criminal if you didn't -- >> i don't think i used the word criminal but i don't think it is excusable that a physician thinks he cannot talk to his member of congress. nor do i think anybody in va should be -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> very quickly, if you can hold the clock, what i'm referring to is them being directed, not that the physician or whoever the clerk may be and obviously it's in the investigation that a committee is trying to do as it relates to its oversight responsibility in congress, so i wasn't implying that the physician was but it is our understanding at the committee that there have been people who have been instructed not to talk to congress. >> well, do you want -- i can maybe put some context around that because -- >> if you just hold the clock and go ahead. >> okay. so right now, yesterday, today, this past week, as you know, va

has been putting out a lot of the wait time data as part of being very transparent about this. there has been concern that at the facility level they may not be looking at exactly the same data that we were releasing. we wanted to be very careful that we didn't have facility or network directors appear to be misleading their congressionals by saying, well, this is where we are and then having this national data release say something different. so there was a caution put out to wait until we had distributed the data to them that was going to be released, and i will say it was an ill-worded document and it was followed immediately by a statement of clarity. this was not intended that they could not talk to congressionals, to just hold off until they had the data that they could talk to them about

and ensure they were getting the right data. you know, we get terribly compromised if we don't -- if we've got one person saying one thing and another saying another, and we want to make sure as we move forward especially and understanding what we put out this week is only the first drill at this, we will be repeating that on two-week intervals. >> thank you very much for that clarity. it does add some light onto the issue, but i will also tell you this, we were told by dr. lynch two weeks ago because every member of this committee has been asking for the data from their facilities, and we were told that we would receive it once the report was final. the report is final. i got a call today that my local media got it before i've got it. i just don't understand why people in the va won't follow through with their commitment.

now, you don't need to respond to that, but that's a statement. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i did want to read from an e-mail that was handed to me by i guess an acting director, and for members of the committee i did not know this. if the director and the assistant director are on vacation or on a management conference at least in wichita va facility, the acting director is the chief nurse, but handed me an e-mail that said please immediately stand down on any further communications with stakeholders, delegation members, and others regarding the access audit, wait list, and accelerating care initiatives, and i didn't take that very well. >> no. >> can you explain -- this was approved at the highest levels -- >> no, no. >> the stand down message. >> i saw that memo and i personally saw that memo probably five minutes after it went out and i said this is not acceptable. if that cannot be pulled back, then you need to put a clarification memo immediately to explain the intent is not to

have you not talk to your congressionals. the intent is to wait until you have the data from us to share with them because -- >> the follow-up e-mail was five hours later, actually 5 1/2 hours later after i had sat there trying to get answers to questions. let me describe, and you might have missed this the other night because i requested this e-mail. the facility eventually provided it to me, your office did, not the va administration. i requested that at our last hearing and had to get that from the facility, but here is what occurred m one facility and, again, there are numerous examples across the country. i'm trying to draw attention to one facility in kansas that's not in my district. i do not have a hospital in my district. here is what occurred. may 30th, the facility announced or actually had a u.s. senator visit the facility. about noon and was told by i think -- if the director was there that day, i don't know, he seems to be taking a lot of time

off. the acting director said we have no problem here. three hours later a fax went out that said we have discovered nine veterans on a secret waiting list. maybe unauthorized. that's the magic word out of there. and that was sent out to the delegation and the public at 3:00 friday afternoon. i began calling. once i landed in an airport, calling, sent e-mails, had no response for five days, no answers. hey, we'll get together with you but wouldn't answer your questions. then there was a leak to the media of 385 rumored and so i jumped in a vehicle, drove to the facility, and was handed this e-mail and was told go away. go away. and i did not. we stood there -- this is what's concerning is since then they've discovered another 636. so there's over 1,000 veterans on the waiting list, and, doctor, here is what they told me. we didn't know we even had a near list. we didn't know that was in the

system. the system that's apparently been around for 20-some years. this facility didn't even know. and i'm not asking you to explain this, but i'm asking maybe this is why we need some more investigation, more people should show up and ask those questions because either they're misleading or worse or, frankly, incompetence if you didn't know you had these veterans sitting on a list. and as i understand the numbers that were released in the audit do not include other unauthorized list. that's still yet to be known. is that correct? >> if we don't know where the unauthorized list are, we can't include them. >> how are you going to find them then? i understand that you don't know. >> right. >> but you didn't make any reference to other unauthorized lists that were found in phoenix. the types found in phoenix, you didn't make any reference to those at all. >> so the near list everybody should know about, and i don't say this as an apology, but

there is a software defect that gives a different number if it's pulled locally than if it's pulled nationally. so all of the near data is being pulled nagg eed nationally and have been directed to go to the national center to pull their data down. but this -- >> how long did you know about this glitch in the data? >> as we were trying to pull this data together. because this is a problem. we had facilities saying we don't have any -- >> we've had two weeks of hearings. this is the first time you have said the near list is a data glitch. >> the near list is part of the process of scheduling. >> it is not in the va facility that is not accurate or else they're lying to me. my question is it's not just about one center and one hospital. this is systemic nationwide where the -- what you tell me the near list is everywhere. that's what they told us two weeks ago and we go to a facility and they said we didn't know there was anything such as

the near list. >> well, i don't know -- >> well, how about you find the answer. and in the future, i would appreciate the documents. >> it was not the appropriate statement and i hope we did get that corrected. >> who did approve that statement? >> it was jan murphy -- well it was put out. not every e-mail gets approved by -- >> a gag order e-mail, i just want to know who approved it, janet murphy? >> jan murphy sent it out? >> who approved it? >> i don't know. i saw it -- >> who approved it? >> no, i can't. >> you can't find it out? >> oh, i can find it out, but i will say we tried to correct that because it was not intended to be a gag order. i thought it was a poor choice of wording. no question it sounds like that. it's not the intent. the intent was to ensure you saw the right data and you didn't get in a conflict of where they were saying one data and then you would see another piece.

we want to make sure we're speaking on the same page. >> thank you, dr. jesse. miss brownlee. oh, that's right. i let you go way over. miss brownlee, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, dr. jesse. i wanted to agree with your opening comments regarding our veterans who work within the va, and i do believe that most of those veterans are working hard every single day and are doing a good job, and i believe that these men and women who served in uniform were dedicated, and i believe these men and women who no longer are in uniform are equally as dedicated. i certainly don't want the men and women working within the va

to be discouraged, but they do need to understand that they have been working in a system that has lost its way in a structure that's lost its way. and as a consequence was particularly in this wait list issue doomed to failure. and so i don't want them to miss -- i don't want them to misunderstand in these discussions that this is not a criticism of them individually but it is a criticism of the system of which they were working in. >> thank you for that. >> and to that end i was also curious to know from you what the va is currently doing, we're all trying to get our arms around the problem, and to fully define the problem and how you have used the vsos to help in that process and how you intend to use the vsos to come up with

solutions. >> the vsos i think are incredibly important to us moving forward. they've been incredibly important to us all along, but today, yesterday, tomorrow, moving forward, they are going to be critical. as i said, if we're going to change an organization to one that's driven on value, we have to do what's important to those who we serve, and they are the reflection of that. and, in fact, i was very poignantly told you didn't need all your numbers to know there was a problem, we told you. you needed to listen to us. i take that very much to heart. one of the things we have done just as a top line is as i met yesterday with the group of the vsos for -- we have breakfast once a month, it went much

longer than it normally does because there were a lot of things we were discussing, acting secretary gibson has been meeting with them quite frequently as well as we are moving things forward, but the important thing is that the facility and facility directors are also meeting with their vsos on a regular basis, and in some facilities i would guess they're probably at among the high performing fa 1i89s, they're listening. in other facilities they might be transmitting, but without judgment or without trying to figure out who is doing what, our instructions forward is you must sit down with your vsos and listen to them. you must sit and listen to them because that's going to be how we're going to judge the progress that we're making. so that's -- it's very insightful on your part and thank you very much. >> if i return to my district and talk to my -- the leadership

