elokted or whatever, elected, sorry, he was, he got 6 million votes. which is at that time was whatever it was, those who vote -- okay. the pool was 32 million eligible and 7 million people cast their vote. they cast the ballots. so it was like i don't know how it's percentage but this was the case in 2005. >> i think one reason definitely for not voting is that people just gave up. people you know, want to get done with this transition period, plus, lots of people are not used to voting. there is another technical reason. first, we know that the people have the right to vote were not revised so there were votes, there were names of you know, people who passed away. some people who are outside of

egypt were registered twice. inside and outside so you have a greater pool so this is one technical problem. the other technical problem, it's also legal, that just in the elections we had around 45 million voters, this we have 5 million. sorry 45. now we have 50. so five million were added to the rosters. who are these. do they have the right to vote. are they fake voices. this is another technical reason we're not really sure about. but for sure we know that people are there. we know that egyptians sometimes are registered outside than inside. there are lots of problems with the rosters of people who have the right to vote. >> so greg, just to complete the scene because you are asking about if votes, for example we know between 7 to 9 million egyptians are living abroad, outside egypt. of those people who registered to vote were like fewer 400 to

500,000 people. in united states those who registered were like what, 30,000 people. we know that -- we expect in united states, for example, there is almost like million maybe, one million people. out of them just 30,000 people vote. i mean register to vote. >> okay. question, please. >> just about the percentage, isn't it the same in the united states about 50% of eligible voters really vote? i think it's about the same percentage as far as i know. but i have a question in regard to the progression of events. i see that they have put the cart before the horse when they decided to have elections, before the stull constitution is written. again, as you said, president's job description has not been written, yet you have

presidential election, same for the parliament. what the power is supposed to be without the constitution. i think they went further or faster in that direction. in my view, should have a constitution before you have elections. not the other way around. really puzzled. i wonder if anybody can comment on that. >> well -- >> i think the easiest answer to that is that the transition has, unfortunately, from the beginning been a work in progress. if you go back to what i was trying to describe about the issue of competing legitimacies between the muslim brotherhood, the revolutionaries and the military there was no consensus on the design, the sequence or the time frame of the transition. the skaf put out initially a vague template for the transition that was always since

mubarak's overthrow has been stubt pressure, has been subject to legal challenges, has been subject to renegotiation, so if you take that as a backdrop that will explain the situation that you describe, because initially the original intent was to have the constitution before the elections. two things basically happened. pressure on the part of the demonstrators to bring up the date for presidential elections. we were due to have presidential elections months from now. certainly not in the time frame we're discussing now. but the skaf had to back down under the force of the demonstrators to bring up the time table for presidential elections. at the same time what you had in parallel was a deed lock in the constitution writing process that mohammad mentioned and therefore delayed the whole constitution writing agenda. now we have a strange situation

in which the time table for presidential elections was moved up. and the deed lock in the constitution writing process delayed the formulation of a constitution so this is the situation we have. it was a messy transition, it was highly contested, and it really was a work in progress because there was no consensus over the sequence and timing of the steps of the transition itself. >> if i could add, following these events closely, that the non-muslim brotherhood members basically coalesced to protest what they saw was the muslim brotherhood's monopoly of the writing process and you had groups such as al hosnar. we should take our objections to the courts so it became also

very political that way. any other questions. yes. >> dave fitzgerald, private consultant. question about the third place finisher, normally in elections that person ends up being a key factor in perhaps some of those voters going to the eventual winner s. that how it's going to play out in egypt? i know there isn't such of a track record in terms of voting, for how the third place finisher supporters will break. for the two top runners. any speculation how that will go? will it be a sort of islamic versus secular type of choice that will drive all of these other supporters to go to one of the two? >> very quickly, there's lots of speculation. nobody really knows how those votes will break. i think as mohammad and tom

described, you have a process of jockeying now of the two top contenders trying to whoo those votes. i think there is a real question which i don't have the answer to is to what degree do these voters vote in block fashion. if we do have an endorsement by mr. sabahe who came in third to one or the other of the candidates, will his followers vote as he does. that's highly questionable. i think if one clear p.m. of that is the selefas vote. the political leadership declared their outright support for mr. abul, the independent islamist candidate. all the indications show they

