national infrastructure gravely vulnerable and at risk. i note that in your fy-13 budget, cyber security gets a nearly 75% increase in funding while the rest of the department overall stays flat. i want to commend that you are, in fact, prioritizing, delivering appropriate resources. first, if i could, we talk about partnerships, fusion centers. u.s. cert is an impressive cyber resource. i wondered how you see state and local resources in the law enforcement community, in the national guard as we've discussed before delaware and rhode island have network warfare squadrons in the national guard that i think can and should play a positive role here. what sorts of resource constraints do we have in terms of effectively responding in the law enforcement community, first responder community. my concern about a cyber threat is that it will emerge -- well, a, it's very broad and a very

serious threat today. but, second, a critical infrastructure threat will emerge very quickly and require very rapid response. >> i think a couple of things, senator. obviously, i share your concern. working with state and locals who are on the floor at the end kick, 24/7 watch center. but it's helping with training. it's providing lots of information. i think we provided 5,000 actual bulletins last year. cert responded to 106,000 incidents itself. and so training, information sharing -- and then across the country in certain locations, we have centers of excellence, which are helping us refine what we are doing, but also think ahead. what's the next thing that's going to happen in the cyber world? >> i also am familiar with the

c-fets program which has had some challenges i think it has been successful in promoting site safety at those sites that deal with dangerous chemicals. underperformed in cyber security and just wanted to encourage attention on that particular area that was brought up in previous questioning by senator grassley. given the evolving cyber tech risk to our nation's critical infrastructure and given the debated provisions in different bills, please, just, if you would, explain for us the particular strengths that dhs has regarding its capability and capacity to administer potential regulations and protect our infrastructure. are you confident that dhs has the capacity as opposed to nsa or dod required to this critical national threat? >> yes, and, in fact, as you noted, the budget increase has been requested.

we've had multiple additions in the cyber area over the last three years. we already are the department that deals primarily with the private sector and with critical infrastructure and those mechanisms with which to do that are already in place. and so on the civilian side, and on the dotcom side, as it were, dhs already has that systemic protection role. i think general alexander testified to that several times. dod has, of course, as to the the dotmil environment. so the resources are there. the experience is there, meaning at dhs. we do have lessons learned from cfats no doubt, but those lessons have been learned and those lessons give us greater confidence that we can administer this properly. >> last if i could, concerns

about privacy and bringing the public into this conversation. i think it was senator lee who previously asked about future attributes, screening technology and its development, something i'd be happy to get a briefing on about its trajectory. recognizing that a lot of what's going on in the dialogue between the administration and congress about the cyber threat, is occurring in secure briefings and that a lot of the information that at least i and i think many other senators have received, it makes it clear to us just how big a threat this is and how much loss there is of intellectual property and how much potential risk there is. most of that critical information is shared with us in a secure setting. my concern is that this committee previously legislated on intellectual property threat through the protect i.p. act and comparable committee and the house legislated, some argue overreached in the stop online piracy act.

and there was a very broad and unexpectedly strong national response to that by engaged and motivated citizens who were deeply concerned with some legitimacy that there was some real threat to their privacy and to the vibrancy of the internet. my real concern here is that if we're not sufficiently bringing the public along in striking an appropriate balance here between privacy, security and commerce, we may face a comparable unexpected, abrupt national backlash against these legislative efforts. and given how rarely we legislate on issues this critical, i am deeply concerned that we not, then, lose a moment that we not create a moment of real vulnerability when you've worked so hard to craft or structure the works. senator franken asked you previously about how the administration in its proposals, maybe, has done a stronger job

of recognizing, validating privacy concerns. any advice about how we can, while recognizing the limitations of information that must be held secure, more effectively engage the public in this dialogue under the balance between security and liberty? >> we have tried to do it by sharing information with the public through a variety of means. i think it's significant that when there have been briefings in a classified setting you had sitting there the head of the joint chiefs. the head of the nsa. the head of the fbi. the second in charge of the dni. the second in charge of the doj and myself. all saying the same thing. this is a big risk. it's honest. we need some way to protect the nation's core critical infrastructure. we need some way to have information sharing. we need to update and streamline some of the statutes that exist now. in terms of privacy, i think that was built into particularly the collins lieberman bill, the bipartisan bill in this chamber, providing for privacy for independent privacy oversight, limitations on how information