team in my county, i can be assured they've been instructed to listen to our local vsos. >> you go back -- i hope they have, yeah, and if you go back and talk to your local vsos and they're not getting the attention they get, we've asked the senior leadership in the vsos to transmit the message down to their folks that work every day in the facilities serving veterans to get that back up because that's the only feedback we'll have. you know, obviously we can make them send minutes of their meetings and things like that, but that's not real productive. it's are people being listened to, and web get that bawe can gk by dialogue through the systems. >> thank you. in terms of my local area, we know the demand is greater than the supply. we know that we need more space. that has been confirmed both by the va and the community. and so i am just wondering, you

know, how often the va looks at long-range capital plan updates and if you have any idea when the oxnard will be added to a long range capital plan. >> so there's two questions there. there is a long -- there is the capital asset management program. i don't know off the top of my head the prioritization of oxnard although i did live in oxna oxnard. i was stationed at point magoo, so i grew up there. i can find out. >> i appreciate it. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. kaufman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jesse, last year dr. steven coughlin testified that va's 2010 national health study included over 20% gulf war veterans and produced important data regarding their exposures

to pesticides, oil well fires, and bromide pills. those of us who served in the gulf war remember those. but va has not released these data. dr. jesse, is va hiding vital information about a quarter million gulf war veterans who are waiting for care just as va has been hiding information on veteran patient wait times? will you provide the committee with all of the gulf war data within 30 days. >> well, i will answer the first question and say categorically we're not hiding data. understanding gulf war illness is crucial. it's crucial, and we need that data to do that.

in these data sets, the way that the research works, is to begin to publish the data in the studies that they can put together looking into that data set. this is what dr. coughlin was working on. va is also actually working on moving towards the whole construct of open science that actually put that data once it can be deidentified so you don't compromise individuals' rights out into at least in a managed public sector that other researchers can have access to it as well. in terms of the second question, i'm not sure how i can answer that. i don't know the size of the database. i can probably say with more clarity and accuracy that we can provide access to the data, but to say that can we hand it over, i don't know that. there are issues related to patient privacy and other things

but i'll be glad to work with your staff to try to work through that. >> certainly we're not looking for individual names here. we're looking for the conclusion of the research, and so i think the question is, and let me repeat it again just to make sure you understand it. as a gulf war veteran i'm asking you will you provide the committee with all of the gulf war data within 30 days? >> and i answered you by saying i can't tell you i can do that because i don't know the structure of that database. i don't know can we provide it if it's not -- if the patient privacy and protections aren't taken out? and so to hand over a large research database, i don't know what -- >> let me ask you -- >> but we could get you access to the data. >> so if we say then that -- because i want gulf war veterans to have access to this data, not just me. if we say then that minus the hippa protections that exist in

law, that you're going to turn over all the data relevant to this 2010 national health study concerning gulf war veterans, that part that concerns gulf war veterans. >> i think that's a question that's too complex for right here and now. i will be glad to personally further this conversation with you. i'm not sure exactly what you want. large databases are not something that one -- it's not just the data. so what are the questions that gulf war veterans want to answer? that's our responsibility, to engage with them and get answers to the questions that they want and need. you know that there are active researchers that have been working within the gulf war databases. there are, you know, several incredible studies that have recently come out in terms of trying to get to the foundations of what might be behind that. but i can't tell you i can hand you over a large database. i don't know the legal authorities to do that.

i don't know where it would go. i don't know how it would be protected. but we can have that conversation. i just don't think we can have it here today. >> let's have that conversation tomorrow. because i can tell you as a gulf war veteran, i don't share with you your statement about the commitment of the va for gulf war research. it's not there. it's absolutely not there. it tries to veer off into a direction that is kind of all in your head, quote, unquote, and mr. chairman, i'd like to enter this for the record, this letter from the president of the research advisory committee on gulf war illness if i could put this in the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection, and gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, if i may, i mentioned earlier today over at va there is a state of the art conference going on exploring

the relationship between mitochondrial function and disease and veterans. much of the research that's come through that committee is pointing fundamentally to a basis of that disease, much of the muscle aches, the myosigh tis, the chronic fatigue syndrome as being related. we have pulledresearch ers to begin to explore that and the hope is for a structure for a national multicenter trial that would look at potential both the basis of the disease and potential treatments. there have been several out there that showed promise in small studies. they need to be looked at in larger studies but they also need to be looked at with a sound basis to link the pathophysiology to the disease state to the treatment. that is going on today, sir.

>> thank you very much. mr. titus, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jesse, i have been hearing a lot of news stories and even in this committee where members say, well, the va lied to me. yow, i don't think the va -- most people at the va are intentionally lying but i want to encourage you to have as much open dialogue as possible because with that transparency we can meet our mutual goal of helping veterans. i have a good relationship with isabel duff at the southern nevada va health system and we talk regularly, meet regularly. i would encourage that at all your facilities or areas. second, i would like to join miss brownley in the request for information when you find out where oxnard is. would you also look at laughlin and perump. if you could get that back to me, i'd sure appreciate it.

>> absolutely. >> thank you. and then the third question i would like to go back to what the ranking member was talking about, the restructuring or realignment of the system. i know you realigned the headquarters and you said it was an ongoing process to look at the realignment of the areas. just give you an example of how this doesn't seem to make much sense. my district is las vegas, and so the constituents there are part of the desert pacific health care network. now, this ranges from rural nevada to central california all the way down to the mexican border, and the state of nevada is split into three different areas. surely we could try to bring a little more order to that regional division. are you all doing that? is that part of what you're considering. >> that's the next step. when they were originally set up and brilliantly so i might add, they were built to provide an

equity both in numbers of populations so the they were all roughly to be the same size. obviously the geographies were quite different, but also to follow the logical local referral patterns. so if a small facility is referring to big facility, you wouldn't want to split them up and put them into two different areas. so that's the way it was originally built. it's been modified once if you remember 13 and 14 became 23. but clearly the referral patterns have changed. clearly the demographics have changed. and it needs to be relooked at. it also does need to be relooked at in terps of the overall structure. if we don't examine every one of our assumptions today, then we're not going to get to where we need to be. we have to question are 21 the right number. are the structures the right number? are the referral patterns the

right number. >> is there a time table for doing this? >> i think any time table we had has probably changed, truth be told, because i think, you know, particularly what you heard today and, frankly, many of these ideas that were discussed in the first panel are things we've actually been looking deeply into, but i would hate to say we're going to put out a plan to change the lines because today we really need to be relooking at the entire structure of the organization moving forward. so i apologize. that's not a solid answer but i think it's the more important statement that we will examine everything. >> i hope when you do, you will consider potential changes in the future, demographic changes, and growth especially. because the hospital in las vegas, you anticipated there be a 2% increase in demand on the system when that hospital was built. it's a 19% increase. i think the veteran population

is going to grow generally, certainly grow in las vegas now that the economy is coming back. so we don't want it to be a snapshot in time. we want it to have that projected growth as part of the formula when you realign these areas. >> and as that hospital was put together, there was great thought going into how the primary care base was going to be distributed around it and i hope that's meeting some of that need as well. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. miss custer, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chair, and thank you, dr. jesse, for appearing here with us. we appreciate it. i want to focus in on some of the testimony that we heard earlier in the day and see if i could get some reaction from you or response. we've heard of a pretty incredible statistic in this committee that, i believe, almost 50% of the appointments are no-shows, and i understand you're often dealing with an older population and transportation and such. but it doesn't seem like a very

efficient or effective way to run the vha. has there been any consideration to either and/or telephonic scheduling where there's a conversation about whether or not the veteran can actually make that appointment and, number two, some type of automated appointment reminder. >> so actually we do much of that. i'm a little bit baffled to hear as much conversation there was today about the fact that we don't. you know, the whole principle of missed opportunities in practice management has been one of the things va has been working very diligently on for years now. so actually when that comment was made, i asked them to fact check what we are for primary care, the no show rate is 11.5%. in my clinic the no-show rate is

about 0% because if somebody doesn't show up, everybody is worried about them and we track them down. but we do use phone calls. in fact, the ewl, the function of the ewl is this is where patients are and if you get an opening when you make that phone call and somebody says i can't make the appointment, you pull people down off that list. that's the point of doing that. so we actively do practice management in that regard. so as i said, i will acknowledge the variation that occurs in the system. some places probably do it great and others maybe not so well, but the beauty of an integrated system is that we actually can have those who do it great help bring up those who are struggling and we try and do that when we identify those. >> so that leads to another question that has come up repeatedly today is what is the practice about sharing best practices. why do we have such variation across 21 different regions and

