the semper fi fund that i've been a board member of is provides the ability for these veterans to come. admittedly, most of the veterans that come back to their caseworkers of the emp per phi fund have some problems or they wouldn't be there. i mean, they've had a difficult time making a transition. so when they arrive in western pennsylvania for one of the week-long sessions, they arrive with a major degree of skepticism and very tentative. and we try to restore them to what was really the strength of their experience in the marine corps, the team, the cohesion, team building. and basically, restoring the trust. i would say i don't want to -- trust in the system, trust in others. i think that my work at through the semper fi odyssey because of the mental health professionals

that have come in and really bought in to the program and really advertised the program and allowed me to speak to other groups led to a project i'm doing with the institute of defense analysis sponsored by osd that looks at best practices. so, i was a marine for a long time. we never talked much about mental health issues until recently. as a vietnam platoon commander, we never talked about it. but now there's programs in the marine corps and i would say the army too, comprehensive soldier, the marine corps's program is operational stress control and readiness, it's a great program. but it's not easy to overcome lug the stigma and the program really rests on the strength of the nco. no major general's going to ride into a marine corps squad or platoon or company and build immediate strust. it's going to come from the nco. so overcoming that skepticism,

overcoming that chasm of trust is difficult but it's happening. especially those dwlunts have deployed four and five times, young ncos and young officers are seeing the power of what a quad squad leader or platoon commander can doing to identify problems when they're still in the category of combat stress injuries. i think that's the strength of the marine corps's program. i think the problem with -- this is only my opinion now, of the army program is that it's vet well built. the application is not focused on the young nco as is the marine corps program. i don't say it because i'm a marine but i just sense that the nco identifying in iraq or afghanistan that there's a problem you can start the dialogue right there. and you can start the reconciliation process right there and you don't have 0 wait six months after he returns and he's got this problem and he pulls out when he's by himself.

so we try to restore and very successfully restore because all of these veterans that have come in and actually volunteered their services. this past week, we did 35 marines. we had an individual drive all the way from oregoning to see six times. his brother was killed in vietnam as a company commander. he himself was a marine corps officer, he's the ceo of a very successful business but he's given up a week of his time. we had an orthopedic surgeon come in. it doesn't take very long to tell that these people are giving themselves for me so that chasm of trust is taken care of pretty quickly. i would say by wednesday of a sev seven-day program, these people start realizing these people care for me. then you're on the road to identification. that's when the demons start coming out and you find out a guy was with his company commander, the commander was killed, he feels guilty irrationally but true and he's never shared that.

that's when you find out a guy's been behind curtains in his own apartment for two and a half years, the only person he's talked to is his clin nish yun and he never revealed he killed a marine accidentally because their sectors aligned with each other. so i think that will we very nope full proof system but i think the power of the corps, the power of the army clearly is team, clearly is cohesion, clearly is trust. if you can restore that to what degree you can restore that, then you're on the road to a good program. there's no short and of people that will come. and chronicle their experience with a clinician and they're not damning the clinician at all but the clinician simply does not understand the individuals adequately enough to build that bond of trust. >> general, thank you for your service to our country and to other veterans. thank you all for your interest

in the well-being of our nation's servicemen and women. >> thank you very much. dr. d aig h, let me turn to you. as you well know, it's hard enough to get veterans into the va system to receive mental health care. once a veteran does take a step to reach out for help, we need to have knock down every potential barrier to care. clearly the report your team produced shows a huge gap between the time that the va says it takes to get veterans mental health care and the reality of how long it actually takes them to get seen at facilities across our country. now va has concurred with all of your recommendations. but i think it's clear we all have some real concerns because some of these issues have been problems for years. so can you address a question of what you think it would take to get the va to get this right this time? >> i think to begin with, the

veteran population is dispersed across the krumpcountry and thes not evenly disbursed across the country so those veterans that go to fixed facilities to receive their care, the va i'm guessing is probably trying to addresses in this current plan for 1600 people, i haven't seen the details of the plan so i don't know. so i think the first issue is to realize that you have a problem where you have facilities and where you don't have facilities. then i think the second problem is that has been stated here, there simply are not enough mental health providers to hire off the street in a timely fashion i believe. we looked at the other day, i think there's thing like 1200 accessory graduates a year in this country from our medical school so there is a limited pool and there's a great deal of demand for mental health providers in our discussions

