submitted to the committee, you wrote and i quote, i have the utmost confidence in the career professionals in the department and the tigta and i know that will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply to the law to those facts which you have said here. is that guiding principle that the department uses in conducting all of its -- is that the guiding that the principle the department uses in guiding all of the investigations? >> yes, it is. >> i think the committee should follow the same principles to the investigation of the irs. it is quite clear that the facts do not lead to the conclusion that citizens united prompted a government-wide conspiracy. thank you for your testimony. >> wait. the genting lady yield? >> yes. >> gentleman from -- >> i want to go to what mr. desantis was just asking you. you referred to the olson case. and i have the olson case in front of me. the olson opinion, rather. and what it says is we believe

that congress may not direct executive to prosecute a particular individual without leaving any discretion to the executive to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred. that's what the opinion says. it's a 1984 opinion. dated may 30th. and this was a contempt citation coming from the congress that he was talking about. so, i guess this is consistent with what you were saying. i mean, is this a -- so this olson case in the u.s. attorney's office, i mean, it's well-known. is that right? there's certain -- i mean the ol season opinion. is this something that's well-known? it's something that you all, you know -- >> it's known. i don't know if it's well-known. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it's known about.

>> will the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i'm confused. is mr. olson, is he a judge? i mean, what opinion are we talking about here? i thought he was a career employee. >> i'm sorry. >> i yield back. i thank the gentleman from maryland. >> if i may answer. he was a political employee. political appointee is the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel back in 1984 and the reagan administration. the office of legal counsel is asked many times and authorized for the executive branch of government to provide legal opinions binding upon the executive branch of the government to interpret various aspects of the law that the government has to abide by. >> thank you very much. so you said he was a reagan appointee? >> yes. >> very well. i'd like to -- since we have talked about this opinion, mr. chairman, i would like to enter into the record.

>> without objection. >> very well. that's all i have. >> gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cole, let me come back to really what i guess i'm a little concerned. the public integrity section you said reached out to the irs. is that correct? in 2010. >> in 2010? yes. my understanding is they made contact with the irs. >> all right. so what was the nexus of why they reached out? >> i'm just looking at the account that i have heard from jack smith and from richard pilger who have testified, given transcribed testimony to the committee what they were doing at the time. i take their purpose of what it was. i think mr. smith had seen an article in the newspaper about what appeared to be perhaps a

misuse of the tax exempt organization laws and wanted the find out if -- >> so that's your opinion? >> it is not my opinion. that's my understanding of the facts. >> but as part of this investigation, wouldn't it be understand to important the nexus of them reaching out to the irs? e-mails? motivati motivations? wouldn't that be important to understand? >> i think we are in the process of providie ining that and you d to them. >> important for doj to look at that? wouldn't that be part of the investigation? >> that's not necessarily part of the irs investigation. >> why wouldn't it be? because, i mean, motives back and forth -- >> nothing happened. there was a brief meeting. there was a discussion about how it would be very difficult if not impossible to bring cases. there were no investigations started. there were no referrals made. nothing happened after that. this was very, very brief and -- >> you say nothing happened. how can you give me that kind of specificity if you're really not familiar with what went on?

you just said that prior to that. how can you be so precise and nothing happening? i don't understand. >> we have had people look at whether or not the public integrity section got any referrals from the irs as a result of that. >> so part of your investigation you have looked that the? >> we asked about whether that happened, yes. >> all right. so do you have an open investigation right now on april sands who used to be with the fec? >> i'm not aware one way or another. april sands? >> yeah. i mean, maybe you need to read the newspapers about this one. she was the one that actually violated the hatch act. worked with the fec. used to work with lerner. you are not aware of that? >> not offhand, sir. >> i would encourage you to become aware of that because she admitted that she violated the hatch act and that quite frankly some of the twitters asking for donations while at work had been

