huge system. v.a.'s problems, which mr. mcdonald will have to address immediately, have been widely reported in recent mont months. acting secretary sloan gibson, in my view, has done an excellent job in taking a number of critical steps to address the problems confronting the v.a. but clearly there is much, much more to be done. we now know, among other issues, that there's a significant shortage of doctors, nurses and

mental health providers within v.a. as well as the physical space necessary to provide timely access to quality care. this is a major problem, because at the end of the day, no matter how well-run the v.a. is -- or any health care system is -- we are not going to be able to provide quality, timely care unless there are the doctors, the nurses, the other medical personnel available to do that work. as a result of the shortages, we know that we have tens of thousands of veterans today in many parts of this country on lists that are much too long in order to gain access into the v.a. we also know that hundreds of thousands of veterans that have appointments scheduled are waiting too long to be seen and receive care. madam president, i think it's important that everybody recognize that as a result of the wars in iraq and afghanistan in the last five years,

2 million more veterans have come into the v.a. and this is on top of an aging population of v.a. patients who served in world war ii, korea and vietnam, patients who often need a whole lot of care as they age. so you're combining new people coming into the v.a., often with very serious problems, including some 500,000 veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd, t.b.i. and an aging population with difficult problems. that is where we are at and those are some of the issues that the v.a. is going to have to address. madam president, let me just say, while i'm on the subject, that most people understand, and to includes many of the veterans that i talk to every day in vermont, veterans around the country, and the national veterans' organizations that

represent millions of veterans, that once people get into the v.a. system in general, the quality of care is good. and that is not just with veterans and their organizations say that. that's what a number of independent studies show. our problem right now is to figure out a way that when people apply for v.a. health care, they get into the system quickly, and once they're into the system, they get the appointments that they need in a timely manner. that is our job. it's not going to be an easy job but that is the job that we face. madam president, my hope is that tomorrow or on thursday, the united states house and the senate will be voting on a comprehensive piece of legislation authored by congressman jeff miller,

chairman of the house veterans affairs committee, and myself. and i think it's terribly important that we pass that legislation, that we pass that bipartisan legislation with a strong vote in both houses. because that legislation will give the new secretary the tools that he needs to go forward aggressively in addressing many of the problems facing the v.a. i would hope that every member of the house and senate understands that it is unacceptable that veterans of this country are on terribly long waiting lines and cannot get the health care that they need in a timely manner. this legislation that i hope will be passed this week by the house and the senate provides $10 billion for emergency health care so that if a veteran can't get into the v.a., that veteran will be able to go to a private physician, a community-based outreach -- a community-based --

a community health center, a military base or whatever. but that veteran will be able to get timely care. in addition, that legislation puts $5 billion into the v.a. so that they will be able to hire the doctors, the mental health counselors, the nurses, the other medical personnel that they need so that as soon as possible, when veterans apply for v.a. health care, they will get not only quality care but timely care. in addition to that, this legislation addresses an issue that many veterans around the country, especially in rural areas, are worried about, is that if they live long distances away from the v.a., that they will not have to travel a hundred miles to get the health care that they need, that if they're living 40 miles or more away from a v.a. facility, they will be able to go to a doctor of their choice in that community. that's an important step forward. and this legislation also will do some terribly important

things in making sure that widows, women who have lost their husbands in battle, will be able to take care of -- will be able to get the education that they should be entitled to under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. this legislation deals with an issue passed by the house and that is in-state tuition for veterans who today may not be able to take advantage of the post-9/11 g.i. bill. and this legislation also addresses a very serious crisis within the military today and that is the issue of sexual abuse and -- and providing women and men who have been abused sexually in the military with care at the v.a. so, madam president, we are at a very important moment in terms of the veterans administration.

we have new leadership at the v.a. we will have new leadership at the v.a. after mr. mcdonald is confirmed. we have a piece of legislation, a significant piece of legislation, that will be i hope and expect passed this week to give the new leadership the tools that it needs to start addressing the problems facing our veterans. mr. president, it -- madam president, it seems to me that if this nation stands for anything, it must protect and defend those who have protected and defended us. and when people put their lives on the line and they come back wounded from war, either in body or in spirit, it seems to me absolutely immoral if we turn our backs on those men as men ad

women. and this legislation that we pass this week begins to address those concerns and i hope we will do so under the new leadership that mr. mcdonald will provide. and with that, madam president, i would yield my remaining time to senator brown to hear his comments on the -- this nomination. mr. brown: i thank senator sanders. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i first of all applaud senator sanders for his work on the veterans' conference report that -- i spoke today, i was with the presiding officer of north dakota, at a breakfast today at the air force caucus. and as important as the air force is in north dakota, it's really important at wright patterson air force base in dayton, ohio, outside dayton. and one of the things i talked about at this breakfast was how proud i was when it looks like the senate does not get as much done as we'd like, what senator

sanders and senator mccain especially, with a supporting cast but principally the two of them, were able to negotiate with sometimes reluctant, sometimes erratic house of representatives on some of these issues, that they were able to negotiate a really good veterans' bill that will do primarily three things. one, make those accountable at the v.a. actua actually account. second, would take care of those who've had to wait longer than 30 days for their care in the v. ago,, those veterans that have earned this care. third, we'll scale up the v.a., the most important part, so there will be enough doctors and nurses and therapists, occupational therapists and enough beds and enough capacity at the community centers and at the community-based clinics. the v.a., if you're in the system, you get good care, it's just too many people haven't been able to get into the system. partly because when we went to war a decade-plus ago, the people that were running the

administration in those days in the congress said this war will be short, we don't need to bother with scaling up the v.a. that was shameful, they were dead wrong. unfortunately far too many veterans have paid the price. that's why this legislation is so important. the timing is frot get this reform -- perfect to get this reform at the same time we have an opportunity this week to confirm robert mcdonald. he's from ohio. he ran a company that has more than 100,000 employees. one of the world's biggest, most prestigious consumer companies. he went to west point. he served veterans before. he understands veterans' issues. i've talked with him a number of times, as has chairman sanders, and mr. mcdonald is the soon-to-be i hope -- and ask my colleagues to support him -- mr. mcdonald, as the new secretary will have these new tools because of this conference report that i'm hopeful that we pass this week. mr. mcdonald understands the importance of v.a. health care, he knows and he said this to me in my office and a couple of of

0 times the times unique mostly to veterans, various kinds of brain trauma, other kinds of treatment. that's why mr. mcdonald makes sense to be secretary of the v.a. that's why this veterans' conference report, this v.a. reform is so very, very important. madam chair, i yield the -- i have ten unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i yield the floor to the -- my distinguished friend from georgia. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i want to commend chairman sanders for his leadership. last night at 9:30, i came back to the capitol and executed a

conference agreement. and ranking member richard burr worked very hard, pulled together desperate factions to address the needs of our veterans in a bill that will be a tool kit for robert mcdonald who i hope will be unanimously approved as the next secretary of the v.a. under the president's cabinet. i rise to talk about mr. mcdonald. before i do, i want to talk about that conference report. our veterans have been abused in the last 10-12 years because of veterans' medical services that have not performed the services they need to perform for our veterans in america. one of the reasons they did is general shinseki, admiral shinseki who was the former secretary was actually insulate interested a lot of the information going on in his own department by the senior leadership at the v.a. which had become comfortable and passive and not active in terms of the operation of v.a. medical services. the bill that we signed last night that the senate will vote on in the next few days is a bill that gives mr. mcdonald and the next secretary to come the tools they need to enforce the v.a. and to make it a

responsive organization to the 22 million verns, 600 million who use veterans' services, and the 774,000 veterans in my home state of georgia who deserve -- who deserve and demand, if you will, the services they were promised that they went into the united states military. bob mcdonald is an outstanding american. he was president, c.e.o. and chairman of the board of one of the most respected companies in america, procter and gamble. he's the father of two, grandfather of two additional children. he's an outstanding american and his wife dianne is an outstanding lady in support of him in his job at procter and gamble. he is going to need that support now as he heads the v.a. he was a captain of the united states military, graduated from west point. he was trained in airborne warfare, desert warfare and sub temperature warfare, and he is going to need those talents at the v.a. in each and every case because it's a mess. but the conference committee report that we passed gives him two tools that are essential.