with private sector, they said because of the downturn in the economy and other factors that the nonva, nonmilitary demand had also gone up and their experience 10, 20% in the last couple of years. so i think when i look, we were asked several years ago to look at access to mental health care in montana. and it was a very interesting review for me in that montana va had linked up with the community mental health centers in montana and i believe that -- i may be out of date by a couple years since we did it a couple years ago, but there was an organization of community mental health centers and by allowing veterans to go to those mental health centers which were usually staffed by skolss and social quorkers and usually not by physicians, they were able to dramatically inprove the access time to get folks to talk to competent people in their

neighborhood in their center to get some care. i think in order to make that care cohesive, as mrs. tolentino said, you've got to be able to get medical records back and forth so that there's a coordination of care and so i think the all hands on deck idea is one that i whole little endorse and one where if i look at some of the cases, tragic cases we've looked at in the past, it was not infrequent for veterans to show up at a community mental health center in their town and because they were veterans they were then sent to the va and there was not a link. they were not accepted or there was no payment mechanism or there was no authority and so i think that would be a useful step. secondly, i think you really do have to sit down and as bad as metrics are, i think you just do you have to sit down and model

what you're going to do and figure out what demand is and try to lay out a business case for what you're doing. >> is that in place of the va today? >> i don't believe that they have or mental health the level of business plan that i think they should have, nor do i think they have it more most medical specialists. >> miss halliday, do you want to comment on that in. >> no, i would like to say though your original question where you said what's needed to fix this, i really believe va needs to focus on the data integrate of the information they are collecting along with the new set of metrics. and i think they need to hold the medical facility directors accountable to ensure that data integri integrity. if we've seen scheduling practices that resulted in gaming the system to make performance metrics look better at the end of the day over the

past seven years, they need a culture change. to get that culture change, i think they really need to hold the facility directors accountable for how well the data is actually being captured. the auditors that actually did the work in the field at the sites for their review had general observations that the focus was always on the outliers, who was not getting care outside of say the 14-day window. but there really was very limited focus on how well the schedulers were capturing that information. that is the information that starts to identify demand. it starts to tell you what type of services you're going to need. and whether you need to address eamerican jept care or strategically address care over the long-term. you have to have reliable information. so coupled with i think a positive step to increase the staffing, that that is clearly

very important. >> okay. thank you very much. senator brown? >> thank you very much. just want to get back to the obviously mr. secretary, the bonus issue. this year in budget $12.5 billion, next year, 13, $6.2 billion an increase obviously. and the va gave out in 2011 $194 million to senior executive service employees. do you think that's appropriate? >> well, sir, we have at va under secretary shinseki's leadership have done an extensive review of performance bonuses. and have reduced those in both the number of outstanding ratings and the dollar amount that has actually been implemented. >> so the number was actually higher at one point?

>> it was, sir. >> than $200 million? >> yeah, we have taken this very much to heart. and let me just offer that the integrity of our performance measures and the integrity of our scheduling system and the fidelity with which we implement these and adhere to them that are veteran centric is extremely important to the department so we take very seriously the comments that have been made by the ig and we will be rigorously following you. . we have been emphasizing the integrity of the system and it's obvious that some of what we put in in my opinion in performance measures particularly as it relates to the desired date may get us into a discussion where it leads to this kind of confusion because what sometimes happens is that a scheduler will say, i want to schedule you for when you want to next come in,

and the veteran might say, but when are you next available? i'll be happy to take whatever's there. and that's a trick bag we need to get out of by going back in our view. >> sure, listen i understand that. but my question's focusing on bonuses now. and i understand that there are holes and we need to fix them. the chair woman brought up that this has been an issue since mid towels, 2005, '08, whatever. it's something you're going to continue to work on. i get that. it's not perfect. i understand that, as well. i'm a little curious. what's the average salary for these people actually getting these bonuses? >> sir, can we take that for the record? >> i'm going to get you some -- what's the salary, what are the bonuses based on, how do you justify $194 million of the tax dollars to go to pay bonuses that people that this should be part of their job. i just want to make sure i understand it and maybe if not, then i'll stand corrected. nick, what do you think about

