with the former leader of the labour party john smith with the former sect of state of scotland and first minister, and with my honorable friend the member for east martin scherpen my memory of the charles kennedy however is in this chamber and it was in this powerful condemnation of the iraq war, a position shared between the liberal democrats and the national party. charles kennedy question the prime minister of the time repeatedly on the case for war on the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, on the role of the united nations and international law. ..

and it's a pity those members selected will never have to joy of enriching he could be today's house of commons.

he was a man of considerable wit of great charm. he was passionate about his politics are not very deep-seated views. however passionate he was, there is never a hint of malice or threat a behavior from an. he was one of those great politicians who would absolutely love a stranger's are half an hour later. he was a man of great authenticity in an era where the public politicians are molded to be as colorless as possible. a man of great integrity who spoke from the heart about the issues he cares so much about. and he loves this place from the minute he came here and i remember coming to see him a few weeks after the election. he absolutely loved the house of commons.

however important he became in this place, he was never self-important at any time. i will remember him for integrity, humanity and decency and many of us in this house will have that accolade. i am very sad for his family, for their timely loss. i'm sad for us all because their entire passing. >> dr. alistair donald. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could i reiterate the words of my previous speaker here. it is a sad day for all of us in this house. i've been privileged to have this opportunity to express my condolences to those in my party to the family and friends of our good friend and colleague. from a distance i first became aware of charles when something

of a boy wonder he stormed to election as a member of this house in the early 80s. later i met him at various event. he was always generous warm, humble, humorous. that has been reflected by the comments of others here today. charles reached out to everyone and it's been remarked earlier. when i selected two.us he was always kind considerate helpful and a genuine creaky machine. so many warm comments from people across the house today. we have heard honorable collects deferred to his wisdom on iraq. he was a formidable politician and a great colleague not least in iraq but across a whole range

of issues including europe and has been passion. today we are all much less for his going. he's gone to his eternal reward much, much too soon and i extend my deepest sympathies to his family and i pray that god in his mercy will live kindly aunt charlie's gentle soul. >> so if i may just say a few words because i walked into this house for the first time as a member with charles almost 32 years to the day and he was already really amongst our new intake quite a celebrity. another large touring intake. they come and they go. but his highland seat and really for those two years i sat in this house and i was always an

opponent. we were soulmates and sometimes they had to go against the group and i had to do. there is something there that was very powerful. i like to think in some previous life he and i might have marched together in some focus scores. i don't know. his courses were never hopeless and i think his legacy will live on. let me say just a brief moment about that. i think it's been said on the iraq war that he wanted to place his party as a radical alternative to labour. but i think it went much deeper than that. it was more powerful. my right honorable friend wouldn't have listened to his arguments and followed into his lobby if we hadn't been convinced by what he was saying. but there were limits to liberal imperialism and that he was a true liberal and understood

those limits and understood what a difficult part of the world that is. he's been proved right on that. i think if he were still bare or any other place shortly he would have been really a powerful advocate for our union because his was a gentle touch or kiss him not some narrowminded nationalism and in terms of the participation of the scottish national parliament which is very important. we must welcome participation and recognize they must take part in all of our debates. he would've been a powerful voice in that, too. he would've been a powerful voice in other areas. for instance, his opposition to the coalition, i would have been quite disastrous. it wasn't just that he

recognized his difficult for an party protests have become a party of power. there is something much more principled than not. i think he instinctively believes the policy is not just about the pursuit of power. it's about the pursuit of truth also and it is always a powerful advocate. when i saw them operate in europe, i fell, i felt he was administered 98 they are. that's not be too serious. but there is much more to that. he was determined to extend freedom and democracy to eastern europe. he played a powerful part in that body. so while the series i admire ken and i think it's true to say mr. speaker that when we die we can only take with us what we have given away. this man gave everything to our house. there never was a braver or truer spirit.

>> thank you for the opportunity to speak today is to make tribute the previous manner member. charles was a man clearly loved by many and this house was also deeply loved by many throughout his constituency. the prime minister spoke about charles winning the seat in 1983. i suspect many colleagues didn't expect that mr. kennedy would win that seat. the stories are still legendary. the campaigning that took place back in 1983. charros traveling around the constituency with his father. his father played the fiddle. and what truly happens in the election campaign as charros charm to constituents just as

they did when he latched onto the political season, became a big figure not just in scotland but the world stage as the leader he became the liberal democrats. he loved campaigning and indeed he still loved campaigning as we all saw in the recent general election campaign his desire to appear in terms of his own public meetings and the meeting seidel referred to by so many. it was an absolute privilege to campaign against him. when i look at the strength of our own of our adventures here today with 56 members of the scottish national party elected, it is truly the national type that meant charles lost the seat. i think many have referred to this as well with colin highland terms dashiki chappie that was demonstrated in his debating style. we should also reflect it tends

to be complex and why else do you have the exterior of one thing to engage in debate and the results of the character who had many traditional highland characteristics have been a rather shy carrots there as well. the contrast between the two. i think much has been said about the humanity and humility of the man himself. one of course was destined to be out of respect for other's opinions. whether the iraq war or anything else. it will not be from the recent period, but actually the first election to the scottish parliament in 299. i can recall about charles and myself were in the television and it wasn't unlike the election for the s&p. they were a number of seats who would've liked to have one that we had done.

i was getting a hard time in debate and i couldn't remember -- rather than if we recognize the kind of evening they were happening. that was the mark of a man eight descent, human man that saw the struggles others were going for. i deeply regret the passing of this supremely powerful man. rest in peace. >> henry belding. >> i want to pay a short personal tribute to a remarkable man. like my former friend i came in on this very hot date june 83 with charles kennedy. you were given an office for many. he got to know all of the other mps and we spent a lot of time finding our own level mainly on the terrace.

i also had many party groups with charles kennedy and after another brilliant insight that performance i remember saying was just in the future party leader. he said don't be so ridiculous. early ambition to represent constituents and have a good time. indeed he had a very good time because it wasn't until july 15th that he made his maiden speech. i remember him sitting sandwiched between roy jenkins jerry av on july 16 of 83. it was one of the most brilliant maiden speeches. anyone who hasn't read it i recommend they read it because it was a remarkable speech. he had the extraordinary quality whenever he met people of making

them feel that much better about themselves. about four days before the house he asked me how things were going. we talked about the highlands and i wished him well. but he did have that really quite amazing ability to make everyone just feel that much better about the day better about their lives. out of those passions were obviously his family above all else. crosscut university and europe. a quite remarkable person has left our lives many, many other people as well. >> on an occasion like this our

thoughts are first and foremost with the family of charles kennedy especially of course on behalf of my right honorable friend as we offered the serious condolences. their loss is immeasurable, but i hope they find some comfort in the data and the extent of the tone of the tributes offered here today to demand they love dearly and whom the country as a whole more in spirit charles kennedy was that rare thing. he was a professional politician from almost the start of his career, politician to his fingertips. not someone apart not someone distant, but someone who embodied the point of why they become passionate about belief in politics. others have charted his skills

as a public speaker, but the man i saw most of all for his sincerity and honesty is following the leadership party to his successors to nothing but public professional loyalty and the party to its grievous electro- almost a century, one that he left in good political health. his personal tragedy both of the demented terrible disease whose effects are intermittent and especially cool and the severability to be himself. the real charles canady with the man remembered today and admire. he believed utterly and the causes he stood for without hitting anyone else for believing in theirs. i remember meeting him many

