. .

>> remember, they are advancing beyond where they currently are command we are staying stagnant, is that correct? i understand we're modernizing what we currently have but are not creating new technologies. >> again, they are replacing old systems with new systems. that is correct, congressman but they are staying within the new start, so not increasing the size of the force. >> i only have a few seconds left. left. i heard you mention that there was defiant defiantly

we will take it off-line and ask questions later. >> appreciate that the gentleman wishes to ask questions and writing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to be here to thank the admiral for a service. we have joked with general dempsey. you may be back in the nose. i i want to thank you for great working relationship. follow up on the last topic russia may be modernizing barbara's not like the

russians are building something that gives them some new technical advantage. >> a greater shift our mobile missiles the ballistic missile force with improvements is not as good as ours. not as good as ours, but i think that mobile missiles is probably a credit. >> the advantage of the mobile thing is that you would be hard for us to hit it in a first strike. but before that we could hit them hard even if we cannot necessarily hit them with nuclear missiles.

this strategy because if it comes to it, bad, all bad. we have plenty of firepower under just about any scenario basically destroy the planet in conversation with what the russians do. we must maintain and upgrade systems that are failing, falling off-line but i think obsessing over, you know my gosh they are more mobile, nuclear weapon with jeffrey at the number the thousands of times more powerful than the bombs were dropped on japan during world war ii. it is a pretty significant deterrent. what is our deterrence policy and how well do we understand that within the pentagon? you know, we have a change of policy during the cold war which was basically we felt that the soviets had us

outmanned in europe conventionally. part of that deterrence policy was you go too far in western europe and we will nuclear. and it worked. in czechoslovakia, three they push the envelope if they go into a nato whatever my differences may be on a wide range of other subjects a robust communication to make sure that those differences don't lead trust is trying to planet is something that i i think should be a huge part of our deterrence strategy which is

why i don't have a problem with a joint military exercise. working with russia on afghanistan working with russia during the p5 +1 negotiations, plus one negotiations, anything that makes sure we communicate and do not inadvertently start armageddon because of lack of communications should be a huge part of the deterrence policy. what is our deterrence policy and terms of use of nuclear weapons and our understanding of russia's deterrence policy? >> right now our policy is to achieve nuclear parity with russia established under the new start treaty. we do not assess china as trying to achieve parity with either. the primary role of our nuclear forces is to deter an attack on the country of the united states, our allies, or our partners. we say we say clearly that the use of nuclear weapons

will cross and escalate were red line. we have the full force of our nuclear arsenal to respond as needed. a policy is to deter an attack of the united states and try to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our normal national security strategy around the world works russia now has the conventional disadvantage that we have received ourselves to have. one of the concerns is that if they feel they are conventionally outgunned they might go the nuclear route and communicate clearly that will receive a proportional response. that is part of our deterrence strategy. if you use a nuke you have at least one going back to you.

>> you tend to rely on one of the other. and they rely more on their nuclear weapons as a deterrent. we believe that is extremely problematic and something we need to be talking about the leaders of russia to say we we do not want this later miscalculation. >> thank you for your thoughtful remarks today. today. my question is related to north korea and iran.

they have built a nuclear warhead strong enough to be mounted on a long-range missile allow the production of nuclear fuel to continue these are threats that continue to protect our national security and allies. just this allies. just this week the admiral reaffirmed his commitment to strong deterrent. what do you think this says about our priorities? >> we believe as we have said over and over nuclear deterrence is our number one mission.

we are absolutely confident we can stay ahead of the capabilities of north koreans, and as the president said we are absolutely committed to preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. >> thank you. my next question, i wanted to ask about the president's decision to reach out to us icbm forces. president obama's nuclear employment guidance rejects the notion while continuing to examine options to reduce the role of launch under attack in us planning. can you can you explain why the president made his decision? >> it is simple. when everyone d alerts it becomes esculin touring and provides incentives to try

to preempt before you can raise your alert level and therefore it was decided a deal alert posture with actually raise the possibility of a miscalculation and we decided against that. [inaudible conversations] lex and the benefits of deal learning learning in terms of preventing presenting to preventing an actual accidental launch a small

where the drawbacks are substantial. >> we do open ocean targeting and have de- alerted our bombers. we believe we believe we have taken prudent steps to make sure we are deemphasizing a hairtrigger response. we thought that de- alerting icbms would cause more problems than it would solve >> thank you and i yield back. >> mr. davis. >> admiral, thank you for your service and contributions. the idea back to my colleagues question about verification and detection of the importance of that. much work remains to be done in interagency cooperation.

not working with our allies at this time. do you agree with that? what are the specific gaps that we need to be sure we are doing so we are picking up the problems that exist in technology and sensors and all that we are using and verification? >> ma'am, i will have to review the study. we are confident our verification measures are quite good. as you know, as we are dealing with iran being transparent and verifiable i am not certain of what was said that i would be happy to review and get back with you. >> and now we have talked a lot about the modernizing

the recapitalization. people have different thoughts about that but one that, but one of the concerns on the surface would be that the nsa submits a 25 year plan for how to deal with these issues. we have the department of defense that does not. i think how is the department of defense planning beyond 2025? what is it we are doing to think about reducing cost? in many situations we have costs that go far out of the realm of what initially was planned. how will we manage peak spending? we may see programs converging. where are we in that? is that criticism?

justified in terms of the department of defense and not doing planning that far out knowing we are looking at an awful lot of money here? >> congresswoman, we have a good understanding of what we need to do. ohio replacement program starts first. start replacing trident boats first and then we will come the lrs so and then we will come by ground-based strategic deterrent which we have to age out in 2030. 2030. we also have a nuclear cap only for the f3 five planned for future flight. we flight. we understand the general cost, how they will unfold. twenty year cost estimates are uncertain, but we can provide you with an estimate we are quite confidently understandable behalf to do in the rough cost it will require.

>> do you think in terms of working along the same lines that you are meeting those requirements? >> ma'am we have a good discussion through the avenue of nuclear weapons council and do a good job of trying to synchronize programs. lrs so is a classic example of trying to make sure the life extension program would be synchronized well with the introduction of that new weapon system. we submit a five year future years defense plan which is a detailed program but plan well beyond that. program managers, services and the like have detailed understandings of how those programs propagate out through the decades to include lifecycle costs. would be happy to brief you on that if you would like. >> thank you and thank you for your service.