the opinion that tying these bonuses to quality rather than quantity? what do you think about that possibility? >> senator, my opinion with the bonuses is that i think you already mentioned it. it's bonuses for doing your job. so you're doing your job up to par. you're rewarded for that. from what i was always taught from my 14 years in the military, is your bonuses, your rewards are for going above and beyond. and clearly, i'm not seeing that. in the treatment of veterans. in the care that they need. so my opinion is. >> do you think that money could be used somewhere better? do you think that $194 million could be used somewhere better? >> i do. >> thank you. >> i do, senator. >> and general, first of all, thank you once again. i enjoyed the testimony from senator moran. why do you think the veterans are reluctant to share their

experiences with a clinician and you're finding that during your situation and fair semper fi odyssey and during ta week that you found that so many folks have actually opened up? what do you think that, is it a trust issue? >> is it just being in the military? what is it. >> it's clearly a trust issue. the combat obviously there's operational stress. >> can i add one thing to that? what do you think the va could do to establish that bond that apparently you have? >> i this i that the issue is a lot of -- it is a trust issue, a lack of trust. it's the fact that quite honestly, many clinicians do not understand the nuances of combat stress. in fact, some of the tools that have been been built now are mush like a 95 in a traumatic event. combat stress is very different and very personal and thing that extreme really have a feeling of trust with somebody else to

share those experiences. along with a person wastes from a reconciliation process, the more difficult the problem may be. the answer what i think they could do, we need to provide more opportunities for like we're doing at semp per phi odyssey for some of these people in the mental health community had. i don't think that 1900 more people or 3400 more people are going to solve the problems unless you're hiring a person that really can connect to the individual that will inspire him or her to share their perspective. >> thank you all very much. >> reporter: dr. schohn, at this committee's november mental health hearing you said you were not aware of any facilities that were gaming the system. and not fully reporting waiting times. you heard mr. tolentino's testimony about the manchester va regularly using loopholes to artificially meet their mental health performance measures. often at the direct expense of

veteran care. so now that you've read the ig report and performed your own audit of mental health practices at var va facilities and you've listened to his testimony, i want to ask you the same question today that i asked you in november. do you believe that va facilities are gaming the system and not fully reporting wait times? >>. >> senator, i would say that we have zero tolerance for that and we are going to continue our audits and reviews to ensure with additional training of scheduling practices that this is not occurring. this is certainly not a practice that can be condoned. >> well, you heard mr mr. tolentino. he talked about the manchester va increasing their mental health workload numbers in order to get additional resources despite not having enough staff to support that growth. the quantity over quality i believe that you stated it. and the result is veterans are not getting the care that they

need and i'm really shocked that the va allowed providers to be put in that kind of dilemma where they have to choose between following directions from their leadership and following the ethics of their profession. so let me ask you, what are you going to do to ensure that the quality of care is not being sacrificed as you continue to meet these timeliness standards? >> i think it's a multifold approach going forward that we are under way and have been implementing here. first, we need to ensure with a staffing model that we will continue to perfect that we have sufficient staffing on board tore serve the veterans needs. we also need to look as dr. d aig h said earlier at the productivity of that and there's a productivity directive that is being developed to ensure that care is being rendered in a productive way. second, we need to make sure that we have the measures in

place to ensure that the veterans are receiving timely care in accordance with their condition. and if i might just go back to an earlier discussion with senator brown. as we were discussing those veterans who are most critically at need who are urgently in need of crisis, i feel so strongly that we should be sure to respond to those but certainly in the case where we would not have, say, an inpatient psychiatric bed available, we would feed that out to the private community. and that have is something that should happen in order to ensure the veteran is cared for, but it's fundamentally important that we get disability for this and in the conversation with senator brown, what i was trying to emphasize is that we must have visibility and we must respond to those who is are most

in crisis. and if that requires that we fee out because we don't have a bed available or something, we would do that. weigh do we do do but we would only do that after making sure we don't have the capacity. because candidly, part of the risk is the handoff to the private sector, and it's important we get visibility. we bring those veterans in, and we take care of them. >> let me go back to the scheduling issue. >> yes. >> because that is a critically important piece of this. back in 2005 and again in 2007, problems were reported with scheduling, in terms of wait times. despite having heard about this for seven years now, here we are today. why is it so difficult to address these problems and