why if you're citing an 11% missed opportunity, why are we hearing these statistics about 50%, half, more than half? >> i don't know. and because, first of all, there will be variation around it and it may be clinic by clinic or provider by provider but getting that variation out of the system is absolutely what's key. >> and is that a metric -- we've heard a lot about metrics and data. obviously that ran amok in the scheduling -- trying to deal with these wait lists, but because it led to bad behavior. is there a way to incent good behavior by having some type of metric about patients actually getting seen? this notion of patient focused care for veterans so that we're focused on the veterans, how can we make sure that they get to see their medical care provider in a timely way? >> so we actually do have a

measure of missed opportunities, no shows and cancellations and that's cancellations both by the patient and by the clinic, and that is -- i want to be careful not to give the sense that that's used as a tool to drive behavior -- >> let's not get into a situation where we pretend people show up who don't show up. >> it is a practiced management tool so individuals who have their own clinics understand they have a problem with patients not showing up. if they're not leveraging using open slots, that's not effective use of the clinicians time. we may not be as some places as good as it is in the private sector, but private sector clearly has dealt with this very strongly because for them it's a revenue issue, but i would not say we wait for people not to

show up because it's a snow day. our providers are busy and we want our patients in there. we worry about them when they don't show up if we're expecting them because particularly in mental health, we track them down because we're afraid something might have happened. >> my time is up but it's something i think if you could take back to your administration, this is a critical point, and something that's extremely frustrating to all of us here. >> may i thank you for your nice comments about the manchester va. my dad -- >> we're fortunate. >> my dad used the manchester va and he always thought highly of it. >> mr. rourke, you're recognized for five minutes. >> a month ago i received this report from your predecessor dr. petzel. it's entitled wait time for

initial visit to patients new to the va. it shows right now zero patients are waiting longer than 14 days to see a mental health care provider. that was for march and for the month before that it was zero and it was like that through the past 12 months where the longest average wait time was three days. the audit we got from the vha this week shows the same group, these are new patients seeking mental health care appointments, it's actually 60 days which makes el paso vha the fourth worst in the country. when we look at established patient mental health care average wait times it's the worst of all vhas in the country. i want to know what the consequences are going to be for publishing false, inaccurate data. i'm sensitive to the comment that my colleague miss titus made about saying that these are lies, but i don't know what explains it and the consequences

could not be more dire for the people depending on this. i'd like to hear concisely what the consequences are going to be. >> we've had a little bit of a discussion about this, and i can't say what the consequences are because i don't know how it happened and by whom. i think at the bottom of this is we looked at data that we assumed to be correct. we didn't challenge ourselves to find out it wasn't until we got down and did this audit. and i don't know that without looking into it and, frankly, this is why we have the ig and others doing these investigations, if somebody glib r deliberately mislead you or somebody else on this data. there will be consequences. i'm not a lawyer, i can't speak to -- >> let me follow up with this. i shared with you a survey we did because there's such a discrepancy between what va was reporting and what veterans are telling me. we found in that statistically

valid survey, more than one-third of the veterans i represent who seek mental health care points cannot get into within 14 days, they cannot get in at all. when you have 22 veterans a day killing themselves in this country, when i learn from one of my constituents that her son, a veteran, came to one of my town hall meetings, heard veteran after veteran go up to the mike and say i can't get home. on the drive home he said these guys are a lot older than i am, they have been trying to get into the system longer than i have, what does that say about my chances? four days later he killed himself. this is a crisis and frankly i do not see the urgency from you. i do not see the commitment to accountability from you and others to address this. if i knew what you know, i would fly down to el paso and try to discover who those 36% of the veterans who have been denied and locked out of the system are. you're not doing that. we spoke the day after i released the report. we asked for a plan of action.

we spoke then monday of this week we asked for a plan of action. i asked you before you sat down. you said you were going to go back to the office and take a look at this. i have been very patient and very cooperative in working with the va. that has not served me or the veterans that i represent very well. i understand you have a lot of demands on your time right now given what we've learned from phoenix but we have a crisis in el paso and in many other places but i have identified it for you. i have given you the information. i'm willing to help you. i will use my own resources to track these folks down with you. but you have the list, the information, the veterans who sought care and not been able to get it. when are we going to get that urgency from you and when are we going to connect them with the care that they deserve and that they've earned. >> as i said when we spoke earlier, when i get back to the office, i will get the final answer. i don't know why you haven't gotten the plan yet. i would hope that by now all of the veterans would have been dauld and as i said, my concern is the 36% number that you have in your survey. because i'm concerned about the ones that we know but i know we

can help them and get them in. i'm really concerned about the ones we don't and how we reach out to them and ensure that people who think that they're waiting for an appointment and somehow we've missed them or dropped off, i don't know. i'm really worried about them and i have offered to come down. we will get a time and figure it out. >> okay. i'm going to use every opportunity i have when you or someone else from the va or the vha appears before us to press this issue because we know about it, you say that you have a commitment to it. we have yet to see a plan of action. i think we need a s.w.a.t. team flown down to el paso to connect these people. again, i would like to be part of the solution. i offer myself and my office, our resources to that effort but we need to get it done. >> and i thank you for that. i very much appreciate you wanting to be part of that solution. >> thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. thank you, mr. o'rourke. i'd like to read from united states code section 1505. it says whoever corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication influss,

obstructs, are impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the united states or the due and proper exercise of power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either house or any committee of either house or any joint committees of the congress shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years. this is serious stuff. >> yes, sir. >> and i hope the department gets it. are there any other questions? >> i had one question. >> miss brownley. >> one last question at least for myself. in the earlier testimony today -- well, let me just say there have been a lot of recommendations made to this committee on how things can be improved, and i would certainly be curious to know how the va is

digesting that and how they're responding to it. but there was one i think compelling recommendation today to -- before we move forward with a major fix to this situation that we should first do with an outside consultant a cultural assessment within the va and i'm just wondering, you know, what you're reaction is to that, what your response is to that recommendation to this committee. >> so the answer is absolutely but more. yes, the cultural piece is crucial, but -- and culture is established by leadership. i think -- i take that very much to heart. the organizational structure and design was part of that discussion, and, again, absolutely, and we have been over the past several weeks

meeting with a number of people who work in this area, with expertise in this area. absolutely agree it needs to be done. we can't redesign it ourselves. we need the input and, you know, been hagving a number of information with folks at kaiser. how does kaiser's organizational structure seem to work well? how does mayo's structure work well. we need people who can see across those systems and bring that shared knowledge to bear to us. so, yes, we definitely plan on doing that. we will do it expeditiously. >> thank you. >> we will include the veterans and the veterans services in that discussion as well, by the way. >> if i can just in closing ask one question. in testimony that you presented to this committee in february of

2013, you stated that the pittsburgh va health care systems copper silver ionization system may have failed to consistently prevent legionella growth. do you recall that system? okay. in a december 2012 va report, va leadership was made aware it was poor record keeping, lack of oversight, and lack of documentation, failure to test the hospital's water level at the at the heart of the disease outbreak. now we know it has led to at least six preventable deaths at that facility. so explain to me how you could testify to congress contrary to something that had already -- >> so i was not aware of that report at the time i made that testimony. and i apologize -- >> are you aware of the report today? >> what's that? >> are you aware of the report today? >> yes. >> has anybody been held

responsible for writing your speech or intentionally misleading the congress? >> i don't know that anybody intentionally misled. i don't know where that -- that said report was given to senior leadership. i don't know the trail on that report and, in fact, i was made aware of it only relatively recently, and so somewhere in the traveling of information, it didn't get widely distributed. i don't know the answer to that. >> has the person that wrote your testimony been held accountable now that you know about the report and it does, in fact, contradict your testimony? >> well, i don't know that the person who wrote the testimony was aware of it at the time either. and i don't know what it means -- the central office was aware of that. i apologize. i don't know the answer to that. there was no intent to mislead. i assure you -- >> but we know your testimony was not, in fact, true. >> well, the testimony is true.