>> i had a handful of follow-ups. editorial comments. saying something is a redline does not have the punch at once did which is part of mr. rogers.about allies who are concerned about. on the question obviously at one time the subject of nuclear deterrence received a tremendous amount of attention, intellectual energy, planning and then it did not. and while and while understandably we haven't focused on terrorism now we are having to kind of not reinvent, but develop skills

again to put that emphasis, i think on nuclear deterrence and its credibility which is the key characteristic in all of this. i am interested in your view. are we where we need to be as far as especially intellectual planning and firepower on nuclear deterrent? >> that is an excellent question and.well taken. the way i approach the answer is that across the broad intellectual base of the military especially the senior officer corps how have we educated our broad workforce? when they attend war colleges they get a good dose of it and may hear about particular articles but i tend to agree with you that over the last 15 years

or so particularly since we have been in the post 911 era that a substantial share of our intellectual bandwidth has been shifted over to counterterrorism. they are still doing pretty well. retained its interest and focus on this particular mission. we're doing okay, but the plan is well taken and we need to make sure we are emerging from this last 15 15 years. make sure the broad force has a robust understanding.

>> they threaten to use nuclear weapons. >> and nuke is a nuke is a nuke. very different characteristics. and and my understanding is developing new weapons in the sense adding weapons with different characteristics. the argument has been that are very large nuclear weapons that were designed for cold war exchange amount is credible as other weapons would be in a different strategic landscape.

let's -- >> weapons we can call upon. vastly different weapons like a neutron weapon. in terms of the scalability. modern in the sense of reliable. they are very advanced.

we are making more than just mental but less than major changes in how we lose things. but we have the scalability where we needed to be flex i think there gets to be confusion. we talk about modernizing. as you.out on whether we are talking delivery systems of the war has themselves this exact same system dismayed newer we have to keep that in mind. >> a lot of what we have a new start is a lot fewer weapons that part of the agreement to assure this

remains credible. we -- you would not say we have a responsive infrastructure today. >> i believe we do but we must make the investment i described in my statement that i submitted as well as my opening remarks. we must ensure we retain the capability that you and the admiral just had an exchange about on the delivery system side and similarly the weapons production side way to retain the work force and infrastructure to support them them and that is the intellectual workforce, the people doing the work very people we need to invest in

to ensure we haven't responsive infrastructure for decades to come. now we have a we need but have put forward an historic budget to ensure we are making the investments we need going forward because we did suffer from a a cutback in the kind of investment that we anticipated and advancing an agreement. >> i certainly do not want to diminish the importance of the budget request the administration sent out this year because it has turned things around. it's as responsive as we need to be today. too much evidence that only of the people choosing other lines of work in a variety of problems but others of

which we have not. >> we need to signal that this matters. doing doing that by virtue of holding this hearing. i look forward to working with you to ensure we continue to send that signal >> that is an important. because whether we are talking about the intellectual bandwidth for nuclear deterrence attracting the best scientists to work in nuclear weapons lab and plants, people need to know this is the most important element of nation's security which will continue to be. so if there is one point we hopefully agree on is that we need to continue to attract the best and brightest.

facilities that can meet the unexpected. these machines age. thank you for being here. i appreciate your testimony and look forward to working with you all. with that, the hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] clicks c-span2 brings you the best access to congress, live congress, live debate and votes from the senate floor, hearings and current public policy events and every weekend book tv with nonfiction books and authors live coverage of festivals from around the country and a behind the scenes look at the

publishing industry, the best access to congress a nonfiction books. >> the funeral is tomorrow one of nine people fatally shot last week during a bible study in charleston, south carolina. president obama will deliver the eulogy. our live coverage of 11:00 a.m. eastern on teetwelve. right now we hear from member of congress in south carolina on the shootings and the debate over removing the confederate flag from the statehouse. host: south carolina republican mick mull vein >> south carolina republican make mulvaney is here. let's begin with the statement you put out on what happened in charleston the debate over the confederate flag. you put yours out a few days after the governor of south carolina called for it. ? time to think about it.

>> i did. i was worried about that a knee jerk reaction would be perceived the wrong way. the risk the governor ran when she made her statement was that it would be admitting that that was a symbol of hate. i know for a fact that it's not true for many. it would be admitting what dylann roof what he saw in the flag was what everybody saw in the flag and that's not the case. i'm concerned about calling for it to come down and not putting it in context. i think i put my statement out not the next day. i had a chance to talk to some folks who lived back there including african-americans. and so that's what really drove. i want to take more time. i think that really happy with the statements though and happy to talk about it. host: and the decision you came to it. how did you come to it and what was your thinking?

>> i thought okay, that's fine. i wasn't in politics in 2000 when we came up with the last compromise. the flag used to fly over the dome and then we moved it to the monument and did it as part of a larger compromise, something that's not all that comment and that also stab hrerbedestablished by an african-american monument. it was one of those things that brought people together. when we start talking about what we're going to do now, whatever we do, we have to do it in the same fashion. it has to be part of a larger compromise where everybody can rally to so everybody can look at the end result in pride and not look like winners and losers. we need to do it and i agree with it and i think the sentiment is there broadly but i think we need to do it as part of a larger compromise and everybody can say, i was proud

to be part of that. we respect heritage but respect the people who see it differently. host: you believe the flag should come down from where it is now but what compromise then should be given? >> i don't know. and that's why i'm glad the legislature is looking at time to take a peek at it. if you take it down today and simply stop there, there is going to be a lot of people who feel like their view of the flag is no longer valid and that's not anymore right thinking. that i don't know what the legislature will do. they're coming up with 3 or 4 different ideas and mulling about as they take this debate. host: what are these ideas? >> i'd rather not share them because those are the things that go on behind closed doors and that's how compromise gets done. a lot of folks in the state legislature know how to do this.

we got more important things in that building i don't have time to get into the nuts and bolts of what's happening with the flag. the folks who run the state i'm very comfortable they'll come up with something we're all proud of. host: he serving his third term in the u.s. house and he did serve in the state house in 2006 and moved on to the state senate in 2008. let's automatic a little bit about your decision making or how you ultimately landed on the side of why it needs to come down. >> sure. i had an african-american gentleman say to me, we never talked about this before and we talked about a bunch of other things. it wasn't an issue until this week. again, it was an issue in 2000. even when governor hayley ran a couple years ago she didn't think it was an issue anymore. it's not unusual with the number

of town meetings we get a bunch of folks in it never comes up. it's not a federal issue. and this guy said, look, we never had a chance it talk about this, but now that it's relevant again here's what i want to you understand. here's where the african-american community is coming from. here's why we struggle with it. and i developed a relationship with not only him but other folks in that community where i felt like we could have a conversation about tough issues because i don't see the flag the same way they do but their life experiences are different than mine are. it was that sincerity and that hrepl of trust we could have a conversation like that that got me to thinking, you know what maybe i was wrong in this and maybe i should have looked at it from other people's perspectives. wasn't really called upon to do that but now that someone teams takes the time to help me open my eyes i thought, maybe they're