alleged. wouldn't that be important that you look at that from the department of justice? >> you said she worked at the fec? >> yeah. >> i'm not sure that's part of the irs investigation. it may be -- >> well, let me just tell you. there was, miss lois lerner, it's been reported they worked together. when they were with the fec. would part of your investigation, wouldn't -- >> i won't go into the details as i said before of our investigation but that's -- >> i find it interesting. so you have never heard of april sands? >> not sitting here today. i don't know about every single case that the justice department is investigating. we have 112,000 employees. >> well, i've been led to believe that you guys are not going to look at it. and it's troubling because this gets to the very heart of what we have been talking about. and so, would you commit here today to take a look at april sands and the fec and what

violations of the hatch act may or may not have occurred? >> i'll admit here to find out what the story ena matter of looking into. >> all right. so, let me close with this. you've done an exhaustive, i think according to to your words, exhaustive research in terms of these missing e-mails. is that correct? >> i don't know if i'd use the word exhaustive. we have been been thorough trying to find the e-mails. >> all right. if you've been that thorough, does it not trouble you that it is very slow and forthcoming and that you have to read "the washington post" to figure out what's going on in terms of irs employees telling you what may or may not have happened over four or five months? >> i would prefer to have learned earlier. >> okay. would that be something that would be subject to investigation by the doj? >> as i have said, that will be

part of our looking at the e-mails, all the things that surround it. >> so the fact that the commissioner of the irs didn't tell you months until months later, that troubles you? >> we're going to be finding out what happened -- >> does that trouble you? >> not until i find out all the facts, congressman. >> if it's true, does that trouble you? >> i need to find out -- >> you are afraid to say it troubles you? >> i don't deal with hypotheticals. >> all rightme. i'll yield back. >> gentleman from nevada is recommendsed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say on the outset i still find it astounding the lack of the courtesy that the chairman continues to show to mebs of this committee, the fact that members continue to not receive equal time, that the chair interrupts members during our time. the fact that you badger witnesses and make judgments upon employees and their motivations without any evidence. i think all of this does a

disservice to the role of the oversight function which is very serious and has a very clear responsibility to the american people for providing an oversight to federal agencies. and in this particular case, because there is so much concern about the wrongdoing that occurred at the irs. i'm also, you know, alarmed by the ongoing efforts by some members of the committee to treat this process like a courtroom. we have three branches of government for a reason. and i know while some members may be versed in the law and may have previous careers in that arena, this is not a courtroom. and yet, there are those who continue to try to treat it as such. i want to speak to the issue of

the special prosecutor and to ask you, mr. cole, for your response. the attorney general in a january 8, 2014, letter responded -- excuse me. chairman issa and chairman jordan in a letter to the attorney general claimed that miss boserman, a career attorney in the civil rights division at the department of justice is leading the doj fbi investigation. however, this allegation was directly refuted by the attorney general in his testimony before the senate yush yair committee on january 29th, 2014. i won't read his full testimony. but so that there's no stone left unturned, deputy attorney cole, i would like to ask you the same question that was asked of mr. holder.

is barbara boserman the lead attorney in the department of justice's investigation or the member of a larger team? >> she's the member of a larger team. she is not the leader of the investigation. >> despite assurances from the department that miss boeserman is not the lead investigator, they continue to assert that her political donations have created a, quote, startling conflict of interest. this supposed conflict of interest is a key justification for some republican members' request that a special prosecutor be appointed to conduct the criminal investigation. on may 2nd, 2014, days before introducing a resolution requesting a special counsel, chairman jordan said, we need a special counsel to help us get to the truth because the so-called investigation by the justice department has been a joke. the current investigation has no credibility because it's being

headed by a max-donor who's financially invested in the president's success. mr. cole, is there any merit to allegations that miss boserman's involvement destroys the credibility of the justice department investigation? >> no. i don't believe there's any merit at all. >> june 26th, the department of justice sent a letter concluding that the appointment of a special counsel is not warranted. can you explain the determination as to why the special counsel is not needed? >> we look at the regulations. we go by law. in this these matters and we look at what the regulation is a that's applicable here and we are talked about it already in this hearing. regulation at 45.2 and miss boserman's activities don't come anywhere near that qualification. there's no reason to take it away from the normal regular order of career prosecutors doing their job with lots of other people involved.