mornings with good natured relish for his political false but in his convictions. they are far too premature passing the greatest memories he leaves it to me and most of us i suspect are his immense warmhearted miss, tremendous ability and his good humor. may god loves all his loved ones and prepend at this tragic time. >> i rise very briefly because of the credibility of his parliamentarian. i had the good fortune to spend a gear with charles in boston commons i said mary mccloud. my experience of campaigning

during the 1992 general election resounds very well what the word speech which they made a few moments ago from his place. charles could easily have represented this turning up in his highlands, trampling all over it turning up every single event. for example the photographs appeared in the journal with the headline and the tory and i saw charles that evening. he said the journal gets everything wrong. and indeed i'm extremely glad they did get that wrong. charles was on a magnanimous in every single deal and i had with him during election campaigns. for example, the chair trusting to public meetings and he was only kind and personified. he said i can't remember the

liberal democrat policies. can you remind me. five years later when i appeared in my more natural home the first to welcome me with open arms when i arrived in the place and has remained a good parliamentary friend ever since. his more magnanimity and personality with a highlander through and through. highly mike of interest in party politics and friendship for people of every kind. every time he every time you spoke every time he spoke on the spoke for ordinary people who understood him. even the true blue tories have bush at that time. they absolutely loved charlie. he was assigned parliamentarian and a true friend. >> tom watson.

>> i got to see beyond the public figure in party leader. he was shy but always polite. he was kind. he was engaging and he was a good dad. i enjoyed his right humor. he used to joke about how we shared the same private investigator from the news of the world. he had the ability to bring manatee to me than the dark corners of political life that made the bad day at the office easier to cope with. get as many honorable members know all too painfully politics often takes a toll on the lives of our loved ones in a way we've never properly know around her stand. to you mr. speaker, if i may apply to direct these words at donald son of charles and sarah. your father was a very great man. he stood up for what he believed

in. he led a party at the center left with dignity and compassion and when you are older you will know your mom and dad lived in a cause greater than themselves and you will be proud. the >> thank you mr. speaker. charles kennedy was an talent then it says so much for so many honorable members in this house has spoken with such complete genuine warmth about charles. he had the extraordinary ability to reach out beyond the narrow confines of his own party to make genuine friendships with people of other political persuasions and to achieve an extraordinary affinity with people beyond this place speaking the language people

understood not in the language of the westminster village. and that was a remarkable talent not shared by very many people here. but i guess overall we probably all share an overwhelming emotion that our hearts just go out to young donald and to his family on this day. that is the most important thing. our thoughts are very much with you all. i had the privilege of working as parliamentary private secretary to charles and my first parliament here between 2003 and 2005 and i saw at close quarters has extraordinary compassion his never seizing courtesy to people. he never lost his temper in dealing with people. the power of argument to win his

case. and he tragically suffered from an illness an illness that afflicts too many people in our country. mr. speaker there is still a stigma that attaches to mental health and addiction. all of us here and beyond still have a lot to learn and how we combat that stigma and treated as a genuine illness and tried to offer help to the individual as much as they possibly can. there are three things in particular that i remember charles fort. first of all i think in the way this is what to find him many members of the public. his courageous stand on the war in iraq. the prime minister was absolutely right to reflect on the pressure, the string that he must have been under when he spoke in this house but the mass

strength of the labour government in the conservative benches all against him, that he was steadfast. he knew what he believed. he articulated the case very strongly and effectively any reached out to our country at a very critical moment in our history. the second thing that defined them for me is his internationalism. his total commitment to the european course not for any narrow economic case but because of the real power of the european union bringing countries together, turning its back on conflicts, working together, trading together, bringing people together. this politics is about uniting people, not dividing people. that is what made his commitment so strong to the european union. finally come his complete commitment to social justice to

challenge injustice wherever he saw it. mr. speaker, everyone will know the liberal voice in our country has been diminished as a result of the general election. i and the rest of my posse must do everything we can united together to ensure charles legacy to rebuild the liberal voice in our country and i'm sure everyone in this house, whatever their political persuasion will recognize the liberalism and important that half of the house of parliament. thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute on behalf of the economic group in my former colleagues in the 2001 parliament and particularly alden stewart who is charles kennedy fred and worked alongside him to oppose the war in iraq.

it was very straightforward we were elected in their opposition. for charles kennedy and is a bigger challenge taken the brave position against prevailing opinion here and in the media to give sources meeting colleagues to follow. it was not easy for any of us. it was not a comfortable place to be. mr. speaker, we've come to the place not to be comfortable or rather do what we see as being right. charles kennedy took that path as he prevailed. today our thoughts are with his family, for his future legacy. idleness, and the rest of his distinction. charles kennedy achieved many

things. the opposition to the war in iraq will prove to be his distinction. >> mr. tim ferrin. >> mr. speaker, i was selected to this house in may 2005 with charles kennedy as my leader. he was meant in the weeks running up to the election to pay visits u.s. he had a very good excuse to miss the appointment. i remember a time the immense pride we folks in charles is a leadership and the pride he felt in becoming a father. in the weeks that went past the election everything counts and i'm quite sure he helped contribute to the capturing

after 96 years of tory rule. as the months went by and there's a good number of us, i didn't get the phone call. there is shadowing junior and junior shadow ministry. i got a phone call probably in september from charles and he said i'm sorry about giving you a job. would you like to be -- [inaudible] an entire natural fit it was the only time i ever felt forgotten by charles beard the year before that, and a year younger than charles at his passing. i lost my mother. i remember seeing him and he knew exactly about the situation and he had immense compassion for me. never stop talking to me about the situation. about how i was.

he went to some very difficult things in terms of his personal health. he was primarily concerned about the well-being of others. he was the persuader because he was able to reach people in their guy. people made their minds up but generally speaking you will name the people if you can get people there. on the mp ever to gain a seat in the general election by the way. he went on for years later when the ftp and liberals move to argue against his own leader. you could see the faces of people changing their minds because charles kennedy reached into their heart. to my mind what he was so good that was the ability to communicate and get to people. charles kennedy is human. yes he was. but he wasn't contrite.

he gave me a piece of advice that said be yourself. charles was successful because he was himself. my advice for any view of europe are invited say no unless you want to be made out to be or must do our charles kennedy. he absolutely was of himself. humanity is one thing. his principal spoken several times. it cannot be said enough. his stance against the iraq war seems like the right thing to do. 12 years ago was not. he was surrounded by people as if he was somehow an appeaser of saddam hussein. a front-page picture of the anti-patriotic rattlesnake. he must be doing something that would not happen. he was principled and changed people's mind. he was human, principled and

effective. that our party for the largest number. human history humanity that principle in effectiveness, those three things are connected. if we want to understand why he was great it was because it was himself. people say politicians should have a life in politics before they become members of parliament. it is not what you have done. it is who you are an charles kennedy was a very, very special man. donald, you should be very proud of your daddy. i am proud to call him my friend. god rest you, charlie. the >> charles kennedy was one of the associate editors that the house magazine of which i am editor and we have meetings

every tuesday morning for an hour to discuss what happened during the week and where we go the following week. charles made some of the meetings and didn't make others. but what was always very clear is we have extraordinary industry exchanges of opinion. he never left the room for something like 15 years what was said in that room stayed in that room and the discussions were always enlightening because charles would come up with point of view is that we simply hadn't occurred to to begin with. people weren't just adding in the back. it was clear they were stabbing him in the front. i just want to say something very briefly given that the people outside will hear this as well. i think donald should read the