did not vote as a block so it raise as question as to what degree voters really follow their leader or their candidate or to the degree to which they vote independently. >> may i? the thing that i want to little bit focus, that's why i'm trying to explain today, is that okay, unfortunately, we have short span attention to things which is like election now, for example. a few weeks ago it was ngo's problem with egyptians. then we forgot the ngo and now election as if there is a political system which is allowing this person, that person to win. and then we are looking to, for example, muslim brotherhood or skaf as if like something came out in 18 months.

no. skaf was the establishment is there for 60 years. muslim brothers are there for 80 years. the same thing we talk about liberals we are talking about, i'm not trying to make it complicated but it's a case. we have to see the roots, not just the trees. there is a root there. we can't talk about liberals which is a problem now a days raised many time and people that oh, those bunch of people, they talk about whatever rights and maybe they are not believers in god or so on. they are there 150 years and whatever we see civilization kind of modernization, in egypt, cairo and other places is the outcome of those people. we cannot like it's not like somebody came out, came back from let's say, as we egyptians

are saying, came back with gulf and say oh, those liberals are the ones ruining egypt. it's not the case. that's why i'm telling you it's the idea of who is going to win. it's a bitter choice. poth of them as a matter of fact most of the people are saying it's a bad choice in two cases. now we are looking for which is less worse. less bad than the other. it's not better. it's like worse than the other. less. >> one last question. >> one, 54% of the egyptian voters stayed away. if they really cared about the outcome of the election, they should have been there voting because if you look at the distribution of votes aside from

the three, it was not really a good case to talk about revolutions, one. in fact they lost f. they continued to stay home and not to vote in the run off election going to be disaster. shall we become the east evil of the two. actually, it is deeper than that. you also promoted shafiq for whatever reasons you have in mind. but you forgot one thing, that the muslim brotherhood and the safalis, did not deliver any vote. they can influence the final outcome. i have to stress -- i'm egyptian and i have connections with egypt so. the two major issues that people in egypt talk about, security and the economics. now, if you stress security and shafiq is doing that, it's going

to be a reminder of the black history of mubarak and in fact, might backfire on shafiq. it is very hard to tell at this time who is wing and who is losing. i believe it's not going to be decided until everyone goes and votes and see how heavy or light. >> we have to wrap up now because we're out of time. unless you want to respond. >> a question? >> if you want to respond. >> thank you very much for your points. i think they make sense. that's why we're trying to project. it's not an easy job. however, this is, as a sports analyst, work in academia or whatever we try based on some facts or try to protect. i agree that things can backfire. from my reading i think he has a

stronger block. lots work with shafiq. i think narrowing his won't win because again it's il lodge voting has it got who gets some organization of voting they reach the limit generally in the first round. again you need for legitimate toopt have more turnout and have a broader support. that's why i think to be the challenge that morsy is facing. i think again, shafiq's coalition is kind of strong but he can in more voters than the accusations of trying to monopolize the monetary system. >> thank you. we've run out of time. thank you for the stimulating discussion. [ applause ]

coming up on c-span 3, veterans department officials respond to congressional questions about a report showing the department has been overpaying for prosthetics. that's noled by deputy defense secretary ashton carter on the budget needs and possible automatic spending cuts in january. then a look at the causes behind the 2008 financial crisis. >> msnbc host chris matthews is

the featured speaker this afternoon at the 25th anniversary gerald ford presidential foundation journal ifrm awards. it honors coverage of national defence issues. watch at 1:00 eastern on c-span. the u.s. senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern, senators resume debate on pay discrimination. watch on c-span 2. the house returns tomorrow to work on more spending for the next budget year. the house is live on c-span. the atlantic council on europe's financial crisis. the ceo of deutsche bank will discuss european action so far and his thoughts for the future outlook in europe. that's at 5:00 eastern on c-span. >> this is c-span 3 with politics and public affairs programming flout the week, and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv.