fbi, tigta, other people in other divisions and sections in the department. she's part of a much larger team. and there's no reason to take anything out of the normal course and the normal order. that's usually the best way to do an investigation. >> thank you. well then, i would assert rather than wasting more taxpayer money on a special prosecutor, congress should be focused on addressing some other pressing issues facing our constituents and, again, mr. chairman, i deplore you to please provide a level of decorum and civility so that those of us on this committee who do want to get to the truth and have a fair and impartial process can do so without having an abusive setting in which to operate. >> thank the gentleman. mr. cole, does barbara boserman have a financial interest in the president? >> i don't believe so. >> when you give a campaign

contribution you are not hoping good things happen? >> you don't have a financial interest. i know several leading ethics attorneys in the united states have said it's not even close that there's a conflict of interest just from -- >> the 112,000 employees at the department of justice, you couldn't find someone without this perceived financial interest? >> there is no perceived financial interest, mr. chairman. >> there is by the american people. >> i'm not sure agree with that. you're welcome to come to my district and talk to folks. they think there is. gentleman from arizona is recommendsed. >> thank you, deputy general cole. i'm a dentist and the little minute things i can smaller. you get my point. can you tell me a little bit more about the statute of 6103? can you tell me the privilege information and who gets that 6103? >> i'm not an expert in 6103. it's part of the tax code and it deals with protecting taxpayer

information from disclosure except in circumstances. >> okay, so i'm going to make a comparison, i guess. being a dentist, i have to know h hippa regulations and osha, i'm not excused from that, right? >> that's correct. >> when we're talking about 6103 within the irs or doj or executive branch or anybody working within the federal government, they're pretty astute as to who gets 6103, right? >> they should be. >> does it give them an excuse if they violate that? i mean, when i'm in -- under a malpractice case i don't get an excuse from hippa or osha, do i? >> not that i know of depending on the circumstance -- >> that's where i want to go here. i'm talking from america. america wants to make sense of this jargon, this legal jargon. does anybody get away with 6103? >> if you violate 6103, if you violate the provisions, you should not get away with it.

but it depends on the facts and circumstances, as with any case. >> wait a minute. you just told me as a regular citizen i can't get away with hippa and osha violations but i can get away with a 6103? >> no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm sure not every single hippa or over sha prosecution is dealt with. serious ones are. >> i understand. >> that's what i'm saying. >> when we share 6103 there has to be an explicit ask from odoj? >> there has to be an approval the irs as i understand it -- >> approval from the doj? >> from the irs to share 6103 information, they have to possess that. >> do you have that in your possess from miss lower business learner? >> i'm sorry if. >> have what? >> permission to share 6103. she sent you a disk with 1.1 million applications with some 30 individuals have privileged information, 6103. the reason i bring that up is i'm hampered as a member of

congress with pertinent information or 6103. and this is a willy-nilly just flip pant aspect of sharing a disk. she knew it was on there. >> i don't know that she knew there was 6103 information on there. it was represented to us at the time it came that there was not. and i don't know if she's the one who sent it or if someone else from the ira -- >> she's the one -- whoa, whoa, whoa. thanks, lois. she's the one that has the correspondence with the fbi in regards to the format of the disk. >> that doesn't necessarily mean she prepared the disk or sent it. >> she has oversight of that, right? >> i don't know if that's within her control or not. i just don't know. but the question is whether or not, whoever sent it knew there was 6103 information on it. >> well, she's been involved in this regards of the leak of this formatted aspect because she's the one talking to the fbi. where i'm going with this is it gives me lenient -- more pertinent information if i'm a learned person that there was a