book -- [inaudible] he says every time you look up in the sky, you will see the star and it is me smiling -- [inaudible] i think all of us will end up saying we are glad to have known charles. >> mr. gray while holland. >> thank you mr. speaker. charles kennedy was one of those people you remembered meeting for the first time. his distinctive look, his very attractive highland accent, his unusual and warm manner as a politician. i remember meeting him excitedly as a new prospective parliamentary candidate. i was touched how genuine this great figure of liberalism that i was finally getting to meet

actually was and he wanted to know how i was and how things were going in leagues. and i was very lucky during the 2005 election campaign to not have one but two visits from charles. the first was to an older people's resident. the fact it was a rally towards the end of the campaign when it appeared that i might make the breakthrough for the liberal democrats. both occasions, charles split up the room when he walked in. at the rally he inspired people to do more over the last 24 hours to win the seat. but it is the ordinary people, not party activists who are particularly touched by charles and his natural style and the way he engaged so humbly with

the hard-working care staff and people at the road the end cricket ground. everyone commented he was such a nice bloke and a party leader could be such. i'm proud of the selected in 2005 charles kennedy is a great theater. he had the best ever result for the liberal democrats, something we will not forget. i was doubly overjoyed when charles became the new father with the joyous news of a rather inconveniently time general election campaign and a few later i had my own first child, my daughter, isabella. we would meet and chat sometimes a little tired and how

the new father talk about how we were getting on. he always asked and truly cared. he's a truly genuine warm and humble man and he always asked how you were and how your family was before he got into politics. my sincere condolences go to his family and his friends and all who knew him. you are in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time and the zealotry been discussed i hope the genuine outpouring of tributes to charles is some comfort at this difficult time. what if they liberal democrats rather than 62 and 2005 we now have the job to restore the liberal democrats to where charles took us to in 2005. that is what charles would've wanted and that is what we work

and strive to do. >> stephen downes. >> mr. speaker, many hearts broke yesterday morning when we heard the news. it came as such a dreadful shout. it is equally heartbreaking i would suggest the charter kennedy our fellow parliamentarian can not be aware of this great outpouring of affection that has swept across the whole nation wider than the shores of these islands. i think maybe we could have done more to help and support charles and to let him know how loved he was because it may be too late now but it will be a comfort to the family for them to know this is a man who was loved and adored across the political spectrum come across the national spectrum. certainly all those who knew him grew to love him and told him his great affection.

and those with us now never forget that we do actually over that support and friendship. i have to say charles kennedy said the industry standard for humor and wit in politics for many years. i have to say this is rather distressing to some people who aspired to the foothills. for many years, he and austin mitchell and life in the airways of the freeway common tree. they were no as mitch, creech and tage. for charles kennedy a fine figure of a man in every sense. my memories are not just a 10

absolutely creasing the sides of the nation with the humor not just on the radio to television and as i may say you either have to be prepared to be a product or charles kennedy. [laughter] demonstrably i am not charles kennedy. but there is another side to him. he was a man of great and deep faith virtue of great strength from the well of that faith. some people in this house know that on wednesday evenings when we celebrate passing the club he will be very very quietly. i appreciate his roman catholic tradition to present at the back of the church in case there is a collection. [laughter]

charles would be there very very quietly, worshiping with this thought a nature such strength again. i hope you'll forgive me for pointing out tonight mass will be for the family and the under craft chapel. even the words must give us pause to realize how much we have lost, but how blessed we were to have known this great man. may he rest in peace. >> a house hearing on veteran care that could help health providers and patients need to go outside the va system. veteran affairs officials testified before the house va subcommittee hearing. members heard from an iraq war veteran who is suing the department of veterans affairs. congressman mike trained fixtures this 90 minute hearing.

[inaudible conversations] >> at afternoon. this hearing will come to order. i want to welcome everyone to today's hearing titled circumvention of contracts in the provision of non-va health care. this hearing is the second in a series of hearings examining the legal va procurement product says resulting in massive waste of limited taxpayer resources in serious to be to the quality of health care received by her nation's veterans. our previous hearings on may 14, 2015 we focus on the

mismanagement and misuse of purchase cars and avoidance of contract requirements, spending limitations and warrant authority. a senior executive, mr. jan frye testified these unauthorized commitments when the billions of dollars. mr. frye has indicated similar levels of mismanagement and abuse in the procurement of non-va health care services by vha. by far the most prevalent method by which veterans receive non-va cares through the individual authorization, so-called fee-based process. under title 38 of the code of federal regulations section 752 authorized to it came non-va medical services when demand is in frequent native health care is not available through an

existing contract. unfortunately bh uses a process even when this requirement are not at issue. moreover va admits the execution of these authorizations does not comply with the contract requirements of the federal acquisition regulation. veterans affairs acquisition regulation far. mr. frye will testify that long-standing and massive circumvention and vaar and the fee basis authorization process the va has obligated billions of dollars. he will explain va incurs billions of improper payments that represent material weaknesses and internal audit control. in 2009 and 2010 the oig

reported on serious problems with accuracy and efficiency of claims paid through the fee basis program. the oig reported via medical centers made hundreds of millions of dollars in improper payments including duplicate payment and incorrect amounts. most troubling is vha had not established fraud prevention or detection controls because they didn't consider the program to be at significant risk. oig estimated va could be pain as much as $380 million annually for fraudulent claim ended may may 2014 contrary to the va assertion that previous legal services can be ratified oig

reported via a further violated the law by institutional or ratifying illegal purchases and avoiding important checks and balances. today gao director randa williamson will testify about the limitations and oversight health care service contracts and will focus particularly on the inadequate management of clinicians who provide services under contract with va facilities. we will also hear from the united states army veteran christopher labonte said who's terrific experience represents a case study in the risk associated with noncompetitive contracts with affiliate and the importance of quality control and oversight of standards. as i said violations of

procurement laws are not mere technicalities. it is not just a matter of paying a little more for needed supplies and services as some apologists for va have asserted. among other things without competition businesses may be awarded -- business may be avoided if the cronyism and directing of business to favored vendors including those who may be employees or former va officials. without contracts safety provisions are not legal requirements. pas mismanagement of the fee basis program is not a justification to dispense with vaar requirements.

if the atom bomb can be built and was conducted, surely va can deliver patient care under them as well. with that, i yield to ranking member kuster to an opening remark she may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this afternoon's hearing is a follow-up to our hearing two weeks ago and today our focus will be on the legal basis underlying purchase of non-va health care and the dissonant tanning care. at the end of the day we can agree with what you see veterans receive the health care they need need at precisely the moment you need it. i want to make clear neither right nor my colleagues be this laudable intent as a blanket rationale for not following laws, regulations or proper procedure. federal nba acquisition regulations exist for a reason. they exist to ensure proper competition when appropriate and the best practice in price is

obtained when the government purchases goods and services. to the va, the laws protect veterans come and save taxpayer dollars and it sure veterans receive possible quality of care. the testimony with a 30 year practice using individual authorization without applying federal acquisition policies and procedures at the same time seems the va has taken the position that individual authorization r&d contracts and should be viewed as such even when acknowledging va officials appear to have backed it in a manner consistent with the model. now the va is arguing against the statutory authority to evolve what has emerged as serious question to his purchase care authorities. the new authority would explicitly exempted ca from

regulations and requirements and allowed to va to continue the same practices that has been following for the past 30 years. i personally am not in defense this is the best solution given the significant lack of oversight in the area. i would argue the problem is not the legal questions arisen over the purchase care program but for too long va operated a programmers a legal basis has been challenged and yet never changed course or modify procedures. pas authority to purchase care without a contract in place is predicated is only for use. i'd be interested in finding out how much of the $7 billion expenditure for non-va care in by 2014 obligated under this authority as compared to