it gives him the authority to hire and fire in title 38, and title 5 employees. title 5 employees the senior leadership, title 38 the next step of leadership down which is what the v.a. needs. the v.a. is an organization of 340,000 people, which in the last three years has averaged 3,000 disciplinary actions a year. each of those disciplinary actions meant they were moved from one job to another within the v.a. and did not lose pay. there is no accountability in the v.a. and really has not been. that's why the systemic problems on appointments, veterans' services and everything else going on in the v.a. has not happened. by giving him the authority to hire and fire, he will have the respect and the attention of those who work at the v.a. to understand full well they're going to have to carry out the game plan of this leader. he understands metrics, he understands accountability, he understands leadership and he has taken a job he didn't have to accept, a job he didn't need to have to do at this time in his life but a job he wants to do to give back to the country he loves and the country he served in the military. i am confident that bob mcdonald will be an outstanding secretary of the

veterans administration and i commend him to my fellow senators with my highest recommendation in hopes that he will be approved unanimously, and i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i stand today also with high hopes that the new leadership at the v.a. will bring much-needed changes to a department that's clearly, quite frankly, in shambles, failing our nation's veterans. during his committee hearing, the nominee robert mcdonald promised to bring a high level of accountability and transparency to the v.a., two things that are sorely needed. this is extremely important and an agency where under the leadership of the previous secretary would often take months to get answers to routine questions, or in many cases would never get answers at all. by the end of this week, i'm also hopeful that besides confirming the new secretary, we

will send to the president the veterans' access choice and accountability act. this important legislation includes many needed reforms to the v.a., including bringing that accountability to the department and actually providing our nation's veterans with choices about where they can receive care. the bill also, perhaps most importantly for louisiana, finally authorizes much-needed community-based clinics around the country, including two which have been long delayed in louisiana by pure ineptitude and bureaucratic screwups at the v.a. clinics expanded, clinics in lafayette and lake charles. for four years, i have been fighting the washington bureaucracy tooth and nail to get these new, expanded outpatient clinics. they are vitally important to louisiana veterans who now sometimes have to drive up to four hours to receive services

that have been promised to them much closer to their communities. the current clinics in acadian are overcrowded and don't offer the full range of services that these new clinics will. as i said, v.a. ineptitude delayed the clinics in the first place. if it wasn't for their mistakes, these clinics would actually already be built. when they are finally teed up and ready to go, then the congressional budget office made a ridiculous decision that again threw these clinics into limbo because of a scoring issue out of the blue. finally, in december, the u.s. house was able to pass a bill that dealt with these c.b.o. concerns. it passed 346-1. normally when a bill passes with that sort of margin, the senate will quickly pass it by knack knack. unfortunately, that didn't happen. first, we needed to attach an

amendment to address some marginal concerns here. then even after we had done that, even after that received full agreement in the u.s. senate, unfortunately senate democrats led by the chair of the veterans' committee held up the legislation basically as a hostage to try to get a broader v.a. package. i actually have to come down, ask unanimous consent for the house clinics legislation six times on the floor. unfortunately, six times senator sanders denied that unanimous consent. it was only after the v.a. scandal broke that that momentum shifted, and thankfully it looks like we'll finally pass this into law, the clinics legislation along with this important reform bill. when the authorization occurs, i strongly urge mr. mcdonald and the v.a. to streamline the

process, to get these two clinics built as soon as possible, given the long and arduous history of v.a. delays and screwups. the veterans of louisiana have waited patiently, literally for years. these clinics are overdue. let's get on with it. louisiana veterans have had to wait for numerous delays caused by v.a. miss takes. the least the department can do is to make sure these clinics are now built with the utmost haste and efficiency. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for approximately four minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. i've been a member of congress both in the house and the united states senate and my entire time as a member of congress i've served on either the house or senate veterans' affairs committee. and over that time, i've worked with nine secretaries of the department of veterans affairs. today i'm here to add my support and ask for the confirmation of who i believe will be the next secretary of the department of veterans affairs, mr. bob mcdonald. i had believed, i do believe that change at the department of veterans affairs was necessary, had made that clear that we needed to change the leadership at the top and believe that this change is a good thing for the department. the management of the department but most importantly for the veterans who the department is to serve. i also know that a change in the leadership of the department of veterans affairs in and of itself is insufficient to solve the problems that our veterans are facing in access to health

care and in the long time that our veterans are required to wait to receive their benefits. i have met with mr. mcdonald in my office. i also, as a member of the senate veterans' affairs committee, had the opportunity to listen to him testify, to ask him questions in the confirmation process, and i was completely impressed by his candor, his sincerity and certainly his commitment to serving our nation's veterans. he is a leader in the tradition of the 8 2nd airborne, paratroopers who are well regarded as the first to be called when there's a military emergency. and as they say, when the president calls, the 82nd airborne will answer. in my view, that's exactly what we have with mr. mcdonald. when the president called, he answered that call, he answered the opportunity to serve the veterans of this country. when the president needed help,

he found someone, in my view, who will dutifully fulfill the responsibilities of being a cabinet secretary and work on behalf of our nation's veterans. seems to me that there's no certainty in this world in which we know people by brief amounts of time, but it certainly seems clear to me that mr. mcdonald is the right person to lead the v.a. he's willing and capable of restoring hope in veterans so that they can trust the agency, the department that was created for their benefit. i asked the president -- don't know that he ever saw my request or certainly probably never listened to my request -- but the plea was, please appoint, nominate someone from outside the department of veterans affairs and this gentleman, mr. mcdonald, while having military experience, has a significant background of being the c.e.o. of procter & gamble and in that position he was

well-known for his value-based leadership, believing that -- quote -- "the best companies and leaders operate with a clear purpose and consistent set of principles or values." what the v.a. must do right now is to dismantle the bureaucracy, break down the culture of indifference and renew its commitment to the core values of the department. there is no higher calling than to take care of the men and women who served our country. mr. mcdonald shares that dedication to making certain our veterans have access to quality care, the best that our nation can offer, and he's focused and ready to take on the challenges that lie ahead. at least he convinced me that that was the case. there is now fortunately compromise legislation poised to pass both the house and senate this week that will soon offer veterans more access to quality care that they deserve. although this legislation is significant, it is impossible for congress to mandate a change in attitude. leaders can change attitudes at

the department. congress does not have the power to control or develop a work force that treats veterans like patriots, deserving of care from a grateful nation rather than to make them feel like they're a burden. new leadership throughout the institution, starting with bob mcdonald at the top, must command the v.a. to head down a new path of redemption and hope. we must create an agency that is more cost-effective, more compassionate, more caring toward the veterans that it serves. the v.a. must become an agency that is worthy of the service and sacrifice of our nation's veterans. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will previous order, the senate will >> senators have been debating president's obama's pick to head the va, robert mcdonald. vote on that nomination and three other nominations planned for 2:45 eastern today.

also today, this afternoon, temporary funding for highway and transportation projects. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2 when senators return from their weekly party lunch meetings. take you live now to the pentagon for a briefing by admiral samuel locklear. he heads-up the u.s. pacific command. the briefing began a few minutes ago. we join it live in progress. >> might impact this or that particular event. i would say we're in the process of looking at our strategic defense planning guidance which is the, which is the document basically between the two nations lays out what we will do with each other and for each other in the alliance and what military support we'll have. so a broader view, a different interpretation of the of their constitution that might allow them to participate in greater in areas such as antipiracy or ballistic missile defense or

defense of my own units or own units as we work together to secure the alliance will be improved with some of these changes that are talked about. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] since the army is a large part of your command, what specific pat pathaway is being implemented? >> that ace great question. you know at the at the end of the, or, you know, as we started to draw down out of iraq and afghanistan, and we found that the army was able to return to some historical roots in the asia-pacific we started looking for opportunities to get the army more involved what we do day-to-day in the pacific. as you know in my aor, seven of the 10 largest armies in the world are in my aor. so it makes good sense for us to