should we be more optimistic it's going to happen this time? >> well, vha has established the business needs, madam chairman for scheduling, including a vision of a modern scheduling package that would among other things provide patients the ability to make their own appointments. >> and the implementation thing. >> we have published in rfi, december of 2011, would like to take for the record when we will be implementing, we are underway if this new initiative. >> do you believe that's going to happen. >> i don't have enough information to comment, ma'am. i'd have to check and see where they are with this. i would just say that it -- this has been an issue for a number of years and it hasn't been solved. i'm not aware of the specifics of what they're talking about. >> okay, i have several other questions i'm going to submit for the record. i want to say, i want to thank

all of you for being here today and sharing your views, critically access to va health care in a timely fashion is absolutely essential. especially as we have a growing number of men and women who are returning from a war, where this is a signature issue, and a signature wound that we are very cognizant of, we need to be prepared for, and this committee is focused on this, wants answers and follow-up, and not just this to be another hearing, but real action is taken. so mr. schoenhard, i appreciate the va stepping up to this today, i appreciate them accepting the i.g. report, i really appreciate the i.g. for all the work you did. a large number of your resource focused on this, there were other witnesses, thank you very much for being here today, i want to make it clear, this is

not something we're going to have a hearing on, and leave and go do something else tomorrow, this has to be taken care of, we owe it to these men and women, i don't want to continue to hear that anyone's gaming the system, i want to know that the action plan that's being put in place to make sure that the hiring you have announced is actually taking place. if there are barriers to that, we want to know about it, and i want to know how you decided which visns are going to get the practitioners you have outlined and i want to know from on the ground there is a real connection to the va here at central office and this is not just another hearing here in washington, d.c., and the action on the ground continues to be the anecdotes that this committee and i have heard and too many committee members have

been continuing to hear, this is very critical, i think we've made some progress, but boy do we have a lot of work ahead of us. and i think the nation expects that of us, i intend to stand up to it, and i expect all of you to stand up to it as well. i want to take a second and congratulate miss halladay to her recent promotion as assistant inspector general. we look forward to working with you. with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. with congress on break this week, we're featuring some of american history tv's week programs in prime time here on c-span 3. tonight, a look at the role and influence of america's first ladies starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern with three photographers whose images chronicle the lives and work of betty ford, barbara bush and laura bush. at 9:00, barbara and laura bush

talk with doris kooerns goodwin. and at 10:00 p.m., we'll hear from several women who served as the right hands to the first ladies from lady byrd johnson to laura bush. and on c-span 2, book tv's weekend programs in prime time. tonight, get 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 canablnibals. richard g.lugar, statesman of the senate. and at 10:00, a book party with alan simpson. a biography of the wyoming senator. book tv in prime time all week on c-span 2. the aclu has believed for some time that police departments around the country are tracking people's cell phones on a routine basis often

without getting a warrant based on probable cause. >> should tracking a cell phone require a warrant? tonight, attorney katherine krump on police use of technology for surveillance purposes and whether current law adequately protects an individual's right to privacy. at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2. 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. and four years from now, i will look like this. that's not even funny.

>> mr. president, you rememb remember -- remember when the country rally around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? that was hilarious. 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 difficult times and paid a heavy price for it. the there's a term for guys like president obama, probably not two terms, but -- there is. >> miss any part of the white house correspondents dinner? 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/video library. the senate banking, housing and urban affairs committee recently held a hearing on the mf global collapse, the sixth such hearing in recent weeks. this one focused on the lessons learned and the policy

implications. cftc commissioner jill summers testified along with other regulators and the bankruptcy trustee. mf global filed for bankruptcy on october 31st. it's the eighth largest u.s. bankruptcy. this is just under two hours. we'll examine the lessoned learns of the collapse of mf global. the misuse of customer accounts by one of the world's largest derivatives brokers as shaken confidence in our markets and deserves a thoughtful discussion of how to better protect farmers, ranchers, and investors going forward. but before we get to these important issues, i would like to express my deep concern that almost six months after mf

global's bankruptcy thousands of former customers still have not recovered the $1.6 billion removed from what should have been protected customer accounts. i know that the trustees as well as the fbi and justice department continued to investigate what happened in the final chaotic days of mf global. but these customer funds must be returned without further delay to the rightful owners and these individuals and executives responsible for transferring these funds must be held accountable to the full extent of the law. it is not acceptable for mf global executives to be given bonuses when customers have not recovered funds and