situations where contracts are in place. as we examine the authority for the purchase care program and whether it be modified it to how it operated over the last number of viewers. it is critical we and how the legal interpretations change and were communicated and enforced. it's hard to expect accountability when there's no clear signs pointing out the way. the testimony of mr. frye made by the va litigation makes it seem unlikely over the last number of years clear policies and procedures were in place. gao's testimony points at significant weaknesses in monitoring and oversight of non-being ethical program. perhaps it is time to stop applying quick band-aids and resolve right now to fix what is wrong. it took years for the va to get

into the problem and it will take time to fix it. the first step is to acknowledge problems in quickly and and forthrightly come up with a concrete plan to fix them. finally i would like to thank mr. labonte for appearing before us to relate his story which is absolutely horrendous. it's her labonte reminds us the bottom line is quality of care for veterans. this can be impacted by lack of accountability process when it comes to making sure all laws, regulations and policies are followed. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you ranking member kuster. i ask that all members waved their remarks is customary to this panel. on the panel we have mr. edward murray acting assistant secretary for management and

interim chief financial officer of va office of management. mr. gregg gibbens of va office of acquisition, logistic and instruction. mr. norbert doyle, chief procurement of the veterans health administration. ms. phillipa andersen, assistant general counsel for governing contracts have va office of general counsel. mr. jan frye, senior executive and deputy assistant secretary at the office of acquisition and logistics. there's the randa williamson, director of gao's health care team and mr. christopher labonte, united states army veteran. i asked the witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear under

penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. these be seated. mr. murray you are not recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon chairman coffman, ranking member kuster for the opportunity for the veterans contacting community providers. mr. chairman, subject involves complex territory related to procurement process, legal interpretation and the processing of hundreds of thousands of purchase care transactions per year. i know we will be discussing areas in detail at the committee's oversight is important. they will always depend on a mix of in-house community care with care in the community continuing

what they need in a timely way as close to home as possible so while the discussion here may be technical where discussing transactions that represent the purchase of health care for veteran who need it. when purchasing care in the community, be it depends on federal acquisition contract and non-vaar agreements also referred to as individual authorization. these agreements are used in situations because a provider may have a relatively small number of veterans referred to by va as their patient mix. and may not make business sense for them to enter into a firebase contract provides care. this is especially true in rural areas. although agreements are not compliant the va utilizes control to ensure care is obtained from a qualified provider and services build consistent with regulation before a claim is paid.

these practices safeguard veterans for taxpayer dollars could be a community care has risen dramatically in fiscal year 2006 is roughly for fy 2015, we estimate $10.4 billion. over those years different authorities for purchase care have not been applied consistently and have been marked by conflict in interpretations. the determination by the department of justice that individual authorizations are contracts and therefore must be far compliant began reviewing the process working towards development to improve integration, transparency and oversight of all purchase care. we recognize problems and propose a solution. last year with informal staff, they noted issues addressed by statute. in february's budget submission we know the department with a

forward a legislative proposal. may 1st to provide a formal proposal for comprehensive reform including specific requirements or non-vaar-based agreements. the legislation would authorize the secretary to enter into veteran carreker meant some with medicare breeze similar to community care purchase throughout the veteran choice program. the legislation recognizes vaar contract should be used in akin to a virus on stability. every two years they would review the agreements and why there is vaar-based contracts are appropriate. i believe you will find it for taxpayers. we look forward to answering the questions.

>> thank you mr. murray. mr. frye you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman coffman, ranking member kuster, thank you for inviting me to testify today. you just heard the illegal purchases of billions of dollars in non-va care for multiple years. i'd be confused if i was not familiar with the facts. we do not intend to failures in leadership and stewardship of public funds. mr. murray stated there was sadness confusion of inconsistent application in interpretations as the senior leaders we've had many years to correct deficiencies. mr. murray stated conflict in interpretations of law. in october 2012 the very senior official of harm to me trouble with women as they violate a law with regards to purchase a non-va care. i asked him for details.

on october 22nd 2012 i began a personal inquiry at the matter. i sent the same vha senior official in the statement addressing and hoping to receive information from him. december 3rd 2012 i sent in a two boston general counsel requesting a legal opinion as to whether authorizations were considered vaar-based contracts. receiving the response i followed up again december 31st for a third time on figure 28 2013 three months after i requested the initial opinion the opposite of general counsel provided in a legal opinion in 2009. the opinion categorically declares non-va fee-based cared the firebase. there's no confusion in the legal opinion inside of what you heard to the contrary. neither my predecessors for

myself have granted authority except by vaar-based methods. you may wonder why i'd never seen this legal opinion and why they were such obvious to provide it to me. that is an enigma. mr. moran myself testified the subcommittee in 2010 stating fee basis care was not firebase. if this existed in 2009 by mr. cap from us in preparation for the hearing. given the recalcitrant engaged by vha accounts less submitted a complaint to the office of inspector general march 2013. the oig reviewed my submission questioning my motives for submitting the complaint. i stubbornly persevered and they subsequently accepted. i'm unaware of oig ever investigated. april 2013 i requested senior leadership assistance from the office of general counsel conducting ratification actions for violations of federal law and receive no assistance from

either office. may 2013 secretary should vacuum of space on train bridge. he was made aware of our legal actions. i was not invited to the meeting. outlining my concerns in a legal matters than others. my letter never made it to him. two senior officials who were apparent ransom the house oversight committee in one from vha conspired to keep the american public from learning that this matters another cirrus da violations of federal laws. ..

his demeanor in both open and one-to-one meetings were meant to intimidate me. and to cast a chill over me and others who might be tempted to report violations in the future. i will allow you and the court of public opinion to decide for yourselves if what i bring to describe constitute corruption malfeasance or dereliction. no investigation has been conducted. no ratifications of illegal procurements have been executed. improper payments continue. veterans receive health for the protection of mandatory terms and conditions, and no one is liable.

oddly these are two relevant questions. ugly old subordinate va employees accountable if we as senior leaders selectively pick and choose the laws we want to observe for sake of convenience? when will the senior leaders be held accountable? there were more than a dozen senior leaders in the july 11, 2014 meeting. each of the illegality was positively confirmed. not a single leader saved one subsequent acted in a way to protect the government interest on resources. we have lost our way. senior leaders are required to obey and enforce federal laws. our actions and interactions do not that anything i previously experienced in over four years as a military officer. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. i'm prepared to answer all questions the subcommittee may have for me. >> thank you, mr. frey. mr. williamson, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman coffman ranking member, members of the subcommittee accomplished there today to discuss our work on these programs for delivering

care to non-va providers. non-va providers treat veterans and commend hospitals, doctors offices using either fee-for-service arrangement or a prearranged provider network. nine via providers also render care in va facilities under a contract arrangement or affiliation agreement with university medical schools. in fiscal year 2013 va spent almost $5 billion for non-be a provider medical care for more than 1 million veterans. as more veterans to seek care outside the va system it is important to ensure that non-va care is of the highest quality and it is reliable, accessible and efficient. three recent gao report identified numerous weaknesses in his management of its non-va medical care program and today i will focus on issues they reached result in this this area. in may 2013 gao reported that he does not collect data on wait times for veterans refer to non-va providers.