right. maybe there are things we do as a family. you come over at thanksgiving dinner and i like turkey because it reminds me of the good things as a kid and maybe you didn't like the turkey, so maybe we don't have turkey and we have ham. it's a shame and i blame myself and shame it took the death of my desk mate to have this conversation. it's -- it was a rough week to be an in south carolina but the reaction since those families went into the hearing has been nothing but positive. that has set the tone. when they went into the bond hearing and openly forgave the murderer or accused murderer, that is a watershed moment for my state. and everything that's happened in my state since then i've been

extraordinarily proud of. one thing i'm sort of disappointed in is that we spent more time talking about the flag he oh there's plenty time talking about it and not enough about the lives of the people that were lost and the reaction of families. that's something that is world changing. you don't see that. you shoot my children, i probably not going to walk into a bond hearing three days later and say i love you and forgive you. i don't know how they did that. and all i can say is that my friend was the pastor of that church and that is his legacy because he pastored to those people. that's what he's been teaching them since he was at that church and that's hishe has empowered people in their faith to be able to walk into a bond hearing and say that. host: and he was your desk made. guest: he was. there were some republicans are had to sit on the democrat side, and i was a junior guy, so i sat

in the back. we had a blast. here i am, a right-wing conservative nut here with three black democrats. we had a great time. i remember him sitting in the back. he is a giant man with a deep booming voice. when he spoke, he had that voice that commanded attention. i remember we were fighting about stuff on the floor and he was working on a sermon on his laptop. i will remember him fondly. host: what was he like? for those people who are wondering, there has been a lot of people who are moved by what they have heard him say in the past and president obama had a connection with him. guest: i will take the opportunity to thank the president for coming down. i think it's me to great deal. yes, i think the senator was heavily involved in president obama's primary victory in north carolina -- south carolina when

he came through. the -- again, he was one of those guys that didn't talk much. i cannot impress upon you the gentleman's voice. he had this tremendous, their torn voice that instantly commanded attention, but he was a very gentle spirit. so again, if you want to know about him, go and watch the video of the families who went to the bond hearing. that is his legacy. and that is the best i can tell you about him. host: the phone lines have let up. donna in georgia, a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, i just wanted to ask him why is it you need a compromise to take the flight down? whites with the ones that were enslaved. guest: banks for the question. as soon as you say the sentence, the flag means different things to different people, i think we both have to admit that it may

be another of us is 100% right. it may mean one thing to you and another thing to me. but i see nothing wrong with compromise and trying to fashion a resolution that satisfies how you may see the flag and satisfies how i may see the flag paid there are some folks -- flag. there are some folks in my district -- sherman's army burned the town that i represent. but for the jail, the courthouse , and the house he was living in. and there are still families who are there for whom this is not history, it is heritage. i think if you are maybe from georgia, i don't know if you are redoing -- are originally from there or not, but it is about that. it is coming up with -- i think coming up with in over eyes here

are the flag discredits their views. so i don't think it is a question of punishing and saying, ok folks who think the flag is heritage, you have had the way for 50 years, so now it is your turn to suffer while they have their view. that is not a reasonable outcome. i don't think it is the one south carolina is going to fashion. i think we will try to come up with a way to say, if you think the flag stands for division and harm and difficulties, that is fine. we will figure out a way to -- to arrive at something you can become to bowl with. if you think it represents are great great grandfather, we will figure out a way to satisfy you as well. clearly, the compromise refashion in 2000 is not going to do that moving ford. host: we will go to michigan next. don -- don, a republican. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. about the flag, i don't care one way or another. people feel different about it, but the question i have for the representative is this -- why isn't senator byrd's name removed from the bridges and highways in west virginia? i would think that would make a lot of people angry. guest: yeah, you know, that is one of the criticisms i have heard this week. the reaction. let's take down the flag -- where does it stop? of a going to take john calhoun's statue out of the building across the street? are we going to tear down the jefferson memorial? where does it stop? i think that is a valid question. but i do think there is a difference between the statues the memorial, and the flag, which is that the memorial wasn't put up during the anti- desegregation movement.

and i think that folks who look at the flag and say, it went up in the 1960's as a statement against desegregation, i think that is a valid point. to say that we have to get rid of the jefferson memorial is absurd. simply somebody -- revision of history is a very dangerous thing. so i do hope we keep our focus on what the issues are at hand and not let this become critical -- political correctness run amok. host: and is that what the person you are close to shared with you? guest: we didn't talk specifically. host: know, about the confederate flag. the point that he made that really -- guest: if you grew up in the south in the 1960's and you are black, that is what that flag stands for. and -- and i am now willing to admit that that is a valid -- not that i didn't before, i just never considered it before -- that is a valid view.

that flight may mean something very different to you then the family who lost their great-great-grandfather in the civil war. the same symbol, two different things. let's find something we can agree on as opposed to something that divides us. host: what about the argument that those soldiers were fighting for slavery? guest: that is a popular question. you go back and you look historically, the large majority , the 90 percentile, were not slaveowners. they were young men on farms who had to go and defend their state. i think it is hard for us to understand the type of relationship between men and women and families and their land and their state. robert e. lee considered himself to be a virginian first. but i don't think you can go back and make broad statements about what soldiers were fighting for 150 years ago because it is very difficult for

us to see the world to their eyes. host: joe is next, and independent. caller: thank you. it is good to hear an intelligent conversation on the subject. thank you, sir. you know, you keep traveling this point. i may go to the library and told i will not be able to take out the book "gone with the wind," because somebody somewhere may be offended. the other thing -- years and years ago, i heard that the civil war was fought over the price of cotton. that the people in the north wanted to set the price for cotton and the southerners didn't want to have that. and they seceded from the union. and my body and that? guest: you are not entirely wrong. i think it is wrong -- there are folks who say the civil war was not about slavery. that is not correct. there are folks who say the civil war is entirely about slavery. i don't think that is correct

either. there was a relationship between the state at the time that dealt with also to legal issues, including taxes. we were being forced in the south at that time, i think, to buy our merchandise from the north, as opposed to europe where it would have been cheaper. there are 15 things going on in washington dc today, but my guess is when they look back on this particular point in time only two or three of them may rise to the level of being recognized by history. most of the things will be forgotten. i try not to focus on what the civil war was about because i'm not an expert. it is probably reasonable to say that it was a bunch of different things. the original point, are we going to take the books out of the library? that is a fighting thing. the reason that i was slow -- and i'm still measured, i think as you can get the impression today, measured in my response is that i don't want to usher in an era of political correctness