have good cooperation, good interaction between our armies and pacific pathway was an opportunity by the army to be able to use the forces that we have that are returning from the war zones back into garrison in the united states to be able to be used in more creative ways to build partnership capacity and build peace and security throughout the region. so we have a good, a good way ahead for, for pacific pathways. we're starting to execute the initial phases of that today. >> could you give some examples of how you're executing that? >> well it is basically taking the army units that are underpacom command. some mate be stationed in the west coast of the united states and put them in various exercise cycles that allow them to be more present in the aor with key

partners, with key allies and to work on those skills that are unique to army to army interactions. >> hi, admiral. john harper with "stars and stripes." to what extent have you seen chinese naval vessels or coast guard vessels or fishing ships harass u.s. navy vessels in recent months? >> well i would say that there's, you know, because of the places we operate in the east china sea, south china sea and in the pacom aor. we have interaction chinese vessels all the time. military naval assets, et cetera. i wouldn't categorize that in the past, recent past, any of these interactions would be of a harassing type of nature. so we continue to have a very productive dialogue with our chinese counterparts,

particularly as it relates to maritime security forces and military forces of how we operate in a way, professional way with each other to eliminate the possibility of miscalculation through what might be perceived as harassing activity. >> admiral, julian barnes, "wall street journal.." two related quick questions. the, how worried are you about tensions between south korea and japan limiting u.s. efforts to get trilateral cooperation and will those send shuns inhibit the u.s.'s ability to keep the peace in the pacific? and are, on similar note you just finished or there's a recent exercise with indyaw and japan. how important has developing a

military to military relationship to indyaw been with you and what's the next step forward in that partnership? >> okay. well, let me start by talking about the second question first which is the exercise that we do with indyaw. of the we do the malabar exercise between the united states and india and it become as multinational or trilateral. this year we have a trilateral between india, japanned and the united states. -- japan. this particular exercise goes back a number of years. this is one the cornerstones, particularly in the maritime environment for ability to operate with our indian partners and bringing japan in which was done before. i think they participated in in

this exercise in 2007 and twine. understand they gapped 2011 because of the activity but having japan in there is kind of a normally-anticipated, anticipated thing. it is opportunity for to us look more holistically at the region and to bring those militaries that are capable of providing greater security perspectives into that more holistic review. this malabar is being done in the western pacific, so i would give us a pretty high mark for that. the first part of your question again, just remind me? >> south korea and japan. >> yes. you know the, the political issues between south korea and japan and as their governments and their peoples deal with them do have an impact on our ability to conduct credible, military to military engagement with each

other. from the pacom commander's perspective, from my remember speculative it is very important for both the japanese and the south koreans to recognize that they have many mutual security interests that can be benefited by a bilateral and trilateral, better bilateral and trilateral mill to mill cooperation. they have a huge common concern with north korea in that we encourage them with, both japan and south korea, to work together to overcome their political difficulties so that we can work to provide a better security environment in this region. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] reuters. what extent is u.s. law inhibiting you from deepening cooperation with china you would like to kind of pursue? what kind of limitations are there? what kind of cooperation is china asking for the united states right now and you're not

able to provide? >> well, the law is nda 2000 which you refer to. so if you go back and look at it, it has a pretty broad guidance to the secretary of defense on and gives him broad approval for activities that have to do with china. it was put into place at a time i think when we were, were particularly concerned about, you know, what we may be teaching china through our activities with them. but there is a leeway in there, that he can take recommendations from me and recommendations from the chairman on where to go and i think he's done that on a number of occasions that allowed us to in recent times to be able to open our dialogue and our interaction with the pla forces in a greater way. to date i would say that they have, nda 2000 has not been a significant restriction to how we operate with each other

because the things that would operate in together have not been at a level that would make it kind of trip the level of a high concern in nda 2000. it is brought to us by the chinese as an issue for them. they believe that it unfairly singles them out, among other nations and they believe that if we're to have a viable relationship between two powers, the united states and china, that this is an impediment they would like to have addressed at some point in time but at this point in time it has not caused us to do anything that we wanted to do because most things fell below the threshold of nda 2000. >> [inaudible] -- increased tensions between japan and south korea, could you elaborate a little more what

kind of operation with the trilateral cooperation is critical? contingency or information-sharing? >> first of all, it is information sharing. just in the area of ballistic missile defense, when you look at the, how complicate ad military science ballistic missile defense is, to have both nations, both japan and korea, south korea who have very credible missile offense capabilities that are not able to communicate with each other because of information-sharing restrictions that are of a political nature, not of a military nature, degrade their ability to defend their own airspace, their own nations. it is a fact. they understand that. so it is important i think that we keep articulating to the people of japan and south korea that, for military perspective we understand the serious issues that political issues and social issues that have to be overcome but they are, must be

recognized, they are an impediment to your security. >> hi, nhk broadcasting cooperation. -- corporation. chinese monitoring ship international waters and wondering if you're concerned about this chinese monitoring ship particularly because china was part of the rim pac this year? do you think this affects cohesion between the u.s., china and any other participating nations there? and will this affect china's participation in the future to this -- [inaudible]. thank you. >> the question was about the, they call the agi, the ship that is currently in the economic zone of the united states off of hawaii, monitoring the activities of rim pack.

the good news this is acceptance bit chinas niece what we've been saying to them -- by the chinese, what we've been saying to them, observing another country's where you have your own international security interests are within international law and acceptable. this is fundamental right that nations have. and so, we have reiterated to all the nations in rimpac as well as the chinese this is within the law and it is their right to do it and as long as they do it in a non-intrusive, in a way that doesn't interfew fear, that it is okay by the law. it's a little odd that you would come for the first time to an exercise where i quite, have observed and quite believe that this is an opportunity and chinese recognize is an opportunity for them to interact on a broad scale with 22 nation, some of them they have

disagreements with in other areas. and it is an opportunity to build trust and confidence and that's happening. the introduction of the agi kind of made it look a little odd but it hasn't stopped the exercise and it hasn't created any difficulties in the exercise. and i guess on the other good side, it gives the chinese opportunity to see how their ownerships are doing which i understand is pretty good. >> [inaudible]. -- extensive operation in south china sea and east china sea and main mainland china. do you mind the exercise and what is your come mint on the exercises? thank you. >> announced exercise, called blue whale exercise which the, which the pla navy primarily conducts, i think on about an annual basis. i don't know if i'm exactly correct on that. we understand there will be

about 20 ships involved and probably 20 or 30 airplanes and surveillance aircraft. we anticipate the i had. they announced the closure areas where they're going to do it within the framework, the way exercises are done. and so the exercise is not of a concern. it is what we do. this is what militaries do, they operate. will we be, you know, concerned about the too type of operations they're doing? i mean to the same degree that they're concerned about operations we do, we all kind of keep an eye on each other but this is not an unusual exercise. this is something we had anticipated and that the pla had announced in advance. >> -- my question is on north korea. there has been steadily firing artillery and missiles into the sea. i'm wondering if you've seen any advancement of technology they have been using?

anything you've seen lately that would raise a level of concern? >> well, i think the long-term concern with north korea is that every time they do something that international community is told them not to do, particularly as it relates to missile technology or nuclear technology, you have to assume that it is a step forward in technology, otherwise they probably wouldn't be doing it. and it is a, so, it is demonstration to themselves they can do it. it is demonstration to the world that they can do it. and a concern i have, is that it, it becomes, becomes, overand overand overagain you see it and become somewhat numb to it and immune to it. and you start to say, well it is not such a big deal. they fired another missile last week or couple more. on long-term view for north korea, we have to continue to demand that they denuclearize and that they stop their missile program in the fashion they have

it today. will they? i don't know. >> thank you. [inaudible]. india has a new government in place right now. from a different perspective what do you see in the defense relations between india and u.s. under the new government? >> congratulations getting through your elections and congratulations to the administration. we look forward to enhancing our mil to mil relationships with india. as you know a couple years ago president obama reiterated we need to build a long-term, better-enduring, a stronger relationship with india and that includes our mil to mil participation but it is not just about mil to mil, it is about the whole of government. i think secretary kerry will be in dell leigh, if not this week

but soon -- delhi. secretary hagel is scheduled to go meet his counterpart in delhi in august. i would hope somewhere down the road i would do the same thing to meet the new team that is in place there you know we have had for a number of years very good relationships between our services. between pacom and services there and we have ongoing number of exercises that seemed to have worked pretty well for our growing, our growing partnership. we look forward to the road ahead. we think it is all positive. >> [inaudible]. secretary hagel's travels to indepent yaw next month? >> in short term what do i recommend? well, he didn't ask me what i recommended but, i would recommend that, that he recognize that, and to relay to his counterparts that we're