therefore, be a cannot assure that veterans are receiving access to medical care that is comparable to veterans receiving care in the agency. also the emcees did not have automated systems capable of collecting data for all services and charges tied to a specific episode of care during a veterans office visit or stay there as result va does not know how much it is paying for episodes of care from nine via providers and cannot ensure that non-via providers are probably going va for veterans care. in october 2013 we reported weaknesses in the his process for contracting with non-via providers to provide care at va facilities and special is the difficulty to recruit and supplement va clinicians and high-volume areas or fill critical staffing vacancies. specifically we found contracting often represent that

vamc who monitor contract performance on a variety of contracts or goods and services including clinical contracts had heavy workloads and lack of training on how to gauge and post award monitoring of clinical contractors, which compromise diligent oversight of non-va providers. robust va oversight is essential to ensure that non-via providers deliver high quality care and fulfill the responsibility of their contracts. finally, in march 2014 we reported serious weaknesses in the wake va was administering and overseeing this program for reimbursing nine via providers for emergency services for non-service-connected veterans. and processing and reimbursing claims for non-va providers we found patterns of va noncompliance with its own processing requirements, attributed largely to poor oversight of both the local and national level. therefore, some veterans were

likely built for care that va should have paid for and many were not informed that va had rejected their claim for reimbursement for care from non-va providers. as a result many me been denied their appeal rights. while va has made progress in addressing recommendations we made on these three reports, only about one-third have been fully implemented. moving forward and snooki but our attitude va non-va medical care programs such as patient-centered community care refer to as pc3 a provision of a choice that isn't fazed the number of veterans seeking medical care to non-va providers will continue to grow. it is vital the established robust oversight and accountability in its non-va medical care program such the relevant va staff at every level understand the importance of and are held accountable for ensuring that veterans receive

high quality accessible and cost-effective care from non-providers. this concludes my opening remarks. >> thank you mr. williamson. mr. lamont he first of all thank you so much for your service to the nine states army and join a recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for giving up to speak to this committee today. i am christopher labonte. my specific case there've been numerous issues i've had to face. i provided a written statement which explains in detail the events and issues that i was coerced into highly invasive surgery which was performed by a student with no qualifications or educational background to even be present in the room, let alone residency program. i have submitted evidence to prove the statement in my written statement to the atlanta va medical center has also been negligent in the health care. they have been complicit in

allowing unqualified personal to gain entry into the va medical center and provide some of the worst health care i've ever experienced. i also said that an index of medical evidence along with my written statement with imaging proving the willful negligence from not only the va medical doctors but the administration and the corruption. on the day my surgery the atlanta va medical center changed consent for paperwork to allow ibrahim a hobbit a student from kuwait to be the primary surgeon performing my surgery. i have no recollection of signing this document as medications already administered for anxiety presurgery. insurgent not only were bone shards left my mouth which was further infection and bone loss, months down the line he cut my nerve as a result of the surgery i now have a medical condition called neuralgia from damage to multiple branches of my trigeminal cranial nerve. it's also not a suicide disease is described for the most

painful medical conditions known to man. but a surgical report admits to damaging a portion of this nerve, cutting it during the surgery on august 15 to 2013 but ebert and mohammed. according to him a social media pages, he is a devout islamic views. i'm an army combat veteran at a political kuwait and iraq of a kuwait and iraq of a to point at the same time that he was attending the university of kuwait. there's no secret many people from this region want to u.s. soldiers. my question to the is why was he allowed to operate on combat veterans which he would've had difficulty to object or an ill intentioned towards. the veterans affairs medical center should be sensitive to the needs for veterans to feel comfortable and safe with a doctor to be the medical center in fact should be more sensitive and any other facility in the country. as a combat veteran i should've been given a choice to have ibrahim mohammed heron involved with my care on any level especially performing a highly dangerous surgical procedure

that required me to be unconscious for an extended period of time that i wake up everyday and chronic pain due to the procedure to if you can imagine the worst tooth pain you've ever felt, that is all the teeth on the right side of my mandible to constantly the i have to take most relaxers three times a day for the facial pain facial pain and muscle spasms. i take narcotic pain medications for times a day for the chronic pain. i take anxiety medication to keep my facial muscles from tensing and compressing miners which not only caused sharp facial pain but also causes severe migraines. these migrants elect someone is taking me in a. i struggle with facial deformity in my lower jaw. my diet was limited to soft goods. according to my critique of non-va doctors i will not only continue medical care from her mouth and jaw but have to or oral poked prosthetics in my mouth for the rest of my life and have chronic pain and require pain management for the rest of my life. i am extremely disappointed in the va health care system.

the va's priority seem to be in the following order. one, profit. to come hospital reputation. three, protecting high level bureaucrats. four protecting that which doctors can five, cutting cost and expense of of veteran health care. six, veteran health care. i refer to it as a death care. va medical centers mom should read the lake and deny and hope you die. >> thank you, mr. labonte. >> the written statements of those are just provide oral testimony will be entered into the hearing record. we will now proceed to question. is to the body -- mr. labonte how long have you been waiting for va and/or emory to address the situation created by the

surgery? >> since august 16 2013 spent okay. so nearly two years spent nearly two years. it will be two years this august. >> mr. murray come into september 2011 fha feature program white paper it was recommended va conduct a cost-benefit analysis of contracting out the processing of claims as with other hair models like tricare, medicare and medicaid, blue cross blue shield sutter. and their applicability for va. what was the rest of the cost-benefit analysis? >> thank you for your question. i'm not aware of that being conducted but i believe i'll ask my vha has have contracting activity if he's aware of that analysis. >> i am not aware of that analysis. >> mr. frye any comments?

>> i am not aware, i can get an answer on that. >> okay. mr. frye, the secretary mcdonald was publicly critical of you at the last hearing conducted by the subcommittee on may 14, 2014. the secretary -- is this 2015? >> yes, sir spend funds are may 14, 2015. secretary stated that he was aware of the problems and characterized your memo as quote, just showing what he -- meaning mr. frye -- needs to improve. he further stated it is your quote, responsibly to fix it end quote. what is your response to secretary mcdonald statement? >> i think all of us make comments sometimes and in which we could retract their pressure the mr. mcdonald had read my 35 page statement at that point.

since the time mr. mcdowell, secretary mcdonald came to see me last week i'm in the express appreciation for me raising these issues. in answered your question specifically, i don't run contracting. i am responsible for overall policy in the va and i have one of six heads of contracting activity who does report to me, but i do not run contracting for va. i think anyone who reads the document that i provided to the secretary will see that i have struggled in trying to right the ship, and i sort of was asking for assistance on the and the deputy secretary given that i have been unable to come on my own, to fix what was wrong. you know, again i make comments sometimes i wish i could withdraw and perhaps he does as well. but i sincerely believe at this point that the secretary

appreciates and probably is more angry than i am at seeing this waste given that he is trying to move us forward and every time we move forward one step and his malfeasance is uncovered, we move backward 12. >> i hope you're right that he is upset. mr. williamson, your testimony states via didn't collect data on wait times from non-va providers leaving the department unable to unless such critical data and did not provide critical oversight and monitoring of related claims or even the performance of the services provided. gao may 22 recommendations to address the shortfalls, but how is the department addressing them at this time? >> on all 22? i could provide a lot of for the record about i will say that they have made progress. it's not like they are ignoring us. ai meeting with those making