get our schedules and see past programs. join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the recent review shows that the veterans affairs department has been overpaying for prosthetics. the report says the department spent $2 million more than necessary last year. a house veterans affair subcommittee questioned officials about the overpayments and plans to have contractors take over some of the buying. the the hearing is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing tighted purchasing perspective, v.a.'s property athletic paradox. title 38, procurement of prosthetic appliances states the following, the secretary may procure prosthetic appliances

and necessary services required in the fitting, supplying, and training and use of prosthetic appliances, by purchase, manufacturer, contract, or in such other manner as the secretary may determine to be proper without regard to any other provision of law. section 8123 originated in 1958. over 15 years before federal acquisition regulations or the far were codified in law and has been slightly amended a handful of times since then. in march of this year i sent a letter to the secretary regarding the v.a.'s procurement of biologics over the open market instead of from small businesses already on the federal supply schedule. one specific example i brought to the secretary's attention involved a company that supplied biologics. in the timely response from deputy secretary i was informed that the v.a. considered biologics to fall under its

broad definition of prosthetics so could acquire through 8123 as it clearly had been doing. those last words, and i quote, without regard to any other provision of law, mean at least to the v.a. that it does not have to follow federal acquisition regulations, v.a. acquisition regulations, the var, or the competition in contracting act. this interpretation was made clear in the deputy secretary's letter. in addition to informing the oversight investigation subcommittee, the v.a. considered biologics as prosthet prosthetics, other ajss throughout the deputy secretary's letter prompted several important follow-up questions which were relayed to the v.a. on march 28. one part of the letter immediately following the interpretation that purchases made under section 8123 were not subject to acquisition regulations, stated that the v.a. would work on and i quote,

guidance to ensure that prosthetics purchasing agents conform with var. to the maximum extent practicable. i have to wonder why the v.a. ignores the acquisition regulations when making these section 8123 purchases but now will attempt to comply with them. among my follow-up questions was a request for a copy of the v.a.'s guidance in how it would ensure purchasing agents follow the var. just yesterday, a response to that and the other questions was provided. it is interesting that only now is the v.a. working to ensure that purchasers using section 8123 are documented and in line with the far and the var. after all, the v.a. had nearly three decades to work on. this failing to document purchases as acknowledged in the

answers i received yesterday, is a reckless use of taxpayer dollars. to us on this committee it appears as though the v.a. operates as it sees fit until attention is called to its operation. while the deputy secretary's let der not address is the v.a. use of a vha directive i quote, prosthetics simplified acquisition procedures training. that was issued july 16, 2003 and expired july 31, 2008. an updated directive would probably have been useful over the last four years as the v.a. increased its pros sthetic spending by 80%. however we have seen no such update and even learned that those in the field that the v.a.'s central office has instructed visn to continue following it. that expired directive contains important language stating that section 8123 was only to be used as a last resort.

reinforcing the importance of compliance with federal acquisition regulations. however, the subcommittee has found substantial evidence of v.a. purchasing agents using section 8123 as a first resort. give at any broad language it contains one can see why this easier approach could be so tempting. and it certainly is not the first time we have seen v.a. purchasers opting for the easy route. while there are over 100 def nations for prosthetics throughout federal government the definition used by the v.a. is a full paragraph in length. as we'll hear, some of the items falling under this broad definition do not sound like prosthetics to any one except the v.a., the vha hand book definition is as follows. all aids, devices, parts or accessories, which patients require to replace support or substitute for impaired or

missing anatomical parts of the body. the items include artificial limbs, terminal devices, stump socks, braces, hearing aids, and batteries, cosmetic, facial or body restorations, optical devices, manual or motorized wheelchairs, orthopedic shoes, and similar items. perhaps this overly broad definition is a contributing fact tear the v.a.'s inability to effectively manage its prosthetics thors, as one of the members of the first panel will note definition is confusing and i'm keshed that confusion is widespread in the v.a. as well as outside of it. recent audits from the v.a. office of inspector general have substantiated that the department does not effectively manage its prosthetic supply, nor does have the adequate control over its payments when procuring prosthetics. give what we know and what we will hear today, these findings