it's not complete, but it is true. you know, let me put a rev rebs point on it. the cdc came in. they took extensive water samples, and in those water samples, in fact, the copper silver iron levels were at manufacturer instruction levels and they grew legionella out of them. we know in water samples with appropriate levels, it failed to control legionella and that's not happened just in pittsburgh va. it happened in other hospitals. >> does it -- i guess my question -- this is pretty critical, but does it bother you that you testified to something, there was a report that differed from your testimony, and you were not provided that information? >> it bothers the heck out of

me, yes, sir. >> all right. >> absolutely. >> thank you for being here. we thank the earlier panel for being with us. thank you, members, and this hearing is adjourned. the house earlier this week unanimously approved a bill improving access to health care for veterans. the measure would allow the va secretary to create a path to care at private hospitals for

veterans. the senate also passed their own version of a veterans health care bill yesterday. the vote was 93-3. it now goes to the house for consideration. by the way, if you missed any of this hearing, we will have it again for you later on the c-span networks. and live now to the white house briefing room for questions from reporters for white house spokesman jay carney. this started about five minutes ago. >> seventh district of virginia is as strong today as it was then, and the house ought to follow the senate's lead and pass a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform measure that would provide extraordinary benefits to our economy, to our security, and to our businesses and would deal with this challenge in a comprehensive way. that imperative hasn't changed at all. that's what the president was referring to. yes? >> there's been a lot of talk over the last two days about the

surprise of seeing how fast things have been moving in iraq. but given what's been going on in syria for such a long time, wasn't exactly this scenario something this administration foresaw for some time? and if it wasn't, then should it have been? >> well, as i think i just said, we have been very aware and have discussed here and in other venues the challenge posed by the war in syria and the extremist activity there and the isil as it formed and moved across the border into iraq. and that has always been a great concern. that is why we have stepped up the assistance that we've been providing to the iraqi security forces. >> so the surprise is what? how complete -- >> that's your -- here is -- as i think the president accurately said just moments ago in the oval office, we cannot be everywhere at all times.

whether it's iraq or elsewhere, we need to partner with other countries and their militaries and security forces to assist them in combatting these kinds of extremist challenges, and that is what the counterterrorism partnership fund is about that the president discussed in west point and it is about, and that is very much the manner in which we've approached our close relationship with the iraqi government and the support that we give iraqi security forces. ultimately, you know, a nation -- a sovereign nation like iraq has to have the capacity to deal with these kind of challenges. we can assist, and we are, and we will look at all options in this current near term situation, but the medium and long term solution to a challenge like this has to be

one that is led by iraqi security forces. >> does this make for a great argument for having -- for the u.s. having acted sooner in syria? >> i can remember answering questions probably before you got here, michelle, but about our concern or should we be concerned when it came to supplying lethal assistance to the opposition in syria, about where that assistance and in whose hands that assistance would ultimately end up and whether or not we could trust that that assistance would not find it's way to extremists who actually had designs against u.s. national security interests or americans themselves. and that is why we took the approach that we took and it is also why we have established now for quite some time a manner by

which we can provide and have provided substantial assistance to the moderate opposition, including to the oppositions armed elements. and that's the approach we took precisely because we did not want and -- and many others did not want for assistance from the united states to end up in the hands of extremists. justin. >> excuse me. two quick ones on iraq. the first is when the president determined about a year ago that he wanted to launch air strikes against -- targeted air strikes again syria, he went to congress for authorization for that. if he makes the same determination here, do you feel like it's necessary to get any sort of authorization from congress? >> there are obviously legal authorities that exist regarding

the use of military force in conflicts not in syria but elsewhere. we can get more for you on that, but the president said today that he's considering all options in response to the question about potential direct action by the united states military, but, you know, we would have to get back to you on how that would proceed if that decision were made. >> and then does this change at all your calculus for withdrawal from afghanistan? i mean, we've seen -- there are certainly republicans on the hill that suggested that a big raise in the sort of insurgency in iraq was able to take hold because there wasn't a continuing u.s. presence there. i'm wondering if that changes anything? >> it does not change the approach that the president announced recently that we are taking in afghanistan.

we are ending that combat mission this year, and we -- pending the signing of a bilateral security agreement will keep a smaller number of troops in afghanistan focused exclusively on the missions that the president discussed, and i think that the broader question has to be when we talk about this is should american men and women in uniform be fighting in iraq today? and is that the right approach for our national security interests? should american forces be occupying countries for decades or should we take the approach that the president took when he ended the war in iraq and establish a relationship with the sovereign government of iraq through which we can provide the kind of assistance we provide? that's the approach he believes is the right approach to take

and it's certainly consistent with the strategy he's laid out in afghanistan. >> jay, thanks. following up on that issue, tha question -- [ inaudible ] -- do you have anything with the with assurance -- >> we need to have are, as the president laid out in the speech at west point a strategy that's focused on partnering with the security forces of other country s that helps them develop the capacities necessary to deal with these kinds of threats because we cannot have u.s. forces around the world in armed conflicts without end. it's simply not. we retain the right to use

military force unilaterally if necessary when the national security forces demand it. when we are looking at the medium and long term approach to the challenge posed by terrorist groups like isil that we shouldn't partner with. it allows for those forces to work more effectively against the threat that the jihadistss pose. >> does this not under cut -- since you bring up west point, the president's argument for a lighter footprint? >> i understand you can't have forces there indefinitely. but given the fact that it continues to deinvolve? >> when you're asking that about iraq is the suggestion that we

should stand or still have tens of thousands of toops in iraq? if that's the proposition then we can discuss it. it's certainly not the president's view. what we can do is consider requests from our partners in the iraqi government. we can provide the substantial assistance we can provide to the forces. that's material, intelligence assistance and the like. we can contemplate other requests and take action as necessary. if the question you're asking is should we have 10, 20, 50, 100,000 troops in iraq the president's view is no. >> not necessarily. senator tim kaine said that the president should present a clear plan to congress soon.

does the president have any immediate plans to consult with members of congress? >> we are in active consultation with members of congress on the situation in iraq. we will continue to do that os appropriate. >> finally, how would you characterize what's happening in iraq now? would you characterize it as a simple war? >> what we are seeing is an islamic jihadist group composed substantially of noniraqis, as i understand it. but certainly mixed nationalities threatening the sovereign state of iraq. the iraqi security forces need to confront that threat. we are working very closely with the government in baghdad and with iraq's political leadership to evaluate the kinds of assistance we can provide in addition to the assistance we

have already provided and the assistance that's on its way to help them meet the challenge. >> just to be clear, would you characterize it as a civil war? >> again, i think the way i characterized it reflects what's happened on the ground there. yes, ma'am? >> australian broadcasting corporation. you had the australian prime minister today. he's been critical of the president in the past. some would say offensive at times about him. has all been forgiven and given the past relationship, how would you now describe it since they disagree so much on climate change? >> well, i think what the president said reflected the very close nature of the relationship between the united states and australia. the alliance between our nations. the friendship between our nations and the tone of the meeting, the bilateral meeting reflected that the warmth and

high level of collaboration and cooperation. the leaders discussed a number of issues and climate change was one of them, of course. they talked about the importance of confronting climate change. president obama emphasized the need for climate policies as the basis of a strong international response. the united states will continue working with australia to advance climate change, clean energy and nrnl efficiency solutions including many the context of the g-20. this was a topic of discussion among many, as you would expect in a bilateral meeting between leaders of close allies. >> can we ask you to put it on the g-20 agenda? >> i don't have a specific agenda to lay out for you. certainly within the context of the g-20 this is something the president believes would be important to discuss. cheryl?