progress but to consider a recommendation close from our perspective requires some rigorous documentation come and va hasn't provided a documentation as of now on many of those. >> okay. thank you, mr. williams. ranking member kuster? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question at the top just to get to the bottom of the issue as to what legal authority to provide the basis for the purchase of non-va care, and so i'm asking our representatives from the va to provide the following documents. the 2080 guidance from the chief acquisition officer and office of general counsel that non-va care was not covered by far. i think i was the original 2008. and then than they play 13 white paper provided to secretary shinseki on non-va care

authority options. and then finally added to navigate for this but i think from the testimony it is 2014 the department of justice ruling that referenced that va must consider all fee-based care actions as being f.a.r. based. so i want i'm interested in going back but also want to try to go forward where we go from here. i think whenever we are talking of health care we are talking up sort of a triangle of access quality and cost. and it seems to be part of the problem that we have in terms of public policy going forward is the sheer scope of this problem. because part of what the choice act entails is to bring in private sector network coordination through triwest and health net. essentially a so we are talking

about here. it's massive in scope to have individual contracts, and my district as a rural district in new hampshire. i know about these contracts. i know about these authorizations. could you comment and we'll start with mr. murray, but i've been arrested mr. williamson, with your knowledge of reviewing this come if you can even if it's an opinion at this point do you think we can get out of this by simply changing the rules of contracting, or do you think that she would try to bring in the authorizations, even the f.a.r. based contracts into this private sector networks? i would just set it up to mr. murray come if you would. >> so the choice act does have triwest and health net as the tubal we call third party

administrators. and as you know, we have not got off to the start as quicker start with those programs as we would like your rest assured that all leadership the deputy, secretary are doing our utmost to exercise those programs to the maximum ability extent to get care to those veterans that urgently need it, that earned it and that deserve it. the model looks like it i go to the access meetings every morning. many of the members of this committee have been invited to the morning access meetings. we believe there will be a very effective model for providing care in the community to our veterans. >> can you envision a time in a future where those networks will be sufficiently extensive where you would have dealt with a cost issue, whether it's medicare reimbursement rates whether you would have the quality issue

addressed the oversight by these third party administrator, can you envision a time when we would not need to have this one off individual contracts? >> i will defer that question in a moment to the acquisition folks nadh a gentleman here norm doyle. but it's about signing up building the networks, having those providers and network, the right type of provided and the network in certain geographic areas of the country. we see this in the morning through our meetings with the deputy secretary and senior leaders within health administration that is all about ensuring that the right clinical care, right physicians in the right -- >> isn't there an attempt to get the physicians that you're already dealing with these to these individual authorizations, is there an attempt to get those positions into these networks speak with absolutely, absolutely. health administration leadership come if doctor trish men were

convicted on all about the options they are exercising come reaching out to their current provider network and getting them signed up for encouraging them to get signed up for choice third triwest or health net. so all hands on deck and everybody moving full board to do that. >> will have to come back to mr. williams and another run round to my time is up but thank you. >> dr. kinner check? >> thank you, mr. coffin -- dr. kinner check. thank you all for being here this afternoon. i think to me what i've learned from this is that it's not as easy to get health care in the private sector for the va is one might think. i think tricare model is interesting but they dare

tricare, the medicare rate and then tricare pays the actual providers less than the medicare rate in my district nobody really wants to sign up for any of this stuff because it doesn't pay very well. and it's been problematic. some of the choice people offered choice but there's no providers that will do choice because they are getting paid less than medicare rates because they paid triwest medicare rates but triwest doesn't pay the actual people that are providing the care of those rates. and to get those numbers it's been tough for me to figure that out. but mike small is about, for today a little bit is about this apparent illegal activity that's been happening. i'm just wondering, let me ask mr. doyle were you aware that some of these things were illegal, mr. doyle? i mean that's what mr. frye

seems to, telling us all these purchases are illegal and you've got a legal opinion that this is not the way it should be done from a long time ago. you are sort of in charge of outside care, right speak with us sir. as the chief procurement and logistics officer for the vha we do contracts for non-va care. >> is your opinion different that this is not illegal? >> i'm not a lawyer or a judge but i refer to my legal counsel and a to point they would cite its illegal what we're doing. >> so there's a difference between what you believe and what mr. frye bullies. is that right mr. frye? is there a basic difference? am i talking to two different things? >> i think what counsel to his these are not illegal. they are improper. it's illegal to go to stop some in my neighborhood but it's

improper to spend billions of dollars outside the law in the va. it makes no sense. this is the same origin is the same origin check out the the same specious argument accomplishes specious argument that council gets overused when there was an argument in these chambers about the bike of pharmaceuticals without contractor at that time the deputy secretary was here at the table, and he in his oral statement was about to make the statement that it was improper and not illegal. and his body absolutely confirmed that it was illegal. if we were going to a court of law, the supreme court, i'd love to have the argument made that these are improper not illegal. but this is the court of public opinion. the court of public opinion not a court of law. >> isn't fee-for-service providing different than contract? i mean i'm a preposition i worked at the va for 20th and i was a fee-for-service physician selected now the

contract. i agreed to a fee and frankly i wanted to do a contract but it was a difficult to get the contract, it would take months or more than a year to get the contract negotiated and completed so that they couldn't get it done. so the actually prefer to do a fee-for-service because they could get it done right away. i don't know what exactly the details were. >> i'm sorry to hear that you were our country. it sounds like an unauthorized commitment. i'm not familiar with the methodology that they used to bring you on but if we are required of the contract, we are required by the contract. >> let me go to a different thing. mr. labonte, let me ask you a question about your character you said you don't think you signed a consent form before you had narcotics, or some sedatives. >> i sign a consent form after i was administered anesthetic to call me down before surgery. they had me sign a digital pen.

i would really called it a consent form because i never signed paperwork i do recall signing it but if there is going on a under anesthesia to give the resident ibrahim mohammed heron the primary surgeon slot during my surgery instead of the surgeon that was supposed to be conducting the surgery. to me that sounds illegal, but i'm not a lawyer. >> it's highly unusual in my express that anyone i mean i come from nobody is allowed to sign a consent after they had any drugs. that usually as witnessed by somebody. i imagine they of all these documents. are you doing a lawsuit in reference to all this? >> is a court claim pending. was also unusual is ibrahim mohammed heron is the only resident in the entire program that has a bachelors degree instead of a doctorate. i found that unusual. there's lots of things unusual about the atlanta va medical center. >> i think maybe that needs a little more work than we've seen

here today, mr. chairman i'm out of time. thank you. >> think you, after finishing. mr. lord you are not recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. anderson, i will ask you because mr. frye earlier summarized what he thought your response we to the question. was this or was this not legal? >> not to put too fine a point these were not illegal actions of illegal activities. yes they were not far -- f.a.r. component to an illegal contract, i'm speaking as a lawyer, and illegal action or an illegal activity is not enforceable. these commitments are enforceable. in fact, the federal acquisition regulations acknowledge understand that there are times

when officials not authorized to commit the government, they do commit the government and there is a radical process. the course and the board to recognize that when the government makes a commitment, pays the fee-for-service, that the government can behind the fact that you didn't follow the f.a.r. the government received the benefit. and there's a legal through the recovery on that. i respectfully disagree with mr. frye's position that these are illegal contracts. >> it sounds like, i may or may not be fun the distinction but it sounds like this is an obligation by which the va is legally bound to fulfill. did some at the va do anything illegal in committing the va to this obligation?