violation of 6103. wouldn't that -- if i'm a learned person? >> generally there has to be an intentional violation. the question was whether this was the information that was included, whether it was inadvertent or whether it was intentional. at the time it was provided, we were told that there was no nonpublic information. >> then once again you were told there was no nonpertinent information and there was -- >> nonpublic. >> nonpublic information. once again to me this brings this issue up of this being pertinent information and that, when congress says that we're doing contempt charges, when we're looking at the criminal or civil violation of an oath of office, doesn't that give us some aspect of hedging our bet? >> i'm not sure what you mean by hedging -- >> wouldn't this kind of go in the mindset of a u.s. attorney that they would actually bring forth contempt charges issued by congress? >> i believe the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia has the contempt citation and is reviewing it. has assigned it to somebody and

the matter is being reviewed and worked -- >> let me ask you a question. you keep bringing up this olsen ruling. isn't that a subjective and an interpretive ruling when the statute is very specific? >> the opinions by the office of legal counsel, when they issue formal opinions, are bindology the executive branch. >> but isn't it also, when there's a conflict between the legislative intent of the language and the executive branch, that we have to have a better review so just one interpretive aspect would not be good enough -- >> i'm sure somebody could probably challenge that in the right forum in court if they don't agree with an olc opinion. generally the structure is set up for olc is they are the source of legal advice for the executive branch. >> well, thank you. >> mr. chairman -- >> thank you, mr. cole. >> are you interrupting me? isn't there decorum? >> i was asking that the chairman -- >> i guess i'll yield.

>> gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> i was asking whether the chairman had made a determination on my request for unanimous consent to enter the documents -- >> i apologize, i forgot to look at that. if we can take a look at documents, we'll look at it. gentleman from california. >> general cole. i'm glad you brought up this whole question. this is a little small, a little complex. but that org chart up on the board shows the attorney general followed by you followed by a whole group of associates followed by all the division chiefs. virtually all of those people are political appointees, aren't they? >> many of them are. the -- >> virtually all. you and the attorney general and your direct reports are political appointees? >> by and large most of them are. some are career. but the vast majority are political appointees -- >> even if they're career, they're career people who serve at the pleasure, i mean, you can

move them around? >> some. they're in the scs service and there's rules on that. but the vast majority of the assistant attorneys general and the associate attorney general are political appointees. >> and the head of the civil rights division? >> right now that person is an acting person and is a career employee. >> but they serve at the pleasure of you? >> that's correct. although there's certain civil service requirements -- >> you could move them to some other position? >> that would probably be true. >> they keep their pay but lose their job. and the criminal division? >> same thing. that person is a political appointee approved by the senate. >> so when we talk about miss bosterman and the team she's on, everybody practically from her team all the way up to your boss, you're all political appointees who control their lives and so on. so when the question was asked and the gentleman from nevada left but i think fairly he was saying -- he was asking you and you answered, of course, we don't need a special prosecutor.

don't you understand, the american people see you as a political appointee. they see your boss who's been held in contempt by the house for failure to comply, they see the supreme court finding that those legal opinions you seem to have get 9-0 against you. now, i'm going to go to one quick one. your legal opinions included, your brief in fast and furious, didn't they, before amy berman jackson, right? >> i'm sorry, our legal opinions? >> your legal opinions led to those briefs in the fast and furious case that's currently in the district court in washington? >> we have our lawyers in the civil division who draft those -- >> okay, so your legal opinions were that you didn't have to provide them and that you were immune from having to provide them and that it -- and specifically your opinion was that she didn't have the right to adjudicate that, wasn't that so?