interested in producing closer mil to mil relationships. the new administration recognizes we already have a good basis which could go forward on. >> the administration today acknowledged that the russian government violated the imf treaty. you i understand were very strong voice in inneragency deliberations. you were calling for a declaration of a major breach in the treaty. i want to get your sense, how serious were, was the incident with the violation in your view and what's the implication for your region given that china has hundreds of missiles that are not covered bit imf treaty? >> i will have to punt most of that to the session after this because i'm obviously not in my area of responsibility, this particular thing. >> you mr. pretty strong inneragency communications. >> certainly there has been a

breach of a international treaty which we depended on for a long time this is of concern. i think it is of concern, should be of concern to everyone globally. we rely on a treaties to put bondaries on our strategic forces and the way those strategic forces are used as a key deterrent in a stablizing way across the globe. anything that puts instability in that and that is not good for the rest of the world so we have to look at it very carefully. >> can i, russia, the russian navy, any, is there any ripple effect from the ukraine-u.s.-russia tensions, nato tensions and your theater? are you seeing any aggressive actions by the russian navy or do you anticipate there may be some ripple effect from the ukraine to the pacific with the russian navy? >> well we're not seeing that right now. of course the russian navy on

their east coast in northeast asia is not robust. i mean, doesn't mean it is not capable but it is not robust. we haven't seen that as of yet. i would say we have seen, n-arcom would probably give you better indication. seen more strategic bomber type activity coming in and out, kind of what we used to see a number of years back but not from a navy perspective. >> wanted to go back to north korea for one second. you mentioned every step, every test that they do might, indicate some progress. there were a lot of rumors this spring about, about a nuclear test but nothing ever materielized. what is your assessment of north cree's nuclear program at this point? if i could real quick review of

defense guidelines and discussions and is there a timeline you're trying to wrap up by the end of year with japan? >> review of defense guidelines, the target date is still try to finish by the end of the year. i can't tell you if we'll make it but that is the path we're directed to be on. i'm confident that we're not off course at this point in time. so, to the question of north korea's nuclear capability, i mean there is wide debate throughout the intelligence community about, about how much capability they have, ability to weaponize and ability to put it into warheads and those types of things. but, as a military commander i have to plan for the worst and i have to plan for, number one, what the north koreans say they have and they say they have it. and what they demonstrate they might have when they show it to us and so, from those indications then we have to

insure that we're properly postured to protect not only our own homeland which includes all of our territories and state of hawaii where i happen to be but also that we're able to provide defense and security for our allies and our key partners in the region. so i take it seriously. i believe that that they have continued to make steady progress in both their missile technology and in their nuclear capability and that they desire to continue to do that. >> time for one more question. >> james rosen with mcclatchy. you mentioned that with the, the end of the afghanistan, the iraq war, drawing down of our forces in afghanistan, that the army will be returning to some of its historic roles in the new region and pacific region. general breedlove briefed us few weeks ago. he expressed great concern what russia is doing in ukraine and some ways things have gotten

worse since then with the shoot-down of the malaysia airlines plane of the dow think, he suggested that to some degree that the u.s. force posture in europe might have to be reexamined in the wake of this? i was wondering if you thought, if you agreed with that and if you thought it might affect the so-called, pivot to asia? >> yeah. well i agree with general breedlove, given the, ongoing environment we're seeing in europe probably a relook at u.s. force posture there, and nato posture in general, having served in a previous nato position, that having a relook at that, given the world we see it today, rather than world we saw it maybe five years ago is important. now the question of whether it will impact the rebalance to the asia-pacific or not, you know, we don't kind of think, i don't think along those terms, that it is a, have or have not. our forces are globally

deployable no matter where they're stations. and the united states military has put a lot of time and effort to be able to get forces where we need them, when we need them on a timeline that makes sense for us. now, certainly as we deal with things like sequestration, and continuing effects of that, and we look at some decreases in force structure to be able to deal with that sequestration, it puts a greater stress on the force to be able to stay forward and to stay present in the numbers most of comes would like to have. but again, the rebound in the asia pacific. first a lot more than just about military. but a military piece of it is moving forward. we're seeing tangible evidence across all elements of the rebalance. not only in force structure but in activities and things that we're doing. and so i think we're remain on course. i don't get the sense that we're

backing away from the asia-pacific rebalance because of the other events that occurring in the rest of the world. >> thank you, everyone. . . >> later this week we expect the senate to take up the compromise v.a. health care bill, house and senate negotiators approving that legislation this morning. we hear more about it now from a congressional reporter who

joined us on today's "washington journal." >> host: help explain how this deal came together, we turn to leo shane, the military times congressional reporter, who was at that press conference yesterday. good morning to you. >> guest: good morning, neil. >> host: and how much of this deal was a compromise between what senator sanders wants and what senator miller -- what congressman miller wanted? >> guest: well, this really is a compromise not just between those two, but also what the v.a. has asked for in recent days. v.a. wanted about $18 billion for long-range plans to hire more clinicians, lease more space. senator sanders had been very supportive of that idea. some other congressmen had as well. chairman miller and a number of members of the house said they just don't have the information they need yet on exactly how that money would be spent and where it would go. so this final deal has a little bit of everything. it has about $5 billion for

that, you know, as chairman sanders said, about $5 billion for what they want in terms of hiring clinicians and getting new medical space leases, $10 billion of expansions of the health care options which both the senate and house have backed and the third big measure, this ability to fire senior executives a a little easier, give them an appeal period. but if they're mismanaging or underperforming, get them out. >> host: and break down where this $17 billion for this deal is coming from. how much of that money is going to be paid for? >> guest: about $5 billion of that will be offset, and it's through -- they're calling in a series of traditional meds, some changes -- methods, some changes in v.a. home loan monies and pension payout toes. but the other $12 billion for this is going to be emergency funding, and that could be a little bit of a sticking point for some conservatives in the house. there's been a lot of concern as this has gone along, one of the

reasons this has taken a while is because house members have wanted to make sure this doesn't add to the deficit. yesterday chairman miller said he understands, he sympathizes with that position, but this is an emergency, and he feels like this is a good compromise between the two, making sure there are some offsets, but setting aside $12 billion that will immediately get to v.a. and pay dividends. and then the hope is as both chambers go through the normal appropriations process next year, they'll look at more money, and they'll find ways to pay for it rather than just continuing with emergency funding. >> host: we can show our viewers some tweets from members of the senate veterans affairs committee in response to this deal that came out yesterday. here's senator jerry moran, i'm pleased congress did not walk away from supporting our veterans, i look forward to supporting the v.a. compromise, he writes. over to patty murray who applauds senator sanders and congressman miller for reaching the deal that puts veterans

first and gives the department of veterans affairs tools they need, two of the tweets that came out yesterday. how much pushback have you seen on this deal from either the house or senate? >> guest: very little at this point. i mean, we're expecting this to pass pretty easily in both chambers. as i said, i'm sure there's a few conservatives in the house who are going to be concerned that this is adding to the deficit. but most folks have been focused on getting something done with the v.a. and getting some veterans bill finished. you know, as of last thursday it looked like this was very much impossible. chairman miller and chairman sanders were at odds over the way to move forward. they down played that yesterday. they said that their staffs had been talking, they'd been negotiating the whole time, but last thursday they had some dueling press conferences and a little bit of public fight oring over -- fighting over how to proceed. the fact that they reached a deal over the weekend was good news for a lot of lawmakers who

were anxious to go home with something, some piece of positive news to talk to their constituents about and having a v.a. reform deal, having something that's going to help veterans down the line and address some of these recent v.a. scandals is certainly something they're going to be touting when they get back to their districts. >> host: as we mentioned at the top of our program this morning, robert mcdonald facing a confirmation vote today in the senate. talk about the questions that he faced in his confirmation hearings and whether this is going to be a tough vote for him. >> guest: yeah. i think the toughest question he faced in his hearing was swearing in and giving his name. it was a pretty, pretty calm hearing. most of the senators were more attacking v.a. and pointing out v.a. problems, not so much looking at mcdonald's record. the big question for the confirmation vote today will be whether or not it's unanimous or there's one or two folks that have unexpressed concerns that we haven't heard so far. he doesn't have any health