>> if we are addressing merely the fact that a person not committing, not authorized to perform come into into the contract, the answer is there was no illegal activity. >> so for mr. murray then to follow up, if this was not illegal, was this improper? >> thank you for your question. proper is an interesting question because if you establish the obligation, a provider provided the service, the provider build correctly and the provider was paid one would argue that it was proper but not f.a.r. compliant. >> should obligation having entered into in the first place was that proper? >> so thank you again for your question. so was the proper?

proper, i'm struggling with the word proper. can i gush but yes can you speak as i would like to address that. >> we will leave this program at this point as abuse in is about to gavel in. lawmakers expected to start with the general speeches. debate will get underway on defense department programs and policy for the next budget year. now live to the senate. floor. the chaplain: let us pray. our father god, in the fret and fever of these challenging times, when we know not what a day may bring forth, we thank you for this quiet moment when all else is shut out and our hearts are uplifted to you.

lord, we cannot make better laws or a better world except as we are better people. inspire our lawmakers to make and keep their inner lives pure and kind and just. show them what you desire for this nation and world and help them to be faithful agents for bringing your will to pass. correct our mistakes redeem our fallures and confirm our right actions.

lord down-this day with the benediction of your peace. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that aha condition did i, a fellow in my office, have floor privileges during the duration of this session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president during the past several years we've seen a very disturbing practice, which is becoming commonplace in the republican-dominated united states congress. governing by brinksmanship manufactured crisis, flirting with deadlines a game of chicken. you can call it whatever you want but they're doing it, the

republicans are doing this. leading by crisis is the modus operandi of the republican party. we saw it in 2011 as the house pushed the united states government to the threshold of shutdown and default. again the so-called fiscal cliff of 2012. financial brinksmanship for our whole country. then, of course, the government shutdown actually did occur in 2013, and it occurred over a period of several weeks devastating to our economy. since the republicans assumed control of the senate recallier this year -- earlier this year, the brinksmanship in the halls of the capitol has become unbearable. recall what happened this past february. isis had just burned a man alive in a cage. we saw that, the world saw that. the tragic charlie hebdo shoot

handgun occurred in france, spilled over to belgium people killed. belgium authorities were making sweeping arrests of terror cells and isis was threatening us in our homeland and three brooklyn men were arrested for trying to gin joinjoin isis. yet senate republicans brought the american government within hours of a shutdown. the department of homeland security -- this is a cabinet-level office created during the bush administration. the agents are responsible for the safety of each american in our homeland much it was stunning. but even more stunning was the fact that they keep doing it over and over again. this past week it happened again with the expiration of the important patriot act provisions. mr. president, a few senators wanted to offer some amendments on this legislation. that's all it was amendments. in fact, on the friday night of

the debate, one senator said, i'll take two amendments. we on this side agreed. two amendments. nope can't do that. and so, mr. president again brinksmanship. the patriot act is a law that keeps terrorists from attacking americans. would it have been asking too much to have a little bit of time to debate this issue? we were not given that time. the republican leadership knew for years that these programs were scheduled to expire on june 1, 2015. people who didn't like this act -- and there were a number of them -- gave speeches all over the country talking about the act. it was no secret. it was that secret that the act was not that popular in some people's minds. last year senator mcconnell knew this deadline was looming when he prevented the senate from debating another version of the u.s.a. freedom act by conducting one of their hundreds

of filibusters stopping president obama's efforts. the majority leader knew a month ago the deadline was coming and chose to prioritize other legislation over these critical programs. so what happened? the authority for these sensitive programs expired. yesterday we passed the u.s.a. freedom act reestablishing these important provisions with somer improvements improvements with some improvements in it. but for two days america had its guard down. every minute that passed from the lapse of the passage of this u.s.a. freedom act was on unnecessary gamble with our national security. and for what? what did republicans achieve by letting these provisions lapse? this is no way to govern, using legislative deadlines as some kind of ransom staggering from one catastrophe to another. now on the horizon are two more important deadlines legislation important for the american people. the export-import bank and the

federal highway program. and what are we doing mr. president? we're not doing these measures. the we are on a bill -- we are on a bill that the president said he's going to veto. the export-import bank expires at the end of this month just a few weeks from now. the bank creates jobs providing loans and loan guarantees to foreign customers that purchase american exports. this year alone the export-import bank supported 165,000 american jobs. 165,000 jobs, but what does it cost the american taxpayer? zero nothing. in fact, it makes money for our country. over the last ten years, the bank has returned more than $7 billion to the treasury. the majority leader should bring the banks' reauthorization to the senate floor for a vote before the charter expires tend of this month. but it appears that's not going to happen. the senior senator from texas is

already saying that the republicans have no intention of meeting that deadline. instead, the american people will have to endure another manufactured crisis at the hand of senate republicans. should we also assume that the majority leader will do the same with the federal highway program, which expires at the end of july? the senate also faces a looming deadline for that program. it is critical that we craft a long-term solution for america's crumbling roads highways, bridges, and railway systems. just a few miles from here we have the memorial bridge. it is a beautiful bridge. it was built in the 1930's. memorial bridge connects arlington national cemetery to the lincoln memorial and the mall. it is one of the busiest bridges in the whole d.c. area. each day 68,000 cars an buses cross that bridge, along with count l pedestrians and bicycles.

last week federal officials announced they will be shuttenning down two of the lanes on the bridge to repair the bridge which was structurally deficient. it caused by corrosion all the moisture we have back here. that's a problem we have with everything. and the problems just minutes from the capitol are a daily reality for millions of americans. memorial bridge is just one of the 64,000 structurally deficient bridges in our country. in minnesota they understand what this means. a bridge collapsed and 30-some people died as a result of that. that's very recently. so how long will we wait to fix these problems? what will it take before republicans get serious about a solution to our crumbling highways railroads and bridges? we understand -- democrats understand the urgency of the crisis facing our country and we are ready to work with republicans to rebuild our bridges, roads our railway

system. we understand that investing in our surface transportation, including rail is a job creator and an economy booster. for every $1 billion we spend on these roads these bridges our rail system, we create 47,500 high-paying jobs and many other lesser-paying jobs. before we left for recess a couple weeks ago we passed a short-term extension for the surface transportation programs. mr. president, that's the 33rd time we've done that. 33rd time. now we're back in session; there appears to be no urgency. the senate republican schedule committee hearings, mark up a bill and make the highway trust fund solvent. once again it seems the majority is content to let another vital program lapse regardless of the harm it does to the american jobs it puts at risk.

how many more of these manufactured crises must the american people endure? how many times will the majority leader let another vital program lapse regardless of the harm it does? it is imperative republicans not continue their assault on job creation in america. we should not let this export import bank of the federal highway program expire losing the millions of american jobs they create and sustain. it is beyond belief that on these two important matters the republicans will not help the american people with instant job creation. in the past these two issues have never been handled this way. the export-import bank and three of its biggest cheerleaders in reagan bush, and bush. but that's not the way it is anymore. the highway bill used to pass every five or six years and it would be extended for five or six years. so mr. president until republicans change the way the senate operates we used to pass

these bills easily but not now. we're having to address multiple short-term extensions each year it seems every few months. this will be, i indicated earlier, our 33rd consecutive short-term extension of the federal highway program. this is not legislating. this is republican procraft -- procrastination. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i know my good friend the democratic leader is frustrated he's no longer setting the schedule here in the senate. he seems to differ with the order of priorities that we deal with things here. yesterday he said that debating the defense authorization bill was -- quote -- "a waste of time. a waste of time." to debate the defense authorization bill in a time of high crisis for our country. nevertheless a new majority sets the agenda and the schedule these days. today the senate turns to consideration of the national defense authorization act for