gone out of control. and i don't want to come to the point where we are afraid to talk about slavery or afraid to talk about "gone with the wind." it is a part of our history. part of our history is really great, part of our history is not. but it is a part of what makes us who we are. so let's not not talk about things because they make people -- it makes people uncomfortable. let's admit to we are and make the best of it and move forward together. but, yeah, if we get to the point about taking books out of libraries, i'm going to be -- i will have to work against that. host: rocky in texas, a republican. caller: thank you. i tend to be a little bit more independent. i spent 20 years down in charleston in the military. from about 1975 to 1995. i was raised in arizona. i was -- went to high school

that was 70% hispanic. i have always been very open towards other races. i love other races. and when i got down to charleston for the first time in 1975, south of the border, i continued that and try to be friends -- befriend several african-american folks down there and try talking to them. it took me a while to realize that there was deep-rooted entrenched -- i won't say hatred, but i will say distrust of white people down there. and the same with the other way around. one thing that i have noticed about the so conversation is -- about this whole conversation is we are always going to have people that tend to jump in the media that hate america. and in order for us to pull together, this flag has nothing to do with that. i agree with you completely.

there are people down there that hold it dear because of exactly what you have said. the burning of the south. and there are people that did test it, but i never -- detest it, but i have never encountered anything like i have as far as looking at me like i was a different color. i really am confused as to why people aren't pulling together on this issue. the flag is not the important thing. it is pulling together for america. guest: thank you. it gives us a chance to talk about charleston. i have not seen what you have seen. in fact, i don't believe it to be what you have seen. i am so you had a particular experience and i will point to what has actually happened since then. i can tell you that last wednesday night, we're all here and we heard the news of what happened in charleston. i think i was out with tim scott earlier that day. it's never occurred to us,

greta, that there would be civil unrest. it just didn't even register. a lot of people in the nation were thinking, oh, my goodness, here is another ferguson missouri. that never even occurred to us because i don't to what you call the deep-seated level of mistrust between races. but i see a community that is actually very close, regardless of the race. certainly there are going to be difficulties. i am not saying to houston is the perfect place in the entire world, but i never got the impression that we were at risk because this is a fairly tightknit community. and certainly what has happened since then has borne that out. to see the families come out, as we talked about earlier. that didn't happen in missouri, and baltimore. people forget, there was a shooting in trusted a couple months ago -- in charleston a couple months ago where a white policeman shot a black man in the back and there was no civil unrest.

the -- things work in south carolina. i don't see that deep-seated level of mistrust that you mentioned. i am sorry again that you had that experience and my state, but i think the proof is in the pudding. and what you have seen in the last week, the real south carolina, and not what you have been a c several years ago. -- happen to see several years ago. host: -- are likely to touch them with a federal hate crime. is that the appropriate action? guest: we discussed hate crimes may briefly and i don't know how it changes things other than a guess the federal and government fault rather than the state. the guy killed nine people. it is murder. i'm not sure how you can get more bad than murder. all it has done is let the federal government come in and take over the investigation, or at least be involved in the investigation. i don't know how he will be charged, but i think it is splitting hairs at this point.

the guy killed people and should be paid -- host: it could be a severe penalty, though. guest: there is not many more severe penalties than that. host: is that what he should get? guest: my guess is that is what he will be charged with. host: and misery, a democrat. caller: yes, good morning. i want to speak about this heritage that he referred to. the heritage is a treason act. the civil war was entirely about slavery. and that racist flag that we are talking about today, it rose because of the 1960's civil rights. let me say this. south carolina is one of the most racist states in america. this -- this act that he has done, this guy is sitting in the u.s. house of representatives

comparing what is happening to turkey versus -- [indiscernible] this is utterly full us. c-span is supposed to thing about coaching and teaching. before you really get into this flag again, i will hope that you will go and get the history, the real history behind the flag and the civil war because you are going to have another person from the house of representatives from the southern states and come on and spew this right-wing -- host: randy, we have to let the congressman get a response. guest: a couple different things. i will go straight to the last south carolina is one of the most racist states. we have a confederate flag on the statehouse grounds in columbia, south carolina. and some people think that makes us a very racist state. there is no confederate flag at the state capital and missouri they had race riots.

are those states more or less racially charged then south carolina? i would have to respectfully disagree with you, randy. we have some issues we have to work through, there is no question. but i encourage people to look at the reaction of both of the races since these murders last week. and that is what south carolina is. not your impressions, not someone standing outside looking in. we lived there. at blacks and whites marched together earlier this week. members of the african-american community were comfortable enough coming into the office of a right-wing conservative congressman and say, look, we want to talk to about the flag. i'm not sure that happened in ferguson, missouri, in baltimore. i hear what you are saying and clearly you have some very strong opinions, but all i can tell you is look to the proof. to look how south carolina has actually conducted itself. host: pamela in maryland an

independent. caller: yes, i want to say that hear this person speaking just really saddens my heart. the deaths of these nine innocent people -- that flag is atrocious. it should come down. just like the caller before me, it is a symbol of bigotry and racism. rebellion, suppression, and hate. that is not to be compromised. it needs to come down. it is just like the symbol of the swastika. to be on the capital ground, public ground, there is no place for that type of symbolism. host: to your point about there shouldn't be any compromise tweeting in this, the compromise you speak of that you talked about earlier, congressman, has been made. as disgusting as it may be, individuals can still fly the flag. guest: there are a couple

different compromises here. to pamela's point that it should come down, i am here telling you, i agree, i think it should come down. i think it should come down as a part of a larger agreement because there are people -- and i hope you can accept this, pamela -- that look at it differently than you do. i will agree, i do not have a monopoly on getting to say what the flag stands for. the flag is where it is because of a compromise. that was supported, i think, by every black member of the state legislature in 2000. again, that should be celebrated because that is not something that happens too often in politics. if we can sit down and folks of all different sorts of opinions and attitudes can come together and rally around what the teether -- one particular agreements. let's not forget it is where it is as a result of compromise that was supported by folks from across the political spectrum.

i am sorry, what was steve's comment? host: he was saying the economist has been made because people can still fly us. -- he was saying the compromise has been made because people can still fly it. guest: i am sorry, i don't see the relevance of that. yes, people can fly it. but it doesn't speak to -- yes, you can fly anything in your house if you want to. i think what we put in the public grounds does say something about us. i'm psyched, i don't have a response to steve. it is not a compromise. that's -- that's -- i am not even sure what that is to say ok, you can go do what you want in your own house. i am not sure how that is a compromise. host: vincent and charleston, s.c.. an independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just finished reading this book called "the slaves war."