can be used and the like. i think we just need to continue to emphasize the differences between that and some of the other approaches. >> i just -- i agree with you, those secure briefings have been successful. they've been, no my case, hair-raising, at times alarming, but the unified and broad engagement by this administration in ensuring that the senate is briefed is commendable. i just am concerned that when i go and talk in my home state of delaware i don't hear the same level of broadly shared understanding of just how real, just how constant, just how present a threat this is to intellectual property to our critical infrastructure and the vibrancy of our nation. let me just last question or area, would be immigration. i was struck there was a recent pew report that came out i believe saying for the first time in 30 years there are more illegal immigrants returning to mexico from the united states than coming here. and i think that is in part due

to strengthening in the economy there, but it's also, i think, the unprecedented action of this administration to hire more border guards, deport foreign workers and bear down and engage in strong, smart and effective border security and enforcement. and i wondered if you had any comment on that. >> i do, and in fact i looked at the pew study yesterday and it does -- what it's talking about are long-term migration trends, and what it identifies is exactly what you said. that the trend now is more out-migration in mexico than in-migration, and it attributes at least part of that to the record amount of personnel and technology, infrastructure put on the border. in part because there was bipartisan agreement by the congress to appropriate an additional $600 million to let us do that job. our efforts now are sustaining that, and making sure we stay

ahead of any surge or movement in illegal traffic along that border and keep that border as safe and secure as we can. >> well, it's -- i think you've done commendable job and i think it's important the public understand, my side of the aisle, which is sometimes mischaracterized has not been sufficiently vigorous in our enforcement shares that this is a bipartisan effort. i hope you'll make real progress in the enhanced biographic exit program and there was real dialogue about that, but i do think i am cautiously optimistic we will find a new common ground on a host of immigration issues, whether the dream act on a co-sponsor along with senator durbin, h1b reform, stem immigration or uniting families. last a question or fema response. i think that retaining air lift capacity in local and state national guards was critical in the statement of vermont represented by the real chairman of this committee as well as my

state in the past, whether hurricanes or flooding or other issues. i wondered if you have any comment about how the proceed's funding might affect the ability of state national guards to play a role in disaster response? >> senator, let me get back to you on that, because, are you asking about how our requests with respect to reforming the grants overall would affect first responders? are you asking specific to the national guard? >> i think this is more a national guard capacity within the branch issue. so i may have asked a question that's not directly in your -- >> i think that's probably more appropriately addressed to the department of defense. but i will say our entire work with fema has been to, being a team with local and state responders as opposed to the feds being in charge, and i think that teamwork approach has been well received and has worked very effectively.

>> i would agree, and i hear all the time from our first responder community in delaware how grateful they've been for the shared training, equipment, the grants programs actually helped one of our local volunteer fire companies write their annual grant in a memorable all-nighter. i wanted to close by thanking you for your strong leadership in the department and for the department's sustaining and significant contribution in the security and liberty of the people of the united states. thank you very much for your testimony, madam secretary and we'll leave the record open for a week for members of the committee not able to join us but might want to submit additional questions for the record. >> thank you. >> this hearing is adjourned.

on c-span 2, book tv's weekend program.

tonight, a glimpse into the lives of former and current u.s. senators, starting at 8:30 p.m. eastern with former pennsylvania senator arlen specter, and his life among the cannibals. at 9:25, john shaw on the senator from indiana, richard g. luger. and at 10:00, former senator alan simpson with donald hardy, author of "shooting from the lip", a biography of the wyoming senator. book tv and prime time. all week on c-span 2. the slu has believed for some time that police departments around the country are tracking people's cell phone on a routine basis, often without getting a warrant based on probably cause. >> should tracking a cell phone require a warrant? tonight, american civil liberties union attorney kathryn crump on police use of technology for surveillance purposes and whether current law adequately protects an individual's right to privacy on

c-span 2. here we go. welcome aboard the water taxi, everybody. beautiful day in downtown oklahoma city. i'm captain rick. i live in yukon, oklahoma. >> next weekend, our local content vehicles explore the history of oklahoma city, including the works of galileo at oklahoma university. >> most important part of the book was on motion. when this book was published in 1632, the pope was rang angry at galileo. galileo's enemies joined together and the result was his trial. and this also is a copy that contains his own handwriting. so this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial. >> all next weekend, the local content vehicles in oklahoma city on c-span 2's book tv and on american history tv on c-span 3. four years ago, i was a

washington outsider. four years later, i'm at this dinner. four years ago, i looked like this. today i look like this. [ laughter ] and four years from now, i will look like this. [ laughter ] that's not even funny. >> mr. president, you remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? that was hilarious. [ laughter ] that was your best one yet. but honestly, it's a thrill for me to be here with the president, a man who has i think done his best to guide us through some very difficult times and paid a heavy price for

it. you know, there's a term for guys like president obama. probably not two terms, but -- [ laughter ] there is. >> miss any part of the white house correspondents' dinner? is you can watch any time online at the c-span video library. behind the scenes, the red carpet and all the entertainment at c-span.org/videolibrary. the senate veterans' affairs committee recently held a hearing on veterans access to mental health care. the hearing examined the results of a report released by the department of veterans' affairs inspector general that concluded that veterans on average have to wait nearly two months for access to mental health providers. testifying on behalf of the veterans' affairs department where the v.a. department compute dpoout under secretary for health and assistant inspector general for health care inspections. this is about an hour and forty minutes.