>> i believe that was the position we took. >> and didn't judge jackson say just the opposite, that she did have the authority and that she found the same as judge bates did in earlier case that your premise was wrong, and weren't you relitigating the exact same thing that president bush had lost in the conyers case? >> we were stating -- everybody litigates positions constantly in -- >> okay, so you're part of an administration that can relitigate that which has been decided. just yesterday you decided that there was an inherent -- your administration decided there was an inherent right not to deliver a federal employee, even though in the harriet miers bolton case it was made clear that depositions and witness subpoenas were, in fact, binding. so the strange thing is, when is you talk about legal opinions, and i appreciate the former

solicitor general and how well he's held in regard. but what you're saying is, you pick an opinion and the opinion can be wrong but your opinion that is you don't fall under us, that in fact our oversight is irrelevant, that you don't have to answer our questions, you don't have to produce documents, and you can withhold -- that's been a consistent pattern in this administration. and just yesterday, the president of the united states asserted a brand-new right, an inherent right not to deliver a political appointee who serves and interfaces with the dnc and the dccc -- the democratic national committee and the democratic national congressional committee -- works directly with those heads to plan the president's targeting of races to support democrats for their re-election on a partisan basis, and we're not even allowed to hear from that person because there's an inherent right not to produce that. so when you; you say here that

you stand and the attorney general's letter is well thought out that you don't need a special prosecutor, do you know how absurd it sounds to the american people? absurd it sounds to the american people that you don't need a special prosecutor because all you political appointees overseeing a team of people who may at the lowest level actually be career people hoping to move up, that you political people aren't influencing it, that there's no influence? i just find it amazing. i know mr. horsford has left and i'm sorry he's left because he would get an opportunity once again to take the party line. you're not prosecuting a contempt of congress because you've got this new opinion that shall doesn't mean shall present to the court, or in this case to the grand jury. but you haven't given it to us and today's the first time we hear about it. so i join with the chairman in

reiterating that we need a special prosecutor because you're a political appointee, your boss is a political appointee held in contempt by congress, the people who work for you work for you at your pleasure, and you're controlling an investigation that is slowly reaching no decision, when in fact lois lerner has been found by a committee of this congress to have violated laws as she targeted conservatives for their views. this committee has produced a massive document showing that lois lerner targeted them and not liberal groups, and yet you sit here today implying that you're relying on some well-known, more conservative individual's decision as though we're supposed to believe that. i've got to tell you, when the gentleman from nevada talks about contempt, yes. we have contempt for the man you work for because, in fact, congress has as a matter of record held him in contempt for failure to deliver documents. your offices implied that a

federal judge had no right to even consider a case that was directly on point, a nixon-era point, of lying to congress and then refusing to deliver documents related to those false statements. i am ashamed that you sit here day after day implying that there's no reason for a special prosecutor. the whole reason you want an independent prosecutor is not to be independent of somebody down low but to be independent of you. mr. chairman, i thank you for your indulgence and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. and i would just -- well, let me do this. one other line of questioning here, mr. cole. and i know you've been here -- we're almost done because we have votes on the floor. august 27th, 2010, then chairman of the white house council of economic advisers revealed private taxpayer information about koch industries in order to somehow imply they didn't pay their full amount of taxes.

how he knew this information and whether or not he inappropriately reviewed koch's 6103 protected tax information remains unknown. my question to you is this. if a white house employee, without 6103 authority, viewed 6103 protected information and made that public, would he or she -- what they learned, what he or she learned from that information, would that be a crime? >> you know, i'd have to have all the facts and circumstances. what generalliness when there's disclosure of 6103 information, is tigda for the tax department, the irs, investigates the matter, determines whether or not they believe there's been a criminal violation of 6103, and in they do believe there has been one they present it to the justice department for consideration. >> have you guys investigated this matter? >> this is -- >> are you -- have you or are you going to investigate this matter? >> this is -- it depends on whether tigda has determined whether or not this matter presents itself with evidence

that there was criminal activity. so that's up to tigda to decide in the first instance. >> okay -- then i'll let the ranking member have some time before we conclude. i just want to go back just to reiterate this. it so is frustrating to me and it is so frustrating to so many of the good folks i get the privilege of representing in the fourth district of ohio. when, in fact, you have the fact pattern we do, the fbi leak together "wall street journal" no one's going to be prosecuted, the president prejudicing the case with his comments about no corruption not even a smidgen, the fact that barbara bosserman is the lead vest gave, the fact that richard pilger and jack smith had interaction with low ris learner in 2010 and 2013, that you had a database of 1.1 million pages of taxpayer information, donor c-4 information, you had it four years, some of that information was confidential. all that fact, all that cries out for a special prosecutor.