>> do you have a readout about the tpp or trade negotiations? >> i don't have more detail than the president provided in the statement at the bottom of the bilat. major? >> does the president believe based on briefings. [ inaudible ] >> the president knowses that the situation in iraq is serious. and there needs to be action taken quickly in order to confront the challenge posed by the isil. i wouldn't characterize are the situation on the ground militarily. i would refer you to the defense department for that. what efforts we can take, building on the efforts we have taken already to assist the

iraqi government. >> there are reports forces assisted in this because of the isl forces. is there confirmation or would you consider it a welcome will development. >> we have seen reports, but we cannot confirm them, may squor. because of the security situation in iraq and the brutal actions of isil there we urge the government of iraq to take prudent decisionses on how it will address the crisis in the spirit of national unity which goes back to the point i was making earlier. the only way for this to be effectively dealt with in iraq in the medium and long term is for there to be political unity in iraq in combatting a common enemy. there is no side in iraq that isil is fighting for.

this is a jihadist, extremist group bent on death and destruction within iraq. it is absolutely necessary for the various factions within iraqi politics and ethnic and religious groups to come together, united by the threat posed to the iraqi sovereign state here to rebuff the challenge. >> do you have a message for the irani government to stay out, even if invited? . >> this is an issue for the sovereign government of iraq. they ought to make prudent digs about how to deal with the threat in the interest of national unity. >> you used in the first formulation to talk about an effort that builds on moderation. can you credibly apply either of the words, unified or moderate to al malaki's governing of iraq and how much claim does it put

on his decision making process in that part of the country? >>i can certainly say we agree all iraqedly leaders including prime minister mal can ki need to address unresolved issue ares within iraq to better meet the needs of the iraqi people. however the threat to iraq's stability now is isil. is is il has an ideology that has little to do with the politics rather to aim and terrorize the iraqi people regardlessless of the sect or ethnic or religious affiliation. the ideology would be the same no matter who was in power in baghdad. that said, we'll continue to work with iraqi leaders to encourage the kind of collaborative approach and

governance that would best address the unresolved issues. we encourage sport from all iraqi communities by presenting a common decision aimed at keeping the program together. this has been an ongoing challenge in iraq. as it tries to build a future as a sovereign state. in order to do that iraqi leaders need to have a unified vision about iraq's future that's not sliced into separate visions according to political affiliation or religious affiliation. that's the challenge that iraq's leaders have been grappling with. it's an urgent challenge now. the immediacy of the threat poseded by the extremist group

highlights the need for iraq's leaders and other political actors to set aside some of the differences to join together to meet the common threat posed by isil. >> the president, vice president, one of his advisers have all described iraq as a success story within the past couple of years. when did it go bad? >> wendell, we have described what was the case. that's that iraq has over the years taken steps to resolve its internal political differences through peaceful means as opposed to through violence. this is an ongoing challenge within iraq. isil is not a domestic political entity. it is a force that's trying to claim territory and wreak havoc in iraq. it is a force that has no iraqi

citizens' interests at heart. that's why, as i mentioned before it is a threat posed by isil as cause for increased unity among iraq's political factions. and a more cohesive approach to be taken by the central are government in baghdad when it comes to combatting the serious threat. >> senators are graham and cain both held "i told you so" conferences to say we are seeing now the risk of losing what americans lose their lives for was cause bid nd by not keeping troops in iraq. why are they wrong? >> wendell, there is no question that senator mccain and president obama have differed on the iraq war since senator mccain was for it and barack obama was against it. there is no question going back to 2008 when senator mccain

allowed that his vision might include tens of thousands in iraq in perpetuity. that was in stark contrast as a vision to the one held by then senator obama which was that we should responsibly end what was already a long war in iraq. president obama's view is that iraq needs to go with the partnership of the united states, be able to handle its own security. and i would note from some of the statements you said today that within a couple of sentences of each other, senator mccain said this is because we didn't keep troops in iraq are. he's not calling for troops in iraq.

you know, i'm not a logics ex pert but there is inconsistency in the statements, it would seem. the fact is we can't be everywhere at all times to meet the challenge pose bid extremist groups by isil. it can partner with iraq as the president noted today through the counter terrorism partnership fund and our direct bilateral association. we can work together to help iraq beat back a challenge like this. iraq's future has to be resolved by the iraqi people and by the leadership of iraq. >> one final question. you rattled off a list of the equipment we provided in iraq. some of which is now in the hands of the i srgs -- isil

folks. how much of what we are seeing in iraq is a result of not taking a more aggressive response in syria. >> we carefully evaluated to whom we would be providing assistance to syria in the opposition so the assistance did not end up in the wrong time. we have provided substantial assistance to the opposition in syria. but i think the past history showses an understanding of the situation in both syria and portions of iraq bears out that we need to be smart about how we, and to whom we provide lethal assistance and military hardware of any kind. that's the approach we take. that's right in terms of the

national security interest. >> just a short while ago, speaker of the house john boehner described the situation in iraq are and said, what's the president doing? he's taking a nap. i would like your response for the speaker of the house. >> my response is the answer to the question is a little bit more substantive than we had given and the approach we are taking. we provide substantial assistance to iraqi security forces. i would note in the same briefing, as i understand it, the highest elected leader of the republican party didn't have any suggestions for an approach to iraq that i could tell. or any policy prescriptions he would offer beyond the statement you just repeated. >> on the question of troops going back to the end of the war the administration with vice president biden taking a lead role tried but failed to get a

status of forces agreement with iraq that would allow some u.s. troops to remain for training and counter terrorist. because of the failure all the troops had to come out immediately. do you believe -- does the white house believe the situation in iraq would have been different if you didn't get the status of forces agreement and there was a residual force left. >> the agreement to which you refer was one that would have had to have been reached between two sovereign nations. and an agreement to allow for under conditions we would find acceptable. remaining force from the american military wasn't reached by three negotiations between the united states and iraq. the point i would make is that a relatively small number of troops designed specifically for the kind of narrow mission we

are talking about with a post 2014 force in afghanistan would not supplant the need in afghanistan or iraq for national security forces to take the lead effectively in combatting any extremist threat from the outside. again, if the argument is that we should have, as some suggested going back to 2008, tens of thousands of u.s. troops in iraq in perpetuity -- >> i'm asking a specific question. >> and i answered that. a small force focused on ct training and troop training and assistance is not the same as what was called for by others when it came to a substantial, essentially occupation force in

iraq which senator obama, president obama and candidate for senate obama never supported. >> it never would have made a difference? the situation would not be different? >> you are asking us to hypothesize about what might have been in a different circumstance. i don't think anybody can answer that question. i can tell you the sovereign state of iraq has security forces. they need to be up to the tasks of dealing with these challenges. now they will have the assistance that comes with partnership with the united states as well as with other nations that have the interests of iraq and its sovereignty at heart. and provide substantial assistance to iraq as the united states does. ultimately iraq's future needs to be decided and defended by iraqis. we are providing substantial assistance and delivering in

this current near term challenge what other efforts we can undertake to help the iraqis in this current situation. but the long term here -- and this was true two years ago and will be true nows has to be one that sees an iraqi future that is defended by unified political leadership in iraq and by iraqi security forces. >> the president and senior officials in the white house have repeatedly, over the years, as recently as tuesday described as the president's top foreign policy accomplishments, ending the war in iraq and decimating and destroying core al qaeda, given what we are seeing in iraq, can you claim those as two of the signature achievements? >> there is no question that the president pledged to end the war in iraq and he did.

>> there is no war in iraq now? >> u.s. combat mission in iraq. >> u.s. combat. >> what is also the case and what the president said as we wound down in iraq is we need to be a good partner to the government in iraq and provide the assistance that we can at their request to help them meet their security challenges. we have done that. iraq's future has to be decided through reconciliations within iraq and a unified approach to dealing with the challenge pose bid a group like the isil. >> destroying core al qaeda when an al qaeda-linked group is in control of major cities in the heart of iraq? >> within your question you have made the appropriate distinction which is core iraq based in afghanistan has been severely compromised and decimated. i don't think anybody would

disagree. what we have been saying for a long time is that when it comes to threats to the united states and our national security interests directly, the threat posed by affiliated groupses has grown in yemen, for example, and elsewhere. as the core leadership and core al qaeda in the region has been diminished and decimated. we have openly discussed that. john brennan and over at the cia has talked about it. that's a challenge we are up front about. i don't think you can argue that when it comes to the afghanistan, pakistan region that the strategy of going after core al qaeda leadership has not been effectively prosecuted. >> has it been equally dangerous or more dangerous to have an al

qaeda-linked group in charge of major iraqi cities than in the mountains of pakistan? >> i would have to remind you that the most severe military attack on the united states in our lifetimes occurred and was ordered out of afghanistan and pakistan by core al qaeda. >> is there any concern here at the white house about a disruption of oil supplies? >> i have obviously -- i don't have any specific information about that. i can tell you when it comes to the oil fields in -- let me make sure i get it right -- there is a refinery and we understand that remains in the control of