[ banging gavel ] good morning. thank you for the opportunity to last year, following the july hearing, i asked the department to survey its own mental health care providers to get a better assessment of the situation. among the findings, we learned that 40% of providers surveyed could not schedule an appointment in their own clinic for a new patient within the 14 days. over 40% could not schedule an established patient within 14

days of their desired appointment, and 70% reported inadequate staffing or space to meet the mental health care needs. we heard from experts about the critical importance of access to the right type of care delivered timely by qualified mental health professionals. at last november's hearing, i announced i would be asking v.a.s office of inspector general to investigate the true availability of mental health care services at v.a. facilities. i want to thank the ig for their tremendous efforts in addressing such an enormous request. the findings of this first phase of the investigation are at once substantial and troubling. we have heard frequently about how long it takes for veterans to get into treatment, and i'm glad the ig has brought those concerns to light.

the ig will also discuss an entirely different and more useful way of understanding access to care. this model would give more reliable data and reduce the rampant gaming of the system that we have seen thus far. the ig has also found the existing scheduling system is hopelessly insufficient and needs to be replaced. v.a. has struggled with developing a new scheduling system. i understand v.a. is working to get a replacement system in place. i would like the department's commitment that they will work to get this done right and get it done soon. the i.g. findings also show some serious discrepancies in what v.a. has been telling this committee and veterans. v.a. stated that 95% of veterans received mental health evaluation within 14 days. in reality, it was only about 50%. vha data reported that after the evaluation was completed, 95% of

veterans received a treatment appointment within 14 days. in reality, it was only 64%. for those in treatment, 12% were scheduled beyond the 14-day follow-up appointment window with providers telling the ig that they were delaying follow-up for months, not because of the veterans' needs. because their schedules were too full. v.a. is failing to meet its own mandates for timeliness and instead is finding ways to make the data look like they are complying. v.a. can and must do much better. important steps have been taken in the right direction by the department. last week, v.a. announced the addition of 1,600 mental health providers, and late last year, v.a. announced an increase in staffing levels at the veterans' crisis line. but as we will see today, the hard work remains in front of us at a time when veterans are dying by suicide at an alarming rate. we know that the sooner a

veteran can get a mental health care appointment after they request it, the more likely they are to follow through with care. we can't afford to leave them discouraged when trying to access care, and when in care, we must be getting veterans their next appointment in a clinically appropriate time. we need to be sure there are enough resources so providers do not have to delay tleemt, because their schedules are too full. while i commend v.a. for the decision to hire another 1,600 mental health providers, there is still no reliable staffing model to determine where these individuals are needed. without that model, v.a. needs to explain how they will know where to place these additional providers. there are other challenges with getting the best providers into the system. i understand that nationally there are shortages of mental health providers, and it's even harder for v.a., because they cannot always pay the highest salaries in the community. there are still a large number

of vacancies in v.a.'s mental health ranks. i want to hear from the department how they will fill the existing gaps and ensure the new positions they have announced do not become 1,600 empty offices. ultimately, what really matters is how long it takes for a veteran to start that first treatment session. what really matters is not abandoning that veteran. i recently saw andrea sawyer whose husband lloyd suffers from ptsd and depression. andrea bravely testified before this committee last july about the tremendous difficulty she and her husband faced in getting him into care. lloyd still faces challenges, but he's now getting the care he needs. that is what matters. we cannot let our veterans down, especially when they have shown the courage to stand up and ask for help. i look forward to hearing from v.a., how they intend to address the issues the ig has found. now more than ever is the time for action and for v.a. to show

effective leadership. let the hearing today serve as an unequivocal call to action. the department must get this right. in closing, i do want to be clear that while we have discussed a number of problems with the system at large, none of this reflects poorly on v.a.'s providers. i believe i can speak for all of us in thanking v.a.'s many mental health providers for the incredible job they do. let there be no mistake, these individuals are incredibly dedicated to their mission. they choose to work harder than most of their peers, often for less lucrative benefits, all because they believe in what they do, and they have a deep and unshaking commitment to our veterans. to all of the v.a.s, psychiatrists, psychologists and other social providers and all of the administrative staff who support them, thank you so much for the good job and keep up the work. and with that, i want to turn it over to senator brown who is standing in for senator burr to