and i would think you would want it just so you can say, look, we're going to get to the -- we're going to be as unbiased -- there would be a welcome thing to do, to find someone that republicans, democrats, everyone can agree on. fine. let them do the investigation. that would be something seems like you would want. as mr. gouty pointed out and others have pointed out, if that doesn't warrant a special prosecutor, i don't know what does. i do not what -- when i look at the elements contained in the statute, i don't -- if that doesn't meet it, i don't know if you ever could meet it. with that i'll end. i do thank you for being here today, mr. cole, and i will yield to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a few points i want to cover at the end of this hearing. number one, i want to note that the chairman of the full committee was highly critical of

our fellow member, mr. horsford, noting that mr. horsford had left the room. the fact of the matter that is we have been called to vote and we have less than i think seven minutes on the clock to go vote. that's why mr. horsford was not here and was not here to defend himself against the charges made by the chairman of the full committee. secondly, before we let you go, mr. cole, i want to -- i think i speak on behalf of the full committee that we all really want to know what happened to those missing e-mails, all of us. we are all somewhat skeptical that they can't be recovered in some fashion. all of us. and we urge you to do your utmost and urge your colleagues to find those missing e-mails. because when there are e-mails missing and it makes people suspicious and then it leads to

unfounded charges and reckless allegations, and this is an arena where reckless allegations find a home. and so i think it would make a lot of the sense to redouble your efforts to find those e-mails. i us a want to mention, a lot has been made in this hearing today about improper influence on the irs. having to do with citizens united and the way that the irs folks were targeting certain 501 c 4 groups. i want to mention here that the inspector general's report, mr. george, found that lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the irs, did not discover the use of these inappropriate criteria that we are all talking about until a year later, in june 2011, after which she immediately ordered the practice to stop. this is something found by -- >> will the gentleman yield for

just one point of clarification? >> certainly. >> we have been going back to this tigda report that says that she didn't know until june of 2011. when the majority of the tigda report were based on e-mails. now that we know that e mails are missing, to make that conclusion is hard. and i just want to point that out. i yield back. >> it's a fair point. i want to go on. i also want to point out that the inspector general's found that employees subsequently began useing different inappropriate criteria without inspector knowledge. the inspector general's report, mr. george, stated, and i wrote, "the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the irs." in other words, russell george, the inspector general, whose

report brought here before this committee started the firestorm that has been raging for more than a year and a half, his report said flat-out that these irs people were not influenced by any organization or individual outside the irs -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> one of the reasons is because we didn't have the e-mails from the justice department and lois lerner. we got those because of foia request. other than that we would never have had mr. pilger and mr. smith in for deposition. mr. george didn't have that information in his hand. >> and that -- let let the witness answer a question here. mr. cole, are you aware of any information to the effect that the inspector general's statement there is incorrect? >> no. the understanding i have of the

interactions between the justice department and the irs on those two meetings was that the irs in the first one said there's really nothing we can do here and nothing came of it, and on the second meeting there was never really any substance discussed. it never was followed up on. >> i thank you for that. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the point i'm making is, that's the time frame that -- that's the time frame where the e-mails are lost. i'm not even sure the irs was going to tell us they lost e-mails but for the judicial watch foia request which uncovered the richard pilger/lois lerner correspondence, lois lerner e-mail. once we got something from justice, then wait a minute, we better let them know we lost all the e-mails from that time period. and mr. cole has told us today that maybe some of the documents they're withholding from the committee are more of that correspondence. >> i didn't say that. >> you said you can't guarantee it's not. >> that's correct. >> that's correct. so -- >> because i haven't seep them. i just can't answer your