background and hasn't worked in the v.a. in the past, but he's bringing in 33 years of business experience, and most of the senators are very excited about that. basically, the v.a. is a bureaucracy gone awry and someone who needs to come in, simplify things, really get folks in line, and he's the one for the job. so we're not expecting any real opposition, and the work for him begins after the confirmation, fixing all these scandals and addressing all these problems. >> host: as we said, that vote taking place at 2:45 this afternoon. leo shane is with military times. thanks so much for joining us this morning. >> guest: great. thank you. >> house and senate negotiators today approved the compromise bill to spend about $17 billion to overhaul the department of veterans affairs. agreement by that 28-member conference committee was needed to move the bill to the full house and senate. senate majority leader harry

reid and minority leader mitch mcconnelled -- talked about that legislation today on the senate floor. we'll show you their remarks now starting with the democratic leader. >> mr. president, almost two years ago, within a few days two years ago, we were in las vegas to dedicate this beautiful new veterans facility. taxpayers' money spent on that was about $700 million. it's a beautiful facility. it's the second one we've been able to do in southern nevada. we've built a nice little hospital. we tried with a joint venture between the veterans administration and the air force. but with all the wars, especially in iraq, became overwhelmed with veterans. i'm sorry, with the air force active duty folks -- because they were going to afghanistan, iraq, and so there's no room for

veterans. so we came really, became very difficult for veterans. we have a huge veteran population in southern nevada. we have all kinds of military bases that they come and are stationed there, and they decide they want to live in southern nevada. we had a, so we built a huge, actually didn't build it, we rented a huge outpatient clinic, and it was wonderful, mr. president, it was great. except within a few years the building, even though it was new, it was condemned because it was unsafe. so the veterans in southern nevada really found themselves in difficult situations. so when this new hospital was dedicated, it took seven years of work to get this done. i worked hard on this, as did others, to obtain this money. it was a state-of-the-art

facility. a hundred in-patient beds, nursing home unit, ambulatory care center. it was a state-of-the-art facility. it was unquestionably, probably without exaggerating, the fine itself veterans hospital in the country -- finest veterans hospital in the country. it was brand new. but more importantly, mr. president, was the precious resource to veterans throughout the state of nevada. we have a facility in northern nevada, it's been there for many, many decades, and to the credit of senator mikulski from maryland, she came and visited that a number of years ago and said this is wrong. that facility couldn't get the modern equipment down the halls in the bedrooms. so we had to renovate that. so it's in good shape. and the veterans in northern nevada had a facility long before one in southern nevada. mr. president, in spite of all the happy talk about what a wonderful facility this is,

veterans dependent on v.a. care have been stunned. why? because they're waiting 50 days. if you're a new patient you call and they say, well, we'll see you in a couple months. come on in. and about 2,000 patients have been waiting 90 days or more to geffen get an appointment. -- even get an appointment. this is just unacceptable. mr. president, it's not just this big, fancy, new facility in las vegas which is ill equipped even though it has all these nice things in it. it's not equipped because we didn't get the money to furnish it the way it should have been. but it's not a problem in las vegas, it's all over the country. nationwide, systematic problem with these combat veterans that have been languishing on some nonexistent waiting list. so, mr. president, when i

learned that bernie sanders from vermont and congressman miller had worked out something on this, i was stunned. i was so happy. i got a call from senator sanders on saturday telling him i think we've got it done. that's wonderful. that is truly remarkable, what they've done. i don't need to go through the bill and what it does, but it provides billions of dollars for emergency funding to hire new doctors and nurses, it will allow the, it will authorize 27 new medical facilities around the country, allowing the v.a. to grow as it needs to grow. so, mr. president, that is wonderful news. that's the way we should be legislating. you couldn't find two more politically different people than bernie sanders from vermont and congressman miller, chairman miller, i should say. they're different people, have different views. but they knew that the war-torn

country that we have, in fact, we've sent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people to iraq and afghanistan, have come home, and they need help. we took care of the war efforts. we gave -- and rightfully so -- the military every penny they needed to fight those wars. but, mr. president, we haven't been so kind and taken care of the people when they come home from these wars. so the main point i want to make here, mr. president, is that miller and sanders understand we owe american veterans far too much to leave them behind in their hour of need. isn't it good we're talking about this rather than impeachment of the president or suing the president? look in the papers today. the american people are totally opposed to this. it's just, we shouldn't be off

on those tracks of impeachment and suing the president. we should be legislating. an exemplary standard of that is what i hope is completed this week. when the conference report comes to us from the house, complete this legislation. it is truly a good day for the american veterans and american people. >> america makes a promise to every man and woman who puts on the uniform. in exchange for their service, our country pledges that they will be well trained, well equipped and treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. it's the least we can offer to the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who put everything on the line so that we can live in freedom. it's a solemn pact, and that's why the american people were so shocked to read some of the headlines we've seen over the past few months.

headlines like, veterans languish and die on a v.a. hospital's secret list. and then as the obama administration tried to cover its tracks, headlines like this: veterans affairs spies stonewalls on people investigating it. it's a national disgrace. ailing veterans being pawft for months -- being put off for months by a hospital system that should be rushing to their aid and veterans dying while waiting for care. according to the government's own report on these failures, we also know these problems were so systemic that they spread to more than three-quarters of the v.a. facilities surveyed, literally to every corner of the country. including kentucky. we heard shocking stories about a harrisburg veteran who was

being treated at a v.a. facility in lexington. the staff there declared him dead. they declared him dead, and yet when the veteran's wife came to say her final good-byes, she found her husband breathing, with a pulse. i was glad to hear that this veteran is now back home with his family recovering. but no veteran and no spouse should ever have to go through such a horrific, horrific ordeal. and yet i continue to receive letters from kentucky veterans who have been denied the care they deserve like this one from a disabled veteran in gradyville. this is what he had to say. he said, i've had some of the most frustrating of times trying to receive the quality of health care that anyone deserves. not only has it taken me months to be seen, but i've been told by a primary care physician that he did not need to see me until my six month check-up.

i simply no longer have the time and money to invest in the run around i receive in trying to make an appeal. i gave up four years of my life and the proper use of my right arm in this nation's defense. i would have given my life without question to protect the country that i love. it breaks my heart to no longer be a part of an institution i so lovingly became a member of, our nation's veterans deserve so much more. well, he's certainly right, mr. president. thousands of people in kentucky have had to wait for more than a month at v.a. facilities in louisville and lexington, fort knox is now under review too. so the obama administration needs to use every tool available to address the systemic failures of the v.a., and it needs to work with congress on reforms that can help address these challenges too. initially, the obama administration was slow to

respond to the crisis. the white house tried to treat it like some pr predicament to get beyond rather than the true tragedy that it was. a tragedy that required bipartisan action to investigate and address. ultimately, pressure from e palins and revision from the -- republicans and revision from the american people forced the white house to take this crisis seriously. audits were conducted, management changes were undertaken, and the necessity of serious reform was is accepted. was accepted. eventually. i was proud to support bipartisan v.a. reform legislationing that passed the senate last month. i'm encouraged by the progress of the conference committee toward completing a final compromise that can pass congress and be signed into law. the compromise legislation would introduce some much-needed accountability into the v.a. system and help increase patient choice. in fact, a compromise appears to

include two initiatives that i specifically pressed for the president's nominee to head the veterans affairs department when i recently met with him. one, i said we need to make it easier to fire bureaucrats who fail our veterans. and, two, i said we need to allow veterans to seek care outside the v.a. if they face long wait times or if they do not live near v.a. facility. the conference report, fortunately, appears to include both. and i want to thank senators burr, mccain and coburn for steadfastly fighting for the veterans choice part of the conference agreement that will allow our deserving veterans the option of accessing care in hospitals when v.a. facilities are not available. as for the president's nominee to run the v.a., bob mcdonald, we all know he has a tough job ahead of him. after his confirmation. i made clear my expectations for