the government of iraq. but i have not -- i don't have any other additional information about that issue. >> americans north of baghdad, the a.p. had a story that three plane loads of americans are going to be or have been evacuated as a precaution to get them out of the way of the insurgency. >> i don't have any information on that. i would ask the state department. kerry? >> why isn't the president considering ground troops given the point that the administration contemplated having troops there? can you explain why that's not on the table? >> we don't believe that's the approach we should take. in this case we agree with senator mccain who made the point today or at least it was his view. what the president referred to was the question about

contemplating air strikes. as i have been saying ultimately the challenge posed by a group like isil has the to be met by the iraqi government and security forces. they can be assisted as they have been and are being by the united states and other partners. and we will review requests for further assistance and other kinds of assistance very closely. obviously in the current situation quickly. but ultimately iraq's future will be decideded by the ability of iraq's political leaders to come together in a spirit of unity to deal with what a nation like iraq faceses in building its future specifically in repelling the kind of assault we

are seeing now from an extremist group like isil which is not focused on changing iraqi domestic politics. it is focused on death and destruction within iraq and regardless of political affiliation. >> -- to the united states overnight? >> i would refer you to the defense department. mark? >> jay, some people pointed out that with isil advancing on baghdad we may not have a common interest with iran but we may have an overlapping interest and they are worried obviously about the shiites in iraq. i'm wondering more broadly whether you believe there is some degree of overlap in the interests that iran and the u.s. have in this particular case. if that's the case, what constructive role could iran

play in defusing the crisis? >> mark, i think the question has to be not just the immediate crisis but how iraq can move forward. we have seen reports about this. we can't confirm them but we would certainly call on the government of iraq to approach such considerations prudently in the interest of national yoount unity. iraq are's future, as the president was saying has the to be one decided by all elements of iraqi society. what you don't want to see happen is a situation where unity sven more severely tested than it has been in the past. i think that would suggest that the iraqi government would need to approach that kind of

question very carefully. >> beyond staying out, is there something else iran could do that would be constructive? >> i'm not sure that this is specific to iran. but everybody in the region in the world, we believe should have an interest in not seeing groups like isil flourish. that's separate from religious affiliation. it has to do with the sovereignty of a nation like iraq. and the appalling actions taken by groups like isil. >> vice president biden had this for the first term in a formal way. that changed a bit in the second

term. with this now metastasizing like this, is he deep lly engaged? >> vice president biden continued to be one of the principal interlocutors. he has a long history in iraq with all of the political group there is and with the leaders there. and that hasn't changed. certainly in recent months the vice president has been actively engaged in discussions with the iraqi leadership. >> april? >> jay, as the president is assessing this, what are the guarantees that there won't be some boots going over there to help out? >> we are not contemplating boots on the ground. we are with looking at options

we can take, including in the assistance we po vied. military assistance we can provide to the iraqi security force thes, the government. we are evaluating requests of other actions we might take. the president was referring in answer to the question in the oval office today to specifically the question about whether he would consider direct action, u.s. air strikes. we are not considering boots on the ground. >> they are not expected. they are anticipated and may escalate. what are the guarantees? >> we are not considering that. andre, zeke and then we'll get out of here. >> jay, it may not be your last briefing but it could be mine. i want to thank you for trying to be fair.

it is appreciated. >> thank you. >> today is russian national day. looking back, the united states has done all you can to be partners with russia. >> by "uh new russia" you mean post soviet russia? the approach president obama has taken has been one driven by a clear focus on our national interest. where our interest and russia are's overlap we have been able to cooperate and we have been clear about our disagreementses with russia. those disagreements have are intensified, as you know. most especially over russia's

extremely unhelpful approach to the situation in ukraine. and illegal claims of annexations of a portion of the sovereign territory of ukraine. but we, again, continue to approach the relationship with russia. in a very deliberate manner. we call on russia to use its influence to prevail upon separatists in ukraine to lay down their arms, to vacate buildings they have occupied and to abide by the approach announced by the new president of ukraine when it comes to reconciliation and moving forward in ukraine. we urge russia to take that

action, to recognize the new president to cease assistance to the separatists in ukraine. we'll continue to make our views on that issue and other areas where we agree very are clear, publically and in frequent conversations with our counterpartses in the russian government. we will also continue to work with russia cooperatively where there are areas we continue to work coop are a are tifly. it's in our national security to do so. >> why don't you call on the government to show some restraint and the military activations they have against their own people and the shelling and bombing? basically their own regions? >> andre, i think that we all

need to be clear-eyeded about who is responsible for the violence in ukraine. i would urge you to as well. as you know president parashenko in his inaugural address had a cease-fire taking steps to escalate including recognizing the president of ukraine, ceasing support for separate is and stopping the provision of arms and material across the border. we are concerned by reports that is the groups are in support of weapons including tanks which would represent a significant escalation. when vice president biden spoke to the two leaders -- the president -- the ukrainian government will will grant amnesty within ukraine or offer

safe pass kaj back to russian militants operating in eastern ukraine. vice president biden expressed support for discussions between ukraine, russia and special representative heidi tagliavini. i think the government in kiev has demonstrated an absolute commitment to deescalating the conflict, to reconciliation within ukraine. it would be a good thing if russia would follow suit. last one. >> you mentioned that the president has authority to take unilateral action. i wonder if it including the 2002 iraq resolution which is on the books. does the white house believe the president has the authority under that? >> what i said as i continued to answer the question was that we will evaluate requests and consider actions we may take.

the president made it clear in the oval office. we don't have a discussion on that specific issue now. when we do we can get back to you. >> senator mendes increased legislation to repeal the resolution from 12 years ago. it has five or six -- >> broadly, separate from the current circumstances we have addresseded the president's approach on this issue. thanks sh everybody. as you can see on the bottom of the screen and as the ap is reporting released captive army sergeant bo bergdahl is set to arrive at texas medical center tomorrow. the intention was for bergdahl to be reunited with his family in san antonio. he was released from the taliban

may 31. he's been recuperating in germany since june 1. he was deployed in eastern afghanistan when he disappeared in june of 2009. we have more live programming coming up with the discussion on trade along the u.s. mexico border. the wilson center and the group border trade alliance hosted the event which will feature results from texas congressman henry quayar whose district is on the border. that's live at 12:25 eastern. tonight it's the annual radio and tv congressional correspondents dinner. including dennis mcdonough and comedian nick offerman. join us tomorrow when hillary clinton recounts her ten the your as secretary of state from her memoir "hard choices." she'll speak with a former speech writer for mrs. clinton and co-owner of politics and

prose bookstore. the program held at george washington university here in washington, d.c. live at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. coming up saturday, live coverage of the republican convention in des moines including bobby jindal, kentucky senator rand paul and 2012 presidential candidate rick santorum at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c are-span. one of the things people don't always recognize is that during the war of 1812 it was fought from 1812 until after 1814, early 1815. it was really about america re-establishing its independence against the british. this was our second american revolution. this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem.

>> the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored. there was a bottom section reconstructed. when the flag was moved into new space there was a deliberate decision not to do that again. what we wanted was that the flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it is torn but survives. we are not trying to make it look pretty. we're trying to make it look like it's endured its history and can still celebrate its history. >> this year marks the 200th anniversary of the british naval bombard ment of fort mchenry during the war of 1812. learn more about the flag fran are sis scott key wrote about. while we tour the star-spangled banner exhibit sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv. this weekend on c-span 3.

when i started covering congress you had people like senator russell long, wilbur mills, danny rostenkowski, howard baker. people who were giants in their own way. a couple of them got into trouble. they were all intelligent. they knew how to of craft legislation. they knew how to do a deal and they worked with whoever the president was. whether it was their party or the other party. yes, there was politics. at the end of the day they found a way to come together. first of all, the quality of members of congress and the house and senate in terms of intelligence and their work ethics has diminished. i shouldn't malign some of

the -- there are wonderful members on both sides. i think they are a minority . increasingly people are driven by politics and their own survival. you know, i think the hardest work they do is raising money. it's not learning the issues or crafting deals. it's making speeches and positioning themselves to get re-elected. >> investigative reporter lisa myers is leaving washington, d.c. behind. find out why sunday at 8:00 on q & a. the house foreign affairs committee held a hearing this week on the status of iran's nuclear compliance and addressed what the international community can do to evaluate and enforce iran's nuclear commitments. national security officials provided remarks and recommendations for next steps. the current nuclear agreement with iran expires this year.