the. >> thank you, madam chair. it's good to be here as the ranking member in place of senator burr. good to be back on the committee serving with you. i want to thank you for holding this very important hearing. i'm still serving. i see and hear of these types of situations regularly. $5.9 billion. that's the increase that v.a. got. and out of that, is it -- do you think we could hire some more people to address these very real concerns? $5.9 billion. and to read some of the things that we have been reading about the suicidal veteran calling for help, gone unanswered. one more person killing themselves. and the veteran's mental health care is delayed, put out by the "washington post," actually, yesterday, talking about how the system is being gamed by the v.a. and not actually scheduling and following through with scheduling and providing good opportunity for these soldiers to get the care and coverage

they need. it's mind-boggling. i mean, i understand the delay. i understand that there are problems. i understand the claims goes over a year. but for who calls and says, hi, i -- i'm thinking of killing myself, well, do you feel that way right now? well, not right in this moment, but i tried to hang myself yesterday. does that count? and then to be blown off. it just makes absolutely no sense to me at all. and so i'm glad you're holding this hearing. and i want to continue to look into mental health services. your insights in this committee help perform the oversight to ensure the veterans get the services they need. and that's a good thing. as you know, one of the several hearings regarding mental health services provided by the v.a. last year, i remember we did learn about the various serious mental health services that were needed and quite frankly lacking. and i want to just say that today's hearing will focus on evaluating the availability of these services in assessing the care that's delivered. and the testimony we hear today

will be from v.a.'s inspector general, as well as iraq veteran, mental health officer, reveals an ongoing cultural problem at the v.a. and nick, i want to thank you for your testimony and pointing out where the loopholes are sought and knowing the facilities are not meeting their performance metrics. it's unacceptable for someone who still serves and speaks regularly with people affected by these very serious ailments. and the gaming of the system has to stop. and the ig found in their audit, and nick confirmed in his testimony, they are veterans not given the opportunity to actually offer a desired date for the next appointment. they were simply told when and where to show up. and no consideration or compassion to address the very real concerns that they have. and scheduling system is not the only problem with delivering mental health care. even though the v.a. has increased the staffing by 48% between 2006 and '10, both the

ig and nick point out, it's understaffed and lacks a methodology to assess their staffing needs. and it's no surprise that just one week after this hearing, v.a. announced they hired 1,900 additional mental health staffers. that's great. it's a good start. but, man, what have we been doing up to this point? we need to do it better. we have people's lives depending on these decisions that we're making. and it's a good step, as i said. but how long will it take to actually fill these positions, and what happens to that soldier who calls, as has been happening with jacob manning and others? and we'll hear today from community groups that are helping. general tom jones to help veterans from the current conflicts manage their mental health. and i want to thank you, sir, for that effort going above and beyond. and it will help veteran volunteers -- veterans volunteer their time to help fellow soldiers cope with those invisible wounds of war which we all know about.

and it's a great example of the community coming forward, and addressing needs, not currently being met. so thank you for that. in the end, simply hiring more staff and fixing the va's broken scheduling system will not cure all the issues. but it will certainly take a combination of changes at the facility level and the v.a. office level, and the v.a. will use all available resources, developing better performance metrics to fix a broken system. i concur with you, the individual people there are doing yeoman's work, but it's still not enough. you need more people, you need more computers. what is it? $5.9 billion should go a long way to addressing those issues. madam chair, as i reference, i'm heading upstairs, just to give a quorum and then i'll be back down. i look forward to everybody's testimony. thank you. >> at this time, i would like to introduce the first panel. representing the v.a. is mr. bill shownhart, v.a.'s deputy in health operations in management.

accompanied today by dr. antoinette soois, chief consultant for mental health services and dr. mary shone, with the health veterans administration. from the inspector general, dr. david day, assistant inspector general for health care inspections, accompanied by dr. michael shepard, senior physician in the igs office of health care inspections. also from the office of inspector general, we have ms. linda halladay, assistant inspector general for audits and evaluations accompanied by dr. larry rinkmeyer. and next we will hear from nick totally enteeno, navy veteran of the iraq war and former mental health administrator officer in the v.a. and finally the founder and executive director of outdoor odyssey, retired major general thomas jones. mr. shownhart, we will begin with your testimony. we have a lot of answers we need from you. so please begin.