dramatic change when i met him, but if mr. mcdonald is willing to work in a collaborative and open manner with congress, and i expect he will, he will find a constructive partner on this side of the aisle. look, we know there is much we can and should do to address this crisis together, so i'm hopeful. because when veterans are denied care, it's a priority deserving of bipartisan attention, and the government needs to start living up again to the promises it made to our veterans. we certainly owe them no less. >> the senate in recess for weekly party lunches, members return at 2:15 eastern time. senators have been debating the president's pick to head the v.a. department, robert mcdonald. votes on that nomination and three others are planned for 2:45 this afternoon. also later temporary funding for highway and transportation projects, and we expect later this week the senate to take up

that compromise virginia health care bill. v.a. health care bill. more now on that and other issues of the day, immigration and the debate over the border security bill, also conflicts in the middle east and ukraine and more of today's issues with senator roger wicker who joined us on "washington journal" earlier. >> host: and senator roger wicker joins us now, republican of mississippi. senator, you're also a senior member of the senate armed services committee. i want to get your take on this v.a. are reform bill deal that was announced yesterday that we've been talking about this morning. >> guest: well, i think most members will vote for it. we're not totally delighted with every aspect of it, particularly the way it's paid for. but, you know, when you get bernie sanders -- elected on the socialist ticket in vermont -- and jeff miller, a conservative republican chairman in the house, to come up with an agreement, there's going to be some compromise and some give and take. and i think, basically, this is

a package that most members, house and senate, will support, and it'll go forward and be a strong statement that we value the contributions of our veterans and that we're going to do what -- we're going to take this step to see if that alleviates the problems that we've had with access. >> host: $17 billion -- >> guest: a lot of money. >> host: about $5 billion that's offset here. are there ways down the road to find more offsets? >> guest: well, i certainly hope so. but like i say, this is what we, what we could get done this week, and it's important that we get it done this week. we're also going to confirm secretary mcdonald probably today, and i think we'll be looking to his leadership for some other suggestions there. but this is a, this is a step we can take. it's paid for, but it's not paid for in the way i'd like to see it paid for.

so that's why we meet year round, and we can look at this in the future. >> host: any concerns about the exodus of veterans out of the v.a. under this legislation and that cost commitment if large numbers of veterans decide to go that private care route and the commitments to paying for that private care? >> guest: well, i think the cost concerns always need to be looked at. but the veteran is paramount. and when there's a long waiting period and under our government-run health care system that the v.a. system is, if the veteran cannot be taken care of, i think he needs to be, he or she needs to be able to get to a doctor and be taken care of. so if it gets to be too costly, we'll go back and look at it. but to me, a key part of this legislation is the opt-out and the ability of the veteran not to stay on that waiting list and

get the care they need. >> host: and on that idea of opting out and using private providers, there's a summit that both -- a subject that both senator sanders and chairman miller talked about yesterday. here's what they had to say about it. >> i don't believe there will be a flight of all of the veterans out of the system, but we don't know until we start this program to see how veterans are actually going to act. and this first year is going to give us a good benchmark with which to be able to set the future of this program forward. the other thing i think that we all agree on is that one of the important things in our bill was to have a commission that would go through and independently look at the department of veterans affairs from top to bottom. the v.a. will tell us they need more money and more people, but what they won't do is help us understand what efficiencies can be found within the system.

are doctors seeing patients as they should? is there space being used adequately? do they need to close and only see people during the normal business hours in so there are a lot of things that we're going to find out in the next year that, hopefully, will change the way v.a. delivers health care. >> let me just add to that. i agree we what the chairman said. in addition, we hope that with more doctors and nurses and space coming in the v.a. system will be able to accommodate more veterans in a timely manner. yes, sir. >> host: congressman miller saying that we don't know until we allow this option how many people are going to use that opt-out. does that concern you? >> guest: i think, i think they both have excellent points. let me tell you, i'm very comfortable with jeff miller being in the leadership on this. he is a tough conservative, a fiscal hawk, and i think he will look to the information that is going to be provided by this

commission, and i think we will find efficiencies. i think senator sanders makes a good point. with the additional doctors, with the additional facilities, we would hope the waiting lists will be shorter and there will be fewer veterans opting out. so, i mean, obviously with the money that is going to be expended, we would certainly hope the waiting lists are much, much shorter. so i'm comfortable particularly with jeff miller presiding in the house and making sure that we've got some savings there ask some efficiencies -- and some efficiencies. i think we can achieve those. >> host: switching tracks, another vote that will be watched this week in the senate, that border bill vote that's taking place according to "the hill" newspaper, senator harry reid has set up that vote for later this week on a bill to provide $2.7 billion in emergency border funding. he filed cloture on the motion to proceed to that setting up a likely vote on wednesday.

what's your take on what will happen in that vote? >> guest: i don't think, i don't think there will be 60 votes for cloture on $2.7 billion, and i do not think the house of representatives will go that high. i think we can work with the leadership on about a billion dollars, which is, which is enough, i think, to address the immediate border crisis. and beyond that, i'd be surprised if you got the $2.7 billion, and i would not at all be inclined to vote for that. >> host: what do you think's going to happen before congress adjourns for the august recess? can a billion dollar deal happen this week? >> guest: it seems to me unlikely the way the leader is proceeding. here it is tuesday, and i understand harry reid wants to get us out of here thursday night. he's going to have to do some fast maneuvering to negotiate something that would gain a majority vote in the house and

senate. >> host: we're talking with senator roger wicker, republican of mississippi, here to take your comments and questions for about the next 35 minutes or so on the "washington journal." democrats, 202-585-3880, republicans, 3881, independents, 202-585-3882. a lot of issues being wrapped up in the final week here before congress adjourns. we'll start with terry from denton, texas, on our line for democrats. terry, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i'm rated 100% total and permanent disabled with the v.a., and last year i went down to the dallas hospital down there, and i was getting x-rayed, and the technician asked me who the lady was that was with me. it was my daughter. and i told him that, you know, she always takes care of me and gives me rides down to the v.a. when i have to go. and he said, well, how well is

she going to take care of you when they cut off your money? because i do get a disability check every month. and it went on from there. the head shrink lady that i work with up here this denton, she told me the same thing. and the republican house cut all the money coming to the disabled veterans. and president obama, no matter what everybody say says, did sign an executive order and restore that money. or i would have just been up the creek. >> host: senator wicker, you want to -- >> guest: that is not at all the way i remember the legislation. as i understand it, terry, you're saying that the congress cut off all the money going to disabled veterans. that would have taken legislation passed by the democratic senate and the republican house and signed by

the president of the united states. i think we're a little bit inaccurate on the facts stated there. and i do say this, i think it's, i thinkst of it's probably wrong for health care providers and advisers to be get into politics and policy like that. to me, their job is to provide care and to take care of the case as needed and not get into advocacy. that would be my response. it might be if you want to talk specifically to your own u.s. congressman or united states senator, i think they'd be able to help you with your perception that all v.a. funding was cut off. that is not my understanding at all. >> host: let's go to frank who's waiting in egg harbor township, new jersey, on our lines for independents. you're on with senator roger

wicker. >> caller: how you doing? i'm 100% v.a. like the previous person, and my only complaint with the v.a. is when you have a situation where say you cut yourself or you have a rash or you have a cold and you want to see the general practitioner, they'll tell you we can't get you in until next month, you know? and they'll say if you really need some assistance, you have to go to the emergency room. which is, like, 60 miles away, and when you get there, a whole day affair to sit there. i think the idea of letting vets go to general practitioners when they have acute situations that have to be taken care of is a whole lot better than them having to hop in their car and drive 60, 70 miles and stand around. and if you could do something about that, i think that's the main complaint from a lot of vets. once you get into is -- into the specialty field and you're

seeing specialists, it's basically the same as on the outside so, you know, you get the care you need. but it's the acute care where you need it, you know, that today or within a couple of days, that's when the v.a. falls flat on their face. >> guest: well, frank, that's a very helpful analysis, and i think people like you are going to be very pleased with the progress that we make this week, because i do think there'll be more of an opportunity for people like you to be seen by the acute provider. and so, and then to go the outside route if that's not available within a reasonable period. i hope you're satisfied with that. do let us know how it works six months from now, and i think that's part of what chairman miller was talking about once the legislation's in place. we're also going to do some oversight and see how it works. but i do think you'll be pleased