and some of the things that i read in their kind of -- there kind of, you know, were really shocking. you have slave women mothers shall i say, that gave birth and then the master would come and steal their baby right off their breast. then also, you know, there was this -- this father married his daughter because he didn't even know it was his daughter and the found out and, you know, they did what they could to stay to get out and everything. but this is one of the reasons why i don't like the flag. you know? it was a tragedy in american history. you know, i am just against the flag and it is not just for those reasons. i was against it before, that i'm even more against it now. host: congressman?

guest: and those are very valid reasons to have those opinions. and that is what i have sort of -- i have had my eyes open to in the last couple days. again, i plead guilty. i am embarrassed that we haven't thought about this stuff. but i should have been bigger than that to start considering that before i lost my friend. host: what has this been like for you the past week? the evolution you have made in your thinking and emotions. guest: you know, obviously, if you ask anybody who has sort of not -- we want close friends, i have friends in the senate to have been to my house, and we were not that close. but we have all, i think, have experiences -- have had experiences from the outside but we are not completely on the

outside. and you go through the motions of not realizing why it happened. i am looking for to the funeral tomorrow. partly the objection i have had, greta, is that we are doing it now. this entire conversation today has been about a flag and not about the senator and what he accomplished in his life. the other eight people, many of whom are the best charleston has had to offer. those are good things, who those people were, what they accomplished. those are good things. and to the extent that once the tragedy is behind us, that will be the enduring sentiment here. that is what will be -- last the on -- lasts beyond the initial shock to whatever happens probably not the right word, but whatever happens, that will fade and what will remain is what

those people accomplished in their lives, who they were, and especially how their families reacted. i draw tremendous strength from that as a south carolinian. i welcome anybody around the world to come and look at how charleston has reacted since last wednesday. and what put charleston on the world stage and say, ok, you show me anywhere around the world how you would handle it better than we did. i'm stunned. i am almost at a complete loss for words. host: congressman vic maloney -- mick mulvaney to be

depending on them for rockets.

deputy veterans' affairs committee secretary sloan gibson said the va is having problems and wants to tap into the outside fund to help people get appointments. here is the two hour hearing chaired by jeff miller of florida. >> if i could get everybody to go ahead and take their seats. i want to begin the hearing. we are going to allow a little flexibility for arrival time for members because people are coming back from votes and i certainly appreciate everybody getting back as quickly as we can. it looks like we may have another vote around 12:00 or

shortly there after. ms. brown is on her way. but we will go ahead and start the process. the committee will come to order and i want to thank everybody coming together to talk about the state of the 2015 va budget. i called this two weeks ago following concerning and inconsistent reports from veterans and veterans' employees around the country about the current state of va funding. i don't believe anybody was aware then of the troubling extent of va's current budget crisis except those maybe in the central office. and unfortunately, i suspect that had i not called this hearing, we would still not be aware today of the $2.6 billion

funding fort shawl at the veterans health administration is estimating as a result of increase in non-va care and rising cost of hepatitis c that wasn't planned for properly. given the pent up care exposed during last year's hearing on wait time manipulation the va had ample time adjust their needs to prevent what we're seeing today. february-april, secretary mcdonald appeared at four separate bunnell budget hearings. we have spoken on a number of issues. at no point in these discussions or hearings has a secretary

suggested to me a shortfall of magnitude of $2.6 billion. one that threatens va's ability to meet obligations. nor did other va leaders communicate how much in the red va was even though the committee was informed late last week the department new as early as march there were giant disparities between the amount of money va was spending and the amount of money that was budgeted. the only comments we received in march was the quarterly appropriate submitted for the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2015 which showed va was underplanned in terms of the spinout rate.

va proposed a plan that congress authorized to transfer $150 million in fiscal year 2015 funding to support the replacement center in aurora colorado. and va proposed just under one percent of 2015 fiscal funds to devote to the colorado project. a proposal that will veterans health administration chief financial officer told the department she didn't know about it until after it was transmitted to congress. i think the actions show va leaders feel moving forward with the project is not scheduled to open until 2017 is a higher

priority than insuring veterans who need care now are able to access the care. i have come to expect a startling lack of transparency and accountability from va over the last years. but failing to inform congress of a multibillion funding deficit until this late in the fiscal year while continuing to advance what i believe are lower priority needs that further deplete the department's coughers in support of a construction project that benefits no veteran for two more years is disturbing on an entirely different level. earlier this week va issued a fact sheet that claims va requested limited budget flexibility in february. and in march, and in may of this year and that they plainly

articulated va's need for additional resources. buried on page 167 of the second volume of va's budget submission is a statement i read: in the coming months the administration will submit legislation to reallocate choice funding to support essential investments in va's system priorities closed quote. secretary mcdonald repeated this testimony without providing any additional supporting details or justification and to date there has been no legislative proposal that has been submitted by the legislation to the congress. in may of 2012 a letter was sent to the chairman and ranking member of the house regarding the denver project and va stated

the department quote reflex flexibility to make the choice program work better through limited authority to use funds from section 802 of the choice act to fund care in the community to the extent it exceeds our fy 2015 budget end quote. again, no further information or supporting materials have been provided. if those two statements are absent of any other supporting evidence or details are what va calls formally requesting budget flexibility and plainly speaking of the department's needs, i understand why va has in fact found themselves suffering nothing but string after string of failures since last year. what is more is it proves once more again va's current problems reflect a management issue far more than a money issue. this committee cannot help va

solve their problems if they refuse to be honest upfront, and transparent with us about the position they are in. the struggles they are facing and the help it needs. congress has consistently provided va with the funding the department has requested. as a result va funding has risen 73% since 2009 while the number of veterans getting care has grown by only about 2%. this comes from va's only testimony. i know i speak for every member of the committee when i say we are committed to insuring va has the funding it needs to deliver the world-class health care our veterans deserve. but va has to do its part to con front and correct its poor budget planning and poor management issues and hold poor

performing executives accountable and employees accountability and most importantly to prioritize our veterans' needs over the wants of a burrocracy. and this shortfall, if it shows us anything s what our veterans want and need is to have a say in and where they get their health care. assuming the va numbers are true non-va care now make up 20% of all apointpointments. i will work with my colleagues on the appropriation committee to give the va the flexibility they are seeking to use a limited amount of funds for non-choice care and insure no veteran suffers from the mismanagement of the budget the

american taxpayers provided. however, going forward, there has to be a dedicated appropriation account to fund non-va care under a streamline authority with a dedicated team within the budget rather than the seven desperate ill-executed programs outlined in the testimony. this morning i look forward to discuss discussing the proposal with my friend sloan gibson and the committee members who share the same desires for outcomes. i will yield to ms. brown for her opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. today's hearing is on the state of va's fiscal year 2015 budget.