question. >> it would have been nice if you had looked at them before you came here to testify today, then you could have answered that question, right? i wish you'd have done your homework there, know what documents -- you would think you would know what documents you're withholding from the committee. >> i know we're in the process of gathering and the checking them and that process is not done yet. >> we've been trying to get you here, we accommodated your schedule, you knew we were going to ask about the stuff you're withholding and you didn't review it? >> not the specific documents -- >> because you didn't review it you cannot guarantee some of those documents you're withholding are lois lerner e-mails -- >> i can't tell you they are either. >> i know you can't tell us either way you didn't look at them. >> that's correct. >> you would think you'd laugh reviewed the documents you're not going to let us see. you'd think. i think my ranking member would -- the ranking member would agree with that. you should have reviewed the stuff and you didn't do it. that's the whole point. we would have not known lois

lerner e-mails were lost but for the judicial watch doing the foia request. richard pilger was talking with lois lerner in 2010 when the targeting started. we would never have known that. now you tell us we never even -- we've got to vote, almost out of time. i want to thank the deputy general for being here and the committee is adjourned. on our next "washington journal," we'll get the latest on the malaysian airline crash

in eastern ukraine. then a look at the long-term federal budget outlook. we'll talk to maya mcguinness. this weekend marked the 45 the anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. nasa administrator charles bodilien and then space analyst miles o'brien will join us to discuss the history and future of u.s. space exploration. we'll also take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live each morning at 7:00 eastern. c-span radio and audio now. 202-626-8888 to hear congressional coverage, public affairs forums, "washington journal." listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. on "washington today."

hear audio of the five networks sunday public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. 202-626-8888. long distance or phone charges may apply. friday a discussion on military personnel costs. the bipartisan policy center and the american enterprise institute co-host the event live at 9:00 eastern on c-span2. tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern, a look at africa's future development goals. the center for strategic and international studies hosts the event starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> so we're here at salisbury house in des moines, iowa. and it's a home that was built by karl and ed death weeks in the 1920s. carl weeks was a man of many and

varied interests. one of the most notable legacies of his interests are his amazing collections that both he and i'd dith amassed in terms of artworks, sculpture, the library collection, it's an amazing collection of rare, limited, first-edition works, medieval manuscripts. it's incredible. so carl weeks collected the books that he collected not only because they're important historical works but also because he believed that books themselves were works of art. and had a worth beyond the words on the page. so he collected almost every edition of "leaves of grass." by walt whitman. "leaves of grass" changed over time, added poems. for carl it was the art of collecting. carl also collected a variety of first editions of ernest hemingway's work. so this is "the green hills of

africa" by hemingway published in 1935. and this is a great piece because it illustrates the personal relationship that existed between carl weeks and ernest hemingway. so this inscription, "to carl weeks, instead of a drink at pena's with very best wishes, ernest hemingway." >> explore the history and literary life of des moines, iowa. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's btv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on "american history tv" on c-span3. thursday, gm's ceo mary barra appeared before a senate commerce subcommittee on the delayed ignition switch recall. during that hearing, senator claire mccaskill called for the removal the company's general counsel. here's a look. >> mr. milli can, i want to

spend my time on my first round with you. i want to make sure everybody understands what punitive damages are. what punitive damages are. for lawyers, that is a blinking red light. punitive damages in our system are designed to punish corporations. or people. for conduct that is outrageous and egregious. it is a method by which justice can be done by punishing bad behavior. a pattern was emerging at general motors for almost a decade about these cars. there was some confusion because of deceit on the part of at least one engineer. but in october of 2010, your lawyers -- this wasn't a plaintiff's lawyer that was out