with this approach, because it's exactly what you're talking about, frank. >> host: and to our line for republicans, pat's waiting in long, south carolina. pat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead, pat. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my -- i would like to can ask him where is the money coming from. the government, congress' answer to every problem is throw the money out there. we're $17 trillion in debt. i believe wholeheartedly that vets should be taken care of. my husband is a vet. but, you know, if you would put somebody in there to really look, you probably could find the waste right in the v.a. to pay for this. why do y'all always just want to pay your way out? why can't you fix the problems? thank you. >> guest: well, i think the caller makes an excellent point, and as john points out a portion

of the bill will be paid for by offsets, by cutting other expenditures and other parts of the budget. i think the longer term question is what pat is talking about, and roger wicker, united states senator from mississippi, has voted for the paul ryan budget. it makes tough choices in our entitlement programs, slowing the growth in the fist -- in the first decade and outyears also. that's the way we're going to address the $17 trillion plus national debt that we have. but to answer your question, i would have preferred to have honest pay-fors for the entire $7 billion. identify got -- $17 billion. i've got to make a choice, and i've made a choice by the end of this week to vote for a bill that is not exactly what i want,

but that's partially offset by pay-for. >> host: we've talked about v.a., border issues, as we mentioned roger wicker also a member of the armed services committee. want to get your take on the latest in ukraine and the expected sanctions coming down from both the e.u. and likely the u.s. as well. >> host: well, we have encouraging news -- >> guest: well, we have encouraging news from our european allies just yesterday. after some reluctance on their part, there has been an agreement among our european allies for stronger sanctions against russia, and i certainly think they're coming based on the fact that mr. putin has taken really some of the most outrageous actions that have occurred in europe really since the is 1930s.

certainly, a gross violation of the helsinki act which was adopted in 1975. every single tenet of the helsinki act, all ten, were violated by vladimir putin with this incursion into crimea and the interference in ukraine. and i think what prompted the europeans yesterday finally to agree on this package of sanctions is the clear evidence that the russian leadership is continuing to be involved with this military, with these military separatists. in eastern ukraine. and it's something that needs to stop. and if it doesn't, they're going -- i think we've now shown there are going to be serious consequences for mr. putin and his fellow countrymen. >> host: as we noted, secretary kerry is meeting with ukraine's foreign ministers this morning at about 10:15. what do you make of how he's handled himself in both ukraine

and also what's happening in israel and gaza? >> guest: i'm very disappointed in the secretary of state, and i have a lot of company in that respect. and, of course, he represents administration policy, no question about it. i don't think anybody in a responsible position in washington, d.c. would have advocated the united states becoming militarily involved with helping the ukrainian democracy resist the russians. i think that's something that is simply could not have been attained, they wouldn't have the capability of stomach to do that -- or stomach to do that. but there were so many ways we could have helped ukraine with assistance, with arms. and instead, you know, the meals ready to eat and first aid kits,

things like that. so i'm disappointed with the lack of giving the ukrainians the ability to defend themselves and i think your question looks at a larger foreign policy failure on the part of the administration. i thought a column from yesterday's washington by fred hayek entitled "an experiment gone wrong," and i'll just quote a line or two. a stunning unfolding of international crises from iraq to ukraine edifying the washington debate. he says for mr. obama things like the tumult in egypt and elsewhere was a distraction, not a once in a generation

opportunity. mr. hyatt suggests that when ordinary citizens in tunisia, egypt, syria and elsewhere unexpectedly begin agitating for democracy, the west might have responded as it did after world war ii with the marshall plan or the fall of the berlin wall with a commitment to a europe whole and free, but the obama administration did not have the stomach to do that. so i think we're seeing, we're seeing a crumbleing of our foreign policy in all of those areas. and, basically, i think it seems to the man on the street and the united states and to me, this particular united states senator, that the world is going up in flames, and american leadership has been absent there. >> host: that fred hyatt column in yesterday's washington post, the headline "an experiment gone wrong." we're talking with senator roger wicker, joins us for about the

next 25 minutes or so. we'll start with bill in danville, illinois, on our line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. senator, my thoughts on this every time they take this money out of the congress for the v.a., they want to cut back on the veterans disability benefits. what's your thought on that? >> guest: well, i would be opposed to that, and that's not part of this legislation. >> caller: all right, thank you. >> guest: so let me give you that assurance. >> host: and tori is in edgar, louisiana, on our line for democrats. tori, good morning. >> caller: good morning. good morning, senator. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: my comments are, you know, here in louisiana it's taken a long time for our v.a. hospital to be built, but i have to say one thing about our v.a. here, especially our outpatient clinic in st. john's parish, we have one of the best, the staff

there really fantastic. the only problem we have here in louisiana is, basically, the scheduling. you know, they don't take too much precedence here in new orleans of making sure the veterans get the proper scheduling. if they could take more like the money y'all are putting out, if they could use that money to go ahead and train some of the facilities or take some of these facilities like here in st. john and use them as a model of how v.a. should be, you know, v.a. should be ran, i think they'll come out with a better understanding of how, you know, how veterans work. our mental health here is fantastic with the outpatient, and that's just a small clinic. for them to have much care i think, you know, congress would be better. the best problem i had work with me is senator david vitter. he's a fantastic person, and i tell you, if we had more people like yourself and david vitter behide the veterans -- behind the veterans, i think we'd be better off. >> guest: i appreciate that call coming in on the democratic

line, and i'll be sure to pass that on to senator vitter. i think the caller makes some very good points. he's very happy with specific care that he's received, and, tori, i think you're complimenting the mental health facility there. there are a lot of things in the v.a. health system that are being done right. i got some information from a texas clinic just a few days ago particularly in the mental health and substance abuse area where the people are very, very high on the job that is being done there. so let's not paint everybody with the same brush. the caller mentions infrastructure delays and, certainly, there's always a bureaucracy there which frustrates us in buildings and also bridges and highways constructed. and i think if we can address

with the backlog improvements made, and again, we're going to do oversight and try to make sure that the bill has the intended result. >> host: earlier in this segment you mentioned some concern with health care professionals straying into the policy realm with their patients. brian writes in on our twitter page: not true, senator wicker. as health care professionals, we are encouraged to advocate for the best interests of our clients. >> guest: i think that's fine, but i think when they start saying that congress has passed legislation that's going to disadvantage you, to me you're getting over into advocacy there and crossing that line. but that's a matter of opinion. >> host: joan waiting in rockville, maryland, on our line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. it would be very good to improve the congressional oversight of the v.a., and i was wondering

about a special inspector general like phillip bowen in iraq and neil barofsky of the t.a.r.p. who would report directly to congress and provide access in the same legislation for the vets to have access to these special inspector generals. the second thing i would like to mention is the role of the unions. i saw very briefly betsy mccoy before congress, and she was saying that from one union alone there are 300 workplace rules. we have to get the cost of the v.a. down. that's an expensive kind of care. and also we have to be able to fire not only high-level people, but snippy secretaries who

refuse to give vets appointments that they need when they're being referred out to other specialists out of the v.a. >> host: senator wicker on unions and special inspector generals. >> guest: okay. i think betsy mccoy, as she refers to, is a former lieutenant governor of new york. i very much appreciate that insight that she provides there. and there should be, i think, an easier way to hire and fire and particularly to terminate people who, as the caller suggests, are not there with the best interests of the patient and treat the patients callously and not as clients and customers which deserve the best. with regard to a special ig, you're not going the find that in this legislation, i don't

believe. although the department certainly has inspectors general that can report to us. there will be oversight, and in the clip that was shown chairman miller mentioned the commission that will report back. and if that's not sufficient, then i think the suggestion of a special inspector general might be well taken. but the caller makes some very good points which i very much appreciate. >> host: tolan caster, kentucky, on our line for republicans, charles is next. charles, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: well, i've got a lot of questions. >> host: got time for just one or two, charles, and turn your tv down and just go ahead with your question. >> caller: okay. my biggest question is this: >> host: turn your tv down. >> caller: okay. i'm going to work on it here. now it's down to zero.