>> this hearing will come to order. we'll ask the members here to take their seats. this morning we are focused on iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and how to stop it. international negotiations over iran's nuclear program are coming down to the wire. indeed an urgent push is going on as we speak. senior administration officials are sitting with iran yans today in geneva. critical differences remain, including the status of iran's enrichment capability which is technology key to developing a nuclear weapon. iran's stated desire is the to increase from its roughly 19,000 centrifuges today to over 50,000. the future of the plutonium bomb

factory at iraq reare mains unclear. iran continueses to stone wall international inspectors on the past bomb-making work. just the other week the country's supreme leader characterized the requirement as part of the final agreement that iran limit the ballistic missile program as, in his words, stupid, idiotic expectations. i think we can presume this is going to be a hard climb here. meanwhile, iran continues support for terrorism abroad. it continues quest for regional domination and the human rights record are at home continues where those not of the right belief system according to the theocratic state are executed. a nuclear capable iran would be a national security disaster. while the sides might sound far apart the obama administration will push hard to reach a deal before the july 20th negotiation

deadline. and this committee may soon be asked to judge a comprehensive agreement. central to this would be evaluating the verification measures needed to ensure that iran cannot cheat. what types of conditions should u.s. negotiators be demanding? what are the limits of verify if i indication. how does reliance on iran's cooperation impact its work? some cite the adage, trust but verify. in this case there can't be trust. if question today is can there be verification. these questions are sharpened by the fact that iran's leaders have invested massive resources and decades of effort into their own nuclear program there. enrichment facilities were built in secret. a violation of its agreement with the iaea. one was dug into a mountainside

on a military base. another violation. as one witness will testify, when it comes to iran's nuclear program, they have a history of deception, a history of covert procurement and construction of clan december fine facilities acknowledged only when revealed by the government's adversaries. this dangerous regime has tied its prestige to its nuclear ambitions. they are not peaceful. given iran's record of clandestine activity and intransigen intransigence, clear consequences for violating requirements must be spilled out. with zero tolerance for cheating. an immediate test of iran's willingness to cooperate rests with the iaea's attempts to clarify evidence the international observer groups

has on the potential military dimensions of iran's programs. for several years iran are refused to provide information or explanation to the iaea on past bomb efforts. this includes the military base where iran has gone to great lengths to eliminate all traces of any clan december fine activity, including demolishing buildings and removing large areas of soil from the site. iran's willingness for past weapons programs should be an acid test for western negotiators. we must ask what good is striking an agreement and removing sanctions, our only leverage if iran keeps a capacity to secretly build nuclear bombs.

unfortunately, u.s. negotiators have already made a key concession that will complicate the task of verifying iran are's nuclear commitments. the interim agreement of last year would allow iran to maintain an enrichment program to give iran cover to develop a covert weapons program as the the ability produce low enriched uranium is close to that needed for a nuclear weapon. if iran is left with the capacity to enrich a breakout race to a weapon will be a permanent threat. a threat that undoubtedly will increase as sanctions are eased and the world turns its attention elsewhere. that's especially troubling given how iranian leaders have spoken of israel as, in their words a one-bomb country. many on the committee are very troubled that the obama administration has this on track

to an agreement that leaves iran as a permanent nuclear threat to the region and to us. today's hearing will be this committee's latest warning against the ill considered course of action. i will turn to the ranking member for his opening statement. mr. elliot engel of new york. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you and i have made a great deal, as have other members of the committee about the bipartisan nature of our committee and how you and i have worked hard to make this the most bipartisan committee in the congress. i must say after listening to your opening statement, i agree with it fully. i share your concerns. i think these are concerns of many, many members of this committee on both sides of the aisle. i want to thank you for calling

this timely and important hearing. as the p-5 plus one in iran continued to negotiate an agreement on the nuclear weapons program, we need to carefully examine how such a deal could be fully verified. what are the requirements for a final deal? what safeguards are needed to give us confidence that irans has seized the drive to develop a nuclear are weapons capability. according to the iaea, the joint plan of action, interim agreement has paused many of iran's are advancements toward a nuclear weapon. if the temporary agreement became permanent it would be inadequate. the status quo would leave too many unanswered questions and an iran that's too close to a nuclear breakout point. the agreement is necessary to end the permanent threat of a nuclear iran. the joint plan of action set for a comprehensive deal. there have been rumblings that

an extension will be needed. last week the head of the iaea made it clear that his agency would not finish its ongoing investigation of iran's nuclear program before july 20. that might work in our interest if negotiations are continuing but there is no deal and we need an extension. the negotiations between the p-5 plus one in iran have take place behind closed doors. we cannot evaluate the specific details of the potential deal that's being discuss ed i hope e can hear are from the administration in open session when appropriate. whatever the final form it's safe to say the deal will not be based, as you said, on ronald re gan's old axim trust but verify. there is mistrust and the iranians deserve every ounce of suspicion. tehran spent years developing a

coare vertical nuclear program and has violated its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. under the cloud of mistrust we must examine one of the most important parts of the deal. how do we verify compliance? iran may not make a mad dash for the bomb but everything i have seen tells me they will try to push the boundaries of any comprehensive agreement and test the will of the international community to response. even if negotiators are able to reach a deal we still don't know what we don't know. building covert facilities, outsourcing the program elsewherement they could been on the path to a nuclear weapon. today is important because congress has an important role to play in the deal. i want to reiterate that. congress has an important rule

to play in the -- role to play in the dole. it must be approved by congress. we will have to be convinced the deal on the table is a good one which brings us to the key questions facing the panel today. what are the minimum requirements for a good deal? secretary kerry said no deal is better than a bad deal. i agree. the question is will we agree on what's a good deal? what measures will be needed to give us confidence that iran isn't cheaping or attempting to break out. if we can't reach a deal with strong are verification measures what is the alternative? i have been troubled by negotiations with iran. i hope we have a comprehensive, server fireball agreement and i hope we are pleased with it. what troubles me is while we are negotiating with iran they continue to enrich.

it seems to me we could have made a deal to the iranians that if you want to stop for six months, stop enriching while we are talk talking. i don't think that was much to ask. i'm told it wasn't done because iran wouldn't agree. if they didn't agree to something as simples as that, what does that tell us, i father, about their agreement es to any comprehensive agreement. as far as i'm concerned, i want to see a dismantling of iran's program. not at the point where we push them back a fews months. i want to see them dis mantle the program. thank you.

>> now we go to the chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east in south africa who has been focused on iran for a long time. >> thank you very much for holding this vitally important hearing. while the administration continues to negotiate a bad and weak deal with iran are, while keeping congress in the dark it is important for us to highlight the menacing nature of the iranian regime and flaws the administrati administration's approach to this deception. we are almost at the end but the administrations has failed to properly consult with congress about important parts of the deal. where are details? congress has been steadfast in the mission to prevent iran acquiring nuclear weapons. only because of our efforts that iran has agreed to negotiate.