i can tell you all that the state of va's budget is not strong. the va is facing a shortfall of $2.6 billion for veterans' health care. this shortfall must be addressed immediately. we cannot put the health and lives of our veterans at risk by spending our time and attention pointing fingers and assigning blame. va will face an additional shortfall at the start of the next fiscal year in october. a shortfall that will be made worse by the cost-saving steps va taking right now. we must address this upcoming shortfall. i know this committee, as we have done so many times in the past, will work together to

solve this crises and fix this mess. we all recognize sometimes it takes money to fix a problem and not just slapping tape on it and calling it a day. so in the words of deputy secretary gibson we will get our checkbooks out but i am concerned that there may be nothing left in the account aslo as we continue to prevent that we can fund essential requirement of government without arbitrary budget caps. we seem to be hearing, i am sorry let me be clear we are heading toward a government shutdown. let niasia ellisme say that again. i am concerned the affect the shutdown will have on veterans seeking health care. ten years agree we addressed

another va shortfall and that was due to lack of sufficient planning and years of not providing the va the resources that it needed. today's shortfall seems to be caused by the like of proper planning regarding the demand of veterans for va health care. i am also concerned that it is leading to inaccurate resource requests. we need to fix these problems. my bill the department of veterans' affairs committee reform act passed the house in march 420-0. it is a much-needed reform in ow the va plans and budgets for the future. it is time our colleagues in the senate pass the bill and send it to the president. if the va is going to be there

for our veterans than we are going to have the fix the problem. this calls for more than us just opening our checkbook and writing blank checks to the va. it requires thoughtful and major reform so we can insure in the years ahead that the va is worthy of our veterans. but today, right now, we have veterans that need health care and check we need to write to pay for them and we needed to make sure these checks are not returned because we don't have a sufficient funds in the account. then, and only then can we start the reform efforts so that the va is the model of how we care for those who sacrificed for us and honored us with their service. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time mr. chairman.

>> i think the ranking member for her comments and associate myself with the vast majority especially where we call on the senate to please move and pass ms. brown's budgeting bill. i think we agree it is the appropriate thing and i hope ms. brown calls on me to pass the mail con appropriation bill over there that is critical for funding for the veterans so they can get the health care they earned. we have sloan gibson on the panel today and joining him is dr. james tuchschmidt, the interim deputy for health, and rick murray interim chief officer, and gregory giddens the principle director of office of acquisitions, logistics and construction. thank you for being here. mr. gibson you are recognized

for your open statement. >> one year ago today 290,000 veterans were waiting more than 30 days for care. that represented the veterans' needs we were unable to meet timely. improving access to care has been among the top priorities and we made progress. we completed seven million more appointments than in the previous year and doubled the capacity required to meet those veterans needs. average wait time for completed points is five days for regular care, three are for special and three for mental health. authorization for care in the community are up 44%. 97% of appointments are completed within 30 days of the

clinically indicated date or the date the veteran requests. we know it is far too long to wait. 93% completed with 14 days 88% completed within 7 days, and 22% of appointments completed on the same day. after hours and weekend appointments are up 12% and expanded virtual care, e-consults up 36%, the near list -- new enrollee appointment request -- is down. to achieve this va has been executing a strategy building staffic, space, productivity and va community care. highlights. we have grown staffing by 12,000 including 1,000 physicians and

2700 nurses. we added 1.3 million square feet and another 400,000 square feet in va properties. the health care budget is up less than 3%. and 1.5 million veterans have been authorized for care in the community, a 36% increase year over year. clearly we are improving access and providing more care to veterans. what is the challenge? as we improve access even more veterans are coming to va for their care. as a result appointments pending over 30 days are now up 50% from where they were a year ago. consider phoenix. after adding 337 staff

completing 100,000 more appointments and a 91% increase in care and the community wait times are up. why? in the same period of time the of veterans in phoenix receiving primary care is up 11%. specialty care up 17% and mental health care up 16%. we saw it in las vegas as well where we opened a new facility and the number of veterans receiving care jumped 18%. now as we think about what is going on let's not lose sight of the broader context. we are dealing with an aging veterans population and over half of the veterans receiving care at va are over 65. more veterans are filing claims for more issues the average degree of disability is 50%. among veterans receiving disability it is 50% meaning more veterans are eligible for

health care at va. we know that many veterans prefer va health care. vfw march survia of veterans reported 47% of veterans who were offered choice elected to wait to get care inside the va. 78% said they were satisfied with their va care experience and 82% would recommend va care for a fellow veterans. most veterans have a choice. 81% have medicaid medicare, tricare, or some form of private insurance. many come to va because of the out of pocket cost between their insurance and va care. the average reimbursement for a knee replacement is $25,000 with a co-pay of 20%. va saves the patient $5,000.

more veterans are coming to the va because they want to come or have a financial incentive to come. as we look inside va what you are seeing is evidence of a change in the way we operate. you have heard niasia ellisme say this before. would we have managed this transition more effectively? i think we could and should have. but we are returning the largest health care organization in the country on a 20-year-old financial management system. we had a hard time factoring into our analysis, market penetration, changing veteran reliance and improving access and the impact that has on veterans' choices. we didn't appreciate the challenge associated with

changing internal process quickly enough to accommodate to the shift of choice. we build provider networks and the existence many providers have to join the networks. many veterans still don't understand how choice works. the limitations particularly around geographic burden that congress amended and made it possible to earn choice and created demand for va's traditional community care programs. and lastly veterans are demonstrating their decision time line for care far out paces the federal budget cycle timeline. likewise, medical breakthroughs don't follow the time line. hepatitis c is another one that was hard to forecast.

the first of the new generations of drugs to cure hepatitis c was approved by the fda a year after beginning the budgeting process. and less than a year before the fiscal year actually began. after adding these drugs to our formula in april of 2014 we realized we would not have enough to pay for them in '15 and alerted congress of the shortfall. the fda has approved two new hepatitis drugs, greater rate of cure, but expensive. to cure veterans of this disease we moved $296 million from va community care. but it wasn't enough. veterans desire for this treatment has been extroidinarilyextroidbeentroid exdetroited -- extroidinarily

clear. we asked for limited funding and secretary mcdonald raised the issue when he asked to use choice funding to meet the needs of the veterans. the choice program is making a positive change in the lives of veterans. we want to use choice rather than any other community care option. i would point out in february approximately 5% of choice eligible care was being authorized through choice. by the time you get to the first week in may it was 10%. i now receive daily updates as of the 19th of june we were up to 33% of the authorizations that were choice eligible and i expect that number to continue to climb. but we still need flexibility and the use of choice funds for the balance of '15 and '16.