my biggest question is why do the marines that serve in beirut and grenada have zero, absolutely zero benefits from v.a.? when we lost so many marines in one day? >> guest: okay. you're saying that marines who served in beirut and in the incursion into grenada do not have benefits? i'd be surprised if that were 100% accurate. let me ask you to do this, and you may want to contact your own representative in kentucky, but if not, you can call my office, and we will, we will run that issue down specifically on a casework basis. but veterans who served should be eligible regardless of where they served. let me see if i can run that down, and if you'll call my office, we will check that out.

but maybe you want to call senator mcconnell or senator paul about that since they represent you specifically. >> host: do you want to respond to roy on twitter, talking about the issue of ukraine and the crisis on the border. republicans are predictable; money for arming of ukraine but not so much for the republican-declared border crisis. that's incredible. >> guest: well, we're for addressing the border crisis also, and the fact of the matter is these, these minors, these young central american children should be returned to their families. an incorrect signal has been sent from this government that if you send your child to the mexico/texas border, they'll be allowed to to come in and enjoy the good life here in the united states of america. we cannot afford from an infrastructure standpoint to

take care of the flood of immigrants that would occur if that signal continues to be sent out. i think these children are victims of some purveyors of false information down there in their own countries, and they need to be reunited with their families. now, we can adjudicate quickly once an adjudication has been made that these children are not, for example, victims of human trafficking or something like that. then i think a three of four-day turn around can be done, perhaps some extra judges are needed for that. and for way less than the president is asking, we could put them all on a first class plane ride back to their native cities and return them to their families, and we can do that for far less than the president is asking. >> host: and a major front for that crisis on the border is texas.

shirley is calling in from clay burn, texas, on our line for dependents. shirley, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead, shirley. >> caller: i've got two questions. first of all, i'd like to give kudos for taking care of these children that are here because of false information regardless of who it came from. but my main question is if you're going to give border patrol $2.7 or $1 billion, it doesn't matter. what we need is to know how that money's going to be spent and how well it's going to contain that border. and i'd like for you to answer that, and i'd also like to find out how soon these children are going to be able to be returned to their parents and what's going to happen to them that have been abused and had the problems. >> host: and, shirley, i'll let senator wicker explain that. just to give you some information on that bill that's

going to be on the floor in the senate or at least the bill that senate majority leader harry reid's trying to move in the senate, the $2.7 billion border proposal would include 1.2 billion for child care services, 1.1 billion for border security and deportation, $50 billion for legal services for migrant children and then a few other items thrown in there including $615 million for emergency wildfire suppressioning and $225 million for israel's anti-missile defense system. i'll let you respond. >> host: that last item is -- >> guest: that last item is iron dome, and it's really something everybody supports, but to think we're going to pass a $2.7 billion bill in the name of immigration just so we can adequately fund iron dome is something that we're not going to do. if you could go back to the first line on the childcare services, those are long-term

childcare services that would last much longer than the very short period of time i'm advocating. and i think the caller makes a very good point and i appreciate you doing it, and it's the reason that i've never been willing to support comprehensive immigration reform as it has come to the floor of the senate, and it's because we don't adequately take care of the border. we don't -- i've never been convinced that anything proposed would seal our borders and prevent another huge flood of immigrants coming over. and so, and so the point is made very well. we need to protect the border whether it's electronic fence or completing the fence in the areas where it can be done

fiscalty, and once we do that -- fiscally, and once we do that, i think possibly shirley and i will be convinced that we can do some sort of comprehensive immigration reform. but that border's got to be sealed with a wall or a fence or an electronic fence first of all. >> host: nashville, georgia, is next. daryl is calling on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span, how you doing? >> host: good, daryl, go ahead. >> caller: morning to the senator also. >> guest: good morning, daryl. >> caller: i'm a veteran myself, i spent some time in desert storm and other places, and i remember when i came home, i was going to the v.a. up in atlanta, and i was seeing this guy, and he just blew me off, so i just stopped going. to make my story short, i want to say that the great state of

florida, a place that i go to, that is a good place. they look out for the veterans, they mic sure that your appointments are being made, and i also get my -- [inaudible] i run out, i make a phone call, they send my medicine. the v.a. center in lake city, florida s a very good v.a. center. >> host: daryl not the first caller calling in today to talk about -- >> guest: that's music to my ears, a v.a. hospital that the client and the customer and the patient is pleased with. so i'm sorry for the earlier unpleasant incident where you were kind of blown off and not treated as you should have been. thank you for your service. this is the reason we're trying to improve the situation, and i hope what we do this week will

help the situation and can be done in a cost effective basis that will eventually save us some must money. >> host: about ten minutes left with senator wicker. zack's up next in harrisburg, pennsylvania, on our line for democrats. zack, good morning. >> caller: hey, good morning. good morning, senator. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i'm also an 11-year air force vet. >> guest: i'm an air force vet myself. >> caller: well, congratulations, sir, perfect choice. [laughter] i guess, i guess my big gripe is just going into this thing when bush took us to war and they fought, they fired the asian general, i can't remember his name. he wound up heading the v.a. for a few moments under the obama administration. but what he tried to tell them then were that the numbers were going to be higher. and that's -- in my opinion, that's where the crux of this problem starts. >> host: zack, are you talking about the numbers of vets who have been affected or the number in terms of the cost of fixing

it? >> caller: i was talking about the number of vets that were going -- the number of troops you were going to need for the whole iraq campaign. >> host: okay. >> caller: you know? i mean, because if you start with a false number of your casualties, then everything else is false. >> guest: okay. i know exactly what you're talking about. and the point zack is making is that general shinseki was then-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and basically he cautioned president bush that the entire cost in terms of dollars and manpower of going into iraq was going to be heavier, it was going to be more costly to the united states. than some people were suggesting. so the point is made over and over again. i will say this, i do feel

though that our involvement in iraq could have been a stabilizing moment in the entire middle east, and we blew that opportunity when we didn't negotiate a status of forces agreement when this administration didn't negotiate a status of forces agreement with the maliki administration. we didn't insist that we leave 15,000 troops there which would have prevented this whole isis fiasco from occurring, in my judgment and in the judgment of many of the generals who have spoken, particularly the retired or retiring generals. who don't have to worry about repercussions. this did not have to happen. and so i think, clearly, general shin sec can key had a point

to -- shinseki had a point to make, and i appreciate people speaking truth to power as he did. i would hope there are some people in the pentagon today that are looking at the disaster in iraq and speaking to the administration, let's do not make the same mistake in afghanistan that we made in iraq. let's listen to the the tribal council, let's listen to the two new presidential candidates, one of whom will take office in a few weeks, and let's leave a residual force there that will prevent the kind of disaster that we've now seen in iraq and in surrounding countries. >> host: as the senator mentioned, served in the air force and air force reserve, retired from the reserves in 2004 with a rank of lieutenant colonel, and he's with us for about the next five minutes or so. let's go to frank waiting in memphis, tennessee, on our line

for independents. frank, good morning. >> caller: hey, how you doing this morning? >> host: good, frank. >> caller: hey, listen, my only problem -- v.a. take good care of their vets, you know. the only problem there really is is overcrowding. you don't have enough doctors really. that's the main problem. they take good care of vets, you just don't have enough doctors for the vets to be seen. you have one doctor might have 2-300 patients. that's really the problem. it's not they don't take good care, they take good care of vets. you just don't have enough doctors. and my second point is this, you know, i hear them mention obama about everything, but we in the community, the black community, we do not think nothing about foreign policy is -- [inaudible] they spend all that money for ukraine, iraq, giving you people all that money. and then when it comes to the communities, there is no kind of money to the communities. do you think that we'd rather have the money spent for

immigrants, or do you think we'd rather have the money spent on refugees in egypt, iraq, ukraine, you all send money over there for welfare, spend that money here on the people of the united states so we can take care of the immigrants that come here. they think they're going to vote democrat. that's the main reason. we've got money to spend for all the other countries. >> host: senator wicker, what's your response? >> guest: well, okay, there's a balancing act that we have to do, and i do think that there has to be a substantial amount of money spent on defense and foreign policy, and a lot of our security funds do go to support our troops and our security overseas. that doesn't mean that we can't take care of veterans, that we can't invest money in programs that provid