i offered with the support of so many people of the committee the strictest sanctions against iran. now we are seeing all of the work undone by the administration that misguidedly and dangerous willy trust iran despite decades of evidence that tells us that the mullahs are untrustworthy. time to wake up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go now to representative ted deutsch of florida, the ranking member on the middle east. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this morning's hearing is on verifying compliance. i fear the hearing topic might be premature. we are now coming up on the july 20th date, the end of the six-month period. what meaningful discussions have taken place on reducing the number of centrifuges. how close are we to a are

resolution? what's the plan to mothball iraq. finally, most importantly when will uh iran come clean on the dimensions of the program. these are the fundamental points we had to deal with. as we approach it, the notion that we can extend for another six months because we don't have a deal yet is not an acceptable one. we need to have a sense that there is movement on the part of the iranians toward a resolution rather than only delay and i look forward to hearing from witnesses today on how we might do that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. deutsch. now to mr. ted po. >> since the joint plan of action was signed by iran and the p-5 plus one in november the administration has been

negotiating with the iran yans for a big final deal. i hope our negotiators aren't the same ones that worked in the big deal with trading the taliban 5 for bergdahl. the administration seems to be giving athe courthouse and mineral rights as well. it seem it is united states would rather have any agreement -- even a bad one -- than no agreement at all. they can cheat and come up with a bomb. this could take months or years. they could develop a bomb so fast that we will not be able to detect or stop it. and then saudi arabia, turkey and egypt will want to develop nuclear weapons. we must insist on absolute dismantling of the capability. we are not dealing with nice people and can't believe they will be honest about nuclear development. we must remember the ayatollah insists oh the destruction of israel and the united states and the iranians are still developing intercontinental ballistic missiles which could be used against the united

states. we have a lot of questions to ask. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, judge. now to mr. brad sherman of california, the ranking member on the subcommittee. >> i strongly agree with the statements of the chair and the ranking member reflected that this committee was pushing for strong sanctions on iran over the objection of three administrations and that iran was brought to the table only because congress imposed sanctions that were resisted by the executive branch. in these negotiations, a lot of the focus is on whether iran will enrich, equally important is whether they will stockpile. iran's resistance to enforcement mechanisms bestr stratrays an a interest in evasion. it's easier to reactivate a centrifuge cascade than it is to reassemble international sanctions.

accordingly we not only need to negotiate with iran what mechanisms there will be to detect evasion but we need to negotiate with the european and asian partners what automatic sanctions reapplication will apply if those -- if any violation is detected. finally, our experience with the soviet union illustrates that you can negotiate a deal and ens force a deal even with an untrustworthy partner and even if the partner has greater capacity for evasion than iran. so i think a deal is physically possible. the question is whether we'll reach one. i yield back. >> thank you. we are joined to help us think through these critical issues by distinguished group of expertses here. mr. lauder is a senior adviser at 2020 strategic consulting. he served as deputy director of the national reconnaissance

office for national support and was director of the dci nonprolive indicatinonpro l nonprolive -- nonproliferation heinonen. previous he served 27 years at the international atomic energy agency in vienna where he was deputy director and head of its department of safeguards. we have ambassador detrani, served as the senior adviser to the director of national intelligence and he was director of the national counter proliferation -- center as a national security project

adviser. mr. rademaker served for international board of security and nonproliferation and staff director and chief counsel of this committee and we welcome him back. let me say that without objection, the witness's full prepared statement will be made part of the record. that's to encourage you to sin they size and give us five minutes and members here will have five calendar days to submit questions and any extraneous material for the record. mr. rademaker if you would summarize your remarks, we'll begin with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, congressman engle, it's take real pleasure to appear before the committee. always nice to come home here to the raeburn office building. i joined the committee staff in 1993.

and one of the foremost issues of concern to the members of the committee in 1993 was the risk that iran might acquire a nuclear weapon. and to me it's really astonishing here we are more than 20 years later and this remains one of the foremost threats to u.s. national security. and i just want to observe at the outset, that i think this committee has consistently paid attention to this problem over for more than two decades. you've provided extraordinary leadership to our nation and i think the american people are very well served by the leadership that this committee has provided under a number of chairman over the last 20 plus years. i'm glad to see that you're continuing to pay attention to the problem as demonstrated by today's hearing. i have submitted a prepared statement and so perhaps i'll just summarize the key points that i make.

the first point i make in my prepared statement is that iran is not like other countries that say they want to develop civil nuclear energy. they have a track record of deception, of covert procurement and of the totality of the evidence strongly suggests that iran is interested in developing a nuclear weapon. they can't be treated like a normal country. that's why the question of clarification of any agreement reached with iran is very important and it's a timely hearing you're having today. the second point i make, if you only take away one point from my testimony today, i want it to be this. today we're very much focused on verification of the joint plan of action and the so-called comprehensive solution that's being negotiated now between the two sides in vienna.

and a lot of the focus -- most of the focus in verification discussions is about how do we verify their compliance with the jpa. how do we verify their compliance with the comprehensive solution. i think that's important given iran's track record and i'm joined by experts today that are going to have i think deep insights into how we should go about trying to detect any cheating by iran on those agreements. but i think -- my critical point to you is the focus of verification has to be broader than just compliance with the current agreement and the one that's being negotiated right now. it has to -- verification has to look at what has happened in the past because there are a lot of unanswered questions about the past. it also has to be -- this is even more important, i think we need to be worried about the permanent verification. as i explain in my testimony, the framework of the joint plan of action and the comprehensive solution is that there's to be a

long term agreement here. it's not a permanent agreement. by its terms, it's to be time limited. that's been agreed by the obama administration and p5 plus one. was being negotiated now will be an agreement that applies for some period of time. i think the iranians -- my understanding is they only want it to be in effect for five years. other experts are saying it needs to run 20 years. i don't know what the p5 plus 1 is asking but the duration of this comprehensive solution is going to be somewhere between five years and 20 years. that remains to be negotiated. so all of these discussions you're hearing now about limits on the number of centrifuges and amount of enriched materials, those limitations will apply while the comprehensive solution is in effect. but the jpa is crystal clear that when that term expires, when the agreed duration of the comprehensive solution is

reached, all of these limitat n limitations end then iran becomes like any other country. everything goes away. let me read the language, following successful implementation of the final step of the comprehensive solution for its full duration, the period they agree to, the iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner as that of any nuclear state weapons party to the npt. that means that after five years or after five years, whatever the period is, nuclear sanctions on iran go away, our sanctions on iran have to go away and all of that is to end. restrictions on nuclear commerce with iran end so iran can't be singled out and treated differently than other countries. we can't have export controls differently than any country, iran becomes a legitimate partner. so the idea of the comprehensive

solution is that for a period of time if iran behaves, if they are not caught cheating and uphold their commitments under the comprehensive solution at the end of comprehensive solution, they go from being nuclear pariah to nuclear partner. at that point they are subject to the same verse fiction that germany or any other country is subject to. that basically consists of two things, that consists of iaea verification under the safeguards agreement that applies to all countries and the protocol which is enhanced verse verification that they are required to under the jpa. there will be more robust verification under the comprehensive solution. i think the parties are talking about that. but that more robust verification will end when the comprehensive solution ends. then we revert back to the additional protocol and

comprehensive safeguards. the same verification that every other country is subject to. it's a critical question for the committee to ask, whether you're prepared today to agree that if iran behaves for a set period of time then we're prepared to end sanctions and prepared to end special scrutiny of iran and street them as if they were japan. i point out in my testimony, there are other examples of countries that have abandoned nuclear weapons program and we've accepted that. once they have abandoned their nuclear weapon program, we treat them like a normal country. south africa is an example. brazil and argentina are examples. what was different in those cases, not only did they say they were abandoning nuclear weapons programs and take steps in that direction, in those cases there was also a fundamental change in government. in south africa, the apartheid regime ended and nelson mandela took power and two civilian

elected governments, and so we were -- it was logical in those cases to accept there had been a fundamental change and government wasn't interested in nuclear weapons. in the case of iran, the vision of the jpa, there doesn't need to be a fundamental change in government, ahmadinejad can be the leader of iran when the comprehensive solution lapses and ahmadinejad will be treated as if he were japan. his country will be treated as if it was japan. that's what's spelled out. so when we talk about verification, i think yes, absolutely we need to focus on verification of the jpa and the comprehensive solution because with -- for a country with iran's track record we have to be suspicious there will be cheating but we need to get to the bottom of what happened in the past. the jpa does not compel iran to answer those questions. it sets up a mechanism where there's to be a discussion but no consequences attached if iran

fails to cooperate. if the questions remain unanswered the jpa goes forward nonetheless. i think something needs to be done about that to make sure we get answers about the degree to which they pursued a military nuclear program in the past and then even more importantly in the future after the comprehensive solution, i think the committee needs to consider are you satisfied with the standard safeguards and the additional protocol as the only verification that will apply to iran's nuclear program upon the expiration of the comprehensive solution. >> thank you. mr. lauder? >> thank you very much, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to help address this vital national security topic. monitoring iranian compliance with a potential nuclear agreement. i appear before you today in my private