we expect to needs congress' help to consolidate channels including fewer program by program restrictions on those channels. existing funding can help meet the needs that were more urgent than when we made the request. our investments have paid off by providing more care to veterans to keep progressing and creating better access to care. we need the flexibility to use $2.5 billion of funds appropriated for care. we an advertise pail we will rely on choice heavily in fiscal 2016 to meet the growing needs. for our part our strategy will remain the same. leverage staffing space, productivity and care. we will dwi taxpayer resources

and continue to work to make choice a success. but to succeed we need the flexibility and the funds to meet the veterans' needs as they arise. we look forward to working with this committee and look forward to your questions. >> can you tell us when you first became aware of the major shortfall of what is becoming a multibillion shortfall? at what point was that evident to you or the secretary? >> i actually brought with me in my folder a memo i received dateddate 1416th 16 -- 16th of march showing we were still under

obligated obligated. from that time forward, a process launched that covered several months during which millions of individual transactions in the fee-base care system were audited and reconciled in order to be able to determine the magnitude of the shortfall. it is only within the last three or four weeks we began to get clarity around the magnitude of disconnect. three issues. one doing with the push to accelerate care one is an antique system that doesn't have the fee-base care system and others and the third change that affected us is the requirement in the choice act that we pull all of the budgeted funds in the community out of the centers and consolidate it in the chief business office.

these three factors created the disconnect and lack of clarity of what was going on in the fee-base area. >> i was looking at a document that i guess incapsulates the 1st quarter that was provided in march of this year and it is showing everything is on track at that point. >> we were showing everything was under obligated through february. and the questions that i kept asking were how can we be under obligated with the care. that is what launched the review and reconcilement of the millions of transactions sitting out in the fee base care system to determine actually what had been obligated. you can see why the questions that are going to come from this committee today are absolutely right. >> absolutely right.

unex unex unex unexcu unexcusible. we have to find workarounds. we did what congress asked us to do. pulled all of the budget money in. what happened was here in the community, the funds got managed in the medical center. care in the community decisions were being made in the medical center but all of the budget doctors were sitting centrally. you had a fundamental disconnect between those two elements. we should build a workaround. should we have built a workaround? yes, we should have. we see that clearly with the benefit of hindsight. >> have you requested specific

legislation or changes at this point? as i stated in my opening statement, we got very limited questions and statements saying we would like to get more we would like to reform the choice program, but i haven't seen any request from va yet. >> we will -- we have done briefings with >> >> we will deliver very promptly a written request looking for the utilization of choice funds to pay for care in the community for veterans. >> because if we go down this path it is not a path i want to go down but it may be the only solution to a problem that has ben the coming for a considerable amount of time and reforms have got to be made and they

have to be specific and we want to work with you through the process. >> thank you. we appreciate that. >> guy will ask a question. explain the difference between the fee based system or the choice. >> the base is so used to track individual authorizations for care were ultimately reconciled to when an invoice to ensure that we receive the clinical information from the information veterans care and less i am mistaken i think it also captures choice. >> we need to be clear what is debased. can i go to a doctor in the community? >>, there is an authorization process veterans would pursue through the medical center

calling to ask to schedule an appointment and they are referred to the third party of minister or alternatively 40 miles from the facility they would call them directly to get that appointment. >> and choice? >> that is joyce. there are six or seven in the bretton -- written testimony that i completely and totally agree we have to reconcile the programs that we utilize for choice in the community it confuses veterans and our staff and it is confusing to providers different mechanisms and requirements for authorization it is thoroughly confusing. >> dire understand that it

is part of the veterans getting fed care in the community? >> we're estimating rainout fiscal year 14 we will see in the neighborhood between 21 and 23 million appointments for care in the community that is up from 16.5 million and as i mentioned there are a record number of veterans to receiving authorizations for care. 1.5 million at 36% increase. >> is any of that in the millhouse area? >> is of mental health historically is a relatively smaller percentage of care referred into the committee because oftentimes veterans experience issues that the va providers are better positioned in were knowledgeable to respond to.

there is mental health care out there but the vast majority is delivered in side the day -- v.a. >> i hope we will have a second round. >> one question real quick. we have examined improper procurement with pay providers in a timely fashion with gross mismanagement of construction projects we will deal to the gentleman from colorado and a second but this committee has heard many instances of smaller waste fraud abuse from what appears to become the culture within the system i know you are trying but my stay in particular how can

be i just -- v.a. justify to pay thousands of dollars in fines and penalties each month in a facility that they knew a long time ago they would have to relocate from that facility? how does that happen? >> it happens when we fail to forecast far enough in the finance then needed to relocate and what happens is we wait to too long than rework to read to the process there were areas with site selection and we end up in this situation they were describing i don't know how many hundreds of

waste transactions are in the pipeline right now is a major part of the business week have got to better manage it as well as streamline the process as well as develop the more standardization to work through the process and then decide more expeditiously. >> that is my part of the state and we had a briefing on that where we were in orlando. and it is more complicated with this city and the county and this is something we need to address of the city wants to give us property to relocate, we cannot just take it we need to redress that. >> but the chairman's poetry is accurate and

st. augustine is just one example. this happens all too often we have a knothole made players in advance to run through the process to get to the point where we are ready to replace the facility. >> that happened in tallahassee also and we need to redress this summit that is the guy right there that is responsible for fixing that severity was pointing to you. [laughter] i pull a data em quite often said augustine is very important to try to change the culture that has been allowed to go one for so long. >> thank you for your leadership. secretary gibson hoot i am

glad to see that completed in the construction aha project without delay and deeply disappointed by the time and money it will take things to recent legislation we are now to the end of the fiscal year but much more remains to be funded is a critical facility that the veterans have earned and i remain committed to ensure that we bring this project to completion however as we sit here to talk about the budget shortfall were is the accountability weather forecasting the budget or the construction projects where is the accountability? we gave you legislation and we don't see that being used. where is the accountability

mr. gibson? >> if you look back at the entire chain of command down into a project engineer there is anyone person that was substantively involved in the project to still remains that v.a. i think that is the project executive. now there is one in the process of wrapping up and we have talked about early evidence gathered that was used to prepare charges against a senior executive who then retired in the face of that impending action and a similar process happened with a senior attorney involved in denver and i expect it to wrap up quickly and we will consider that evidence for any additional individuals that are still

on the payroll are in the department. >> you also ask for additional flexibility to allocate your funds that have not provided the supporting data for that also that there is nt impression ahead of the hepatitis c treatment or any other veteran care can you clarify? >> certainly there is not an eight intended to trade off hepc care for denver read have gone through whole series of proposals starting with the best proposal for veterans and taxpayers to utilize construction plans that were provided as part of the $5 billion under choice there were other alternatives considered to

reprogram dollars for major construction projects that aren't due to start over a three-year for years that have gotten nowhere but looking alternatives with the proposed fines in 2016 got nowhere so we finally got the tactic of the across-the-board cut with the intention v.a. would have time to manage those reductions on a micro level to ensure we're not adversely impacting veterans' care. >> i am sure the committee will agree we can't do anything in any way that compromises veterans health care. i yield back.