are not surprising. a taylor definition of pros they cannics is one way the v.a. can better track and manage its prosthetics acquisition. the broad inclusion of durable medical equipment under its prosthetics definition could encourage the misuse of section 8123 authority. in addition as the i.g. noted about the overpayments, excess inventories and failure to receive the best value and i quote, strengthsening controls over these actions should not compromise the quality of the prosthetic limbs provided to veterans. in short, the v.a. can be a better steward of taxpayer dollars while still providing veterans timely access to care, including in the area of prosthetics. another way the v.a. can better manage the billions spent in prosthetics every year is enforce the acquisition regulations that apply to section 8123. in the response i received

yesterday the v.a. fames to acknowledge the abuse of section 8123 and the blatant sir come vengs of the far and the var by v.a. employees. we know the problem exists, now is the time to fix it. if employees in the past have failed to follow internal guidance, perhaps a legislative clarification is necessary to ensure best value for taxpayer dollars. lastly, before simply reorganizing employee structures and moving chess pieces around on the board, i am requesting here today that the v.a. present to this committee in detail, its plan to improve its acquisition of prosthetics and the specific reasons for the changes before putting the plan in place. this effort at transparency will help veterans and congress see that meaningful reform is taking place. with that i now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to the first and

second world wars, physical, occupational, and rehabilitation therapy was introduced to respond to the needs of injured service members. with the high number of service members whose lives were altered due to combat trauma the department of veterans affair needed to provide devices to help lead a meaningful independent lifestyle. strxt a. now contracts with many companies across the country to provide prosthetics, including companies in my home state of indiana, which is an important medical device hub. for example, zimmer and warsaw, has a contract covering hip and knee implants, and i know the company is proud of its good working relationship with both the v.a. and d.o.d. today we have the opportunity to discuss v.a.'s prosthetic acquisition and procurement policies. following the subcommittee on hearing on may 16, further discussion is needed on v.a.'s prosthetic and orthotic

purchasing. over a half century korng gave v.a. authority under title 38 section 8123 to pass over federal acquisition regulations and purchase state of the art prosthetic limbs efficiently and quickly. this exemption is written into v.a. acquisition regulations. by enacting section 8123, exempting procurement of prosthetic limbs from other laws, v.a. would have the ability to provide veterans with services and prosthetic devices to obtain a lifestyle similar to the one they lived pre-injury. while section 8123 may provide the flexibility the veterans health administration needs to respond to veterans we must ensure that this is used properly and not as a means of bypassing federal acquisition regulations. i hope that by reviewing the department of defense prosthetic

process we may gain further insight on how to improve v.a.'s prosthetic procurement policies. i look forward to hearing from the v.a., d.o.d., and other wngss on how we can find this balance. thank you, and i yield back. >> and mr. daniel shaw, managing partner of academy medical llc. both of your complete written statements will be made part of the hearing record. as you come to the table please. >> you are now recognized for

five minutes, sir. >> good afternoon. and thank you for the invitation to testify on procurement of prosthetic and orthotic care. my name is michael, oros. i'm also a licensed clinical pros athletist in a leading service in the state of illinois. my experience is with the subset of the v.a.'s quote unquote prosthetic services. if you ask someone on the street what a prosthesis is, the response would probably be an artificial limb or possibly an arm. if you talked about an orthosis a few individuals with family members who had a traumatic brain injury might be able to describe a fitted device to help damaged limbs function properly. i'm fairly certain nobody would suggest a seeing eye dog, wheelchair or many of the items in the v.a.'s budget.

why does this matter. the concern is that an overly broad definition leads to policies inappropriate when it comes time to deliver replacement limbs and orthopedic devices. the result is barriers to care for veterans with limb loss. prosthetic to provide for the families and to live every day lives. only two weeks ago health subcommittee chairwoman held a hearing on prosthetics as traditionally understood and defined. during that hearing the chief procurement officer testified that because changes in procurement policies applied only to items that cost $3,000 or more, those changes would not apply to 97% of the prosthetics budget. while i'm sure that statement is accurate, it's also unhelpful. nearly all of the components of a basic prosthetic limb cost more than