2016. in june, not at december, at the end of the year, in a situation in which no amendments are allowed. this legislation which authorizes funds and sets out policy for our military annually is always important. but it's especially important now given the multitude of threats that challenge us as a nation. for instance, the aggressive rise of isil. iran's ambitions for regional hegemony and its accompanying quest for nuclear weapons and both chinese and russian efforts to erode american influence and assert domination over their neighbors. it's also important given the need to start thinking about preparing our armed services for the many global threats the next president will confront the day he or she takes office. the reality is we've left behind the era when americans could withdraw from conflict overseas and escape to the comfort and

security provided by vast oceans and isolation. we've lost the luxury of building our forces years after a war has begun. and most important the simple trade-off of guns versus butter, drawing down our conventional forces hollowing them out and standing behind our nuclear arsenal does not suit the strategic challenges we now face. we can no longer ignore ungoverned spaces. we've left the cold war long behind. trade-offs have become more difficult to accomplish, and they require greater strategic thought than the president has provided. and we've seen the resilience of the terrorist threat. now senator mccain, the chairman of the armed services committee, is a man with a depth of experience to understand the need to modernize refit and prepare our military for the threats and operations in the

coming years. and thankfully, for the senate he's also a man with a vision to craft a bill that could put us on a path to address those challenges. legislation that could help equip the next president with adequate capabilities to address threats from adversaries like russia china isil, and al qaeda. not to mention the unforeseen challenges that inevitably arise. that's just the course this defense authorization bill proposes to put us on the correct course. and i'd like to commend senator mccain not just for crafting this bill but for working closely with members of both parties to steer it through committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. this legislation proposes to do a lot of things, but fundamentally it's premised on a commonsense idea that we should cut waste and redirect that authorized funding to where it's actually needed, like meeting

the needs of the men and women who put everything on the line -- everything -- to keep us safe. in a time when missions are in imbalance with resources for a military that's already had to endure too many cuts in recent years, it just makes sense to do things like take on a growing bureaucracy at the pentagon to make it more efficient and effective, work toward reforming the way our military purchases weapons and equipment and improve and modernize the military retirement system in order to secure greater value and choice for service members. overall, this bill authorizes about $10 billion in savings for actual military needs. these authorities will allow for improvements in the training and capability of our forces eand help us develop new technology to maintain superiority on the battlefield. our constituents stand to benefit from many of the provisions in this bill as well. for instance, kentucky kentuckians will be glad to know

that this legislation will authorize a new special forces facility at fort campbell. they'll also be glad to hear that it will authorize construction projects at an important new medical clinic at fort knox, an initiative i've championed literally for years. it's no wonder then that so many democrats joined republicans to support this bill on the floor of the house of representatives. and while they joined republicans in the armed services committee to pass this bill on an overwhelming bipartisan basis too which of course is the tradition both of that committee and of the senate as a whole. now we need to keep the momentum going, because this defense policy bill cannot fall hostage to partisan politics, too much is at stake. we heard more partisan saber rattling from the white house yesterday which is now threatening to block a pay raise for our troops unless congress first agrees to spend billions more pumping up bloated bureaucracies like the i.r.s.

that's despite the fact that the funding level in this bill is exactly, mr. president exactly the same as what president obama requested in his budget. let me say that again. the funding level in this bill is exactly what president obama requested in his budget, $612 billion. as i said earlier the democratic leader appeared to go even further essentially saying that voting to support the men and women who protect us is now -- quote -- "just a waste of time." just a waste of time, according to the democratic leader, to be debating a bill about the men and women who protect us. the assumption, i guess is his party isn't getting its way on other partisan demands completely unrelated to the bill and so they want to punish the men and women of our military. look, we understand that some of our democratic friends might be so determined to increase spending for washington bureaucracies that to achieve it

they would even risk support for our men and women in uniform in the face of so many global threats. i certainly don't love every aspect of the budget control act, especially the effects we've seen on the defense side in hindering our ability to modernize the force and meet the demand of current operations, but to deny brave service members the benefits they've earned putting everything on the line for each one of us, for these partisan reasons, it would be profoundly unfair to our troops. blocking this bill is not in the national interest. blocking this bill is not in the national interest. so let's skip the partisan games and start working toward commonsense reforms as this bill proposes. let's work together to pass the best defense authorization bill possible. i urge members of both parties who want to offer amendments to go ahead and do so and then to work with the bill managers to

get them moving. we have that opportunity this year because we return to the regular order and because we're considering ndaa at the appropriate time in the session rather than at the very last minute with little time for thoughtful consideration of amendments as had become the unfortunate norm under the previous majority. this positive turn is another credit to senator mccain's leadership. of course no defense authorization bill will ever be perfect, but this legislation that reflects -- reflects a good-faith effort to authorize programs in the political reality in which we live today. it's bipartisan reform legislation that proposes to root out waste improve our military capabilities, support the brave americans who protect us and make preparations for challenges both forseeable and unforseeable in the years ahead.

the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein and with the time equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding thank you mr. president. last week our nation observed memorial day. mr. barrasso: we paid tribute to the sacrifices that so many americans have made to preserve our freedoms. also last week while members of congress were back home, the obama administration snuck out a new rule that takes away freedom, takes away freedom from americans all across the country. the environmental protection agency released the final version of a new rule that will dramatically increase the agency's power and will

devastate americans' ability to use their own property and their own water. with this rule, president obama's environmental protection agency overreaches and ignores the american public. the rule is an attempt an attempt to change the definition of what the clean water act calls waters of the united states. there is bipartisan agreement that washington bureaucrats have gone way beyond their authority with this new regulation. they've written this rule so broadly and with so much uncertainty that it's not clear limits on this agency's power. now, i agree with what the chairman of the environment and public works committee has to say. he wrote it in an op-ed that appeared yesterday. the senator from oklahoma, senator inhofe, chairman of the environment and public works committee, wrote "not only does this final rule break promise

e.p.a. has made, but it claims federal powers -- federal powers -- even beyond what e.p.a. originally proposed a year ago. this will drastically" he said, "drastically affect for the worse the ability of many americans to use and enjoy their property." this rule, mr. president gives the agency broad control over things like any area within 400 foot of a navigable water or a tributary. then it defines tributaries to include anyplace where you can see an ordinary high water mark on what looks like, on what looks like it was once the bank of a creek a creek body of water. what looks like. not what is but what looks like. under the rule, the environmental protection agency can regulate something as waters

of the united states if it falls within a 100-year floodplain of a navigable water. not navigable water today but anything within a 100-year floodplain of a navigable water. the rule says the agency has to find a -- quote -- "significant nexus to navigable water." so what's a significant nexus? a nexus to the e.p.a.? well the agency gets to make up its own definition. they say it includes something as simple as finding that the water provides -- get this -- life cycle-dependent aquatic habitat for a species that spends part of its time in a navigable water. all of these terms are things that washington bureaucrats are defining for themselves. they decide for themselves that they have the authority. so let's say your property is within 4,000 feet of anything

that the environmental protection agency decides is a tributary, and your property has a natural pond or some standing water after heavy rain. let's say a bird that spends part of its life on the croment river decides -- on the colorado river decides to hang out on that natural pond on standing water that occurred after the rain under this new regulation the environmental protection agency now has the power to regulate what you do on that land. it's bad enough that this administration has taken this extraordinary step. it's bad enough that it's tried to sneak out its rule, hoping that nobody was paying attention over the memorial day time at home. there are now reports that the obama administration may have broken the law. here's what "the new york times" reported on may 18 under the headline front page -- front page of "the new york times" --