>> thank you for your acknowledgment that savings could be better planned out when you talk about this financial system what are you referring to with the software? garett we have companies in the private sector of major technology system that we is to recount all activity i interviewed a candidate who was astounded to learn we were still using it because he helped to develop it when he was a software engineer. >> i know there is problems engaging non va providers they have obligations to manage accountability is

with electronic medical records so we definitely have to let desecrating that system but a large part of the shortfall comes from increased payments for contracts and you read non v.a. providers to have an estimate for how much of that care could have been provided through the choice program that was sent? have they would have qualified received care by another means because of the slow rollout? >> i will take that for follow-up and i will tell you it is not wedded to percent because we cannot use choice dollars for long-term care or for dentistry because you cannot

find those approved a dentist or for obstetrics because they're not that many obstetricians and our medicare providers but it is a substantial amount that could have been channeled. >> so a big joke of the money could have been used and new say they're all the reimbursement rate setter different. with the remainder of the folks to qualify what it is attributable at the v.a. that we're not fully staffed up could we have taking care of more people? >> the short answer is yes if we had all the facilities we needed but there are

instances that we have come to rely heavily on this date nursing homes says the billion and a half dollars so that is a substantial portion we have come to rely on without side providers. >> it is estimated more than 180,000 veterans are affected and they serve their country and should not be denied access to a cure and i commend the work that v.a. has done to treat the veterans with hepc a campy expensive and cost as much as $1,000 per pill commercially fortunately you have been able to negotiate

to a lower-cost instead it pays closer to $600 a pill is that correct? >> i would like to not have to answer that question. we work very closely with the manufacturers of those drugs and have been able to reach attractive arrangements for the continued purchase of those drugs and we continue to have those conversations. >> what i am curious about is if our veterans are choosing to go to retreat -- v.a. because they may get access more easily in and

they would have to pay to receive that care. >> thank you for the record this congress has provided hundreds of millions of dollars the past few years in one particular system called for fls and this money was squandered in rehab nothing to show for it to. the additional investments have to be made to be brought up to par. it was the financial system and i agree with what you are saying but there are hundreds of millions of dollars but the rollout i

have the feeling with electronic medical records and to photocopy there would have a hard time to ring gauge v.a. >> and an excellent point*. >> you mr. secretary for your testimony v.a. estimated $6 billion shortfall for the remainder of the year ended may effect the following year's budget how accurate? >> at this point been in the fiscal year we are slightly three months away it is a very accurate forecast. it does assume business as

usual. >> this was built to reconcile millions to look at past and the patterns in the month by month track record with authorization with a forecast built from the bottom up. >> considering v.a. ability to implement programs with cost overruns, how much of the shortfall with the mismanagement of funds as opposed to is the level of funding by congress?

than i agree with that. >> i don't think any of that is due to mismanagement should we do a better job to manage the buckets of money? what we basically have done is push rick celebrate access to care. with a 36% increase the number of veterans. >> none of that is due to mismanagement. >> is about providing more care to more veterans that is what this is about. >> how much as it spent in performance and bonuses from fiscal year 2015? >> can anyone answer that question?

>> at the end of the fiscal year but some are paid on a ongoing basis kiddies and obligated funds be reprogrammed to so with that budget shortfall duties specific authority to do that? >> we wed need authority from congress everyone looking every where we can look to identify the funds in the community.

>> mr. chairman to get a meeting with the veterans to talk about the choice program to our veterans there and i also had the meeting with the network director as well and she provided free with information from hearing from my veterans as well that with a private group called a oxnard family circle happen to be from that synergy there and we have been told because of lack of funds from the va -- v.a. from the of oxnard family circle will not receive any more funds.

and the v.a. said sari. we cannot accommodate maybe on a case by case basis we might be able to accommodate the field. that is the concern for me because i've already feel the implications of the dilemma i am presenting. and at the same time we have providers in the mental health providers utilizing it to the extent that they can be utilized and we are not pushing the veterans to the contracts. third with tri-west is committed to a administering the choice program they plan

to hire lots of folks to do a better job to provide the choice program. all of these issues that i raise rates now are fighting against each other. he would not want tri-west to hire a lot of people then tell them sari. fayette my veterans in ventura county are not receiving the services to feel this dilemma. i am not sure i have a question except to say thank you for your leadership if you were not asking those hard questions with the financial management system

you and the secretary both we still might not be aware of the problems i appreciate that. and they really need to follow the veteran to in terms of service for what is happening in my district as we speak. >> we are concerned as well. the fare not able to use choice with the flexibility but we will to overcome the mental health providers in

the other point is i mentioned earlier where up to 33 percent of all authorizations for care in the community that go to a choice than the tri-west territory is 41% and what they're making up on the ground day in and day out. >> to add on with the mental health provider with longstanding relationships with 87,000 providers around the country and we're doing everything in our power to reach out we have asked local leadership in encouraging them to be choice providers. that they have continued to see those people under the choice program.

>> to yield back. >> i had a similar situation in that they have no income so to keep in mind because these agencies need to work together. >> thank you for your testimony mr. gibson. to say there is no mismanagement but there is a billion dollar cost overrun and if that is not mismanagement than frankly i was hoping the new secretary could revamp the v.a.

because that business as usual has not been working very well over the last 30 years with the layers of bureaucracy there are so many layers compared to the private sector corporation to be much more streamlined and i was hoping to see a dramatic change in that organization but we could be more leader and meaner and to be used as it makes use why we have a cost overrun. i still have there level of hope something like that is in the offing with a complete revamping will that continue the way it is? i am not happy with the progress that we see today with the cost overrun and

all the things that you mention. >> to be very clear there was gross mismanagement in denver it had to do with a 2.5 billion dollar. >> but there's still that much money missing. >> no. it is not missing. it is money going to pay for veteran care in the community. >> that is what we're talking about with a cost overrun that money has been spent on all kinds of stuff but it all this appears it hasn't been updated and disappears with figures system and that is what i mean about having more control with what is happening with the many. >> we would love to brief you on my v.a. so long term