there making a frivolous lawsuit. your lawyers that you hired said, you are possibly subject to punitive damages over the way you have handled this problem in this automobile. that was in october of 2010. and i believe you were general counsel then, correct? >> that is correct. >> again, in july of 2011, your lawyers told you that there is a potential for punitive damages because of this factual scenario. you were also general counsel then, correct? >> that is correct. >> and at that point in time, lucy clark dougherty, in july of 2011, she was general counsel for north america. correct? i believe she began in that position in march of 2011. >> i'm thinking it was in 2012 but i could be wrong. >> well, my document says it was

march of 2011. >> i'll take your word for that. >> then in april of 2012, another one of your outside lawyers warns your department that you are subject to punitive damages. which could be millions of dollars. with a corporation the size of general motors. at that point in time, you were general counsel. >> that is correct. >> and lucy clark dougherty was, in fact, general counsel for north america? >> that is correct. >> and again, in april 2013, almost the same time that you had the bombshell dropped on you in the deposition, where degiorgio was confronted with a basic engineering task that had been done showing the switches had been switched out, had been changed, the part had been changed. once again you were warned about punitive damages. >> as a company, that is correct. >> okay. so you have a legal obligation as general counsel to report material events and liabilities

to securities and exchange commission. did you ever do that about thissish on? >> on the issue of punitive damage in this. >> on the issue of this product defect and the problems surrounding it, have you ever reported it to the s.e.c.? >> not up until the time that this became known have we made any disclosures to the cell. >> the time that you knew it, not your legal department. your legal department knew it. >> no, no, i'm talking about from the time i knew forward. i'm excludeing that. before that, no, we had not. >> so at the time you recalled you told the s.e.c.? >> subsequent to that we may have made a filing with the s.e.c. about the example niche switch recall, that is correct. >> what about the legal obligation to inform the board of directors? were they aware that your lawyers were telling you, this car is going to cause you punitive damages? >> they were not. >> and what about financial reserves? were you entering into the books the financial reserves necessary to cover this liability, which is your obligation as a general counsel? >> we were not entering any reserves to cover punitive damages.

no, we were not. >> so i don't get how you and lucy clark dougherty still have your jobs. can you explain that to my? ms. barbara, i think you've done a lot of good work since you took over. i don't know not for the life of me -- this is either gross negligence or gross incompetence on the part of a lawyer. the notion that he can say, i didn't know. >> i respectfully disagree. i have made the promise to fix what happened in the company to make sure that we're dedicated to safety, we're dedicated to excellence, we're well on our way, we've made significant change. to do that i need the right team. mike milliken is a man of incredibly high integrity. he has tremendous global experience as it relates to the legal profession. he's the person i need on this

team. he had a system in place. unfortunately in this instance it wasn't brought to his attention, frankly by people that brought many other issues forward. he's a man of high integrity -- >> this wasn't a system in place, your lawyers telling you you're subject to punitive damages didn't get to your desk? how that is not incompetent? how can you have a sister in place that you or at least lucy clark dougherty has a way of telling you, we have our lawyers telling us four different times within a couple of years something you hadn't even talked about recalling punitive dans? how do you have a system in place that doesn't account for that? >> we had very senior lawyers who had this information and didn't bring it forward who are no longer with this company. >> deborah novak van der hoff is still with the company and she had the knowledge. >> as we went through the details of the lucas report very carefully, and i would say when in doubt we reached further to take action, there are many

lawyers that are no longer with the company. >> i think there's been a blind spot here. i really do. my time is up. i think the failure of this legal department is stunning. and the notion -- i mean, you look around government, when something like this happens, you know what? secretary seki didn't know about those problems with scheduling. nobody told him. he's gone. next, acting veterans affairs secretary sloan gibson discusses the actions being taken to fix va health care delays and the backlogof waiting lists. this hearing of the senate veterans affairs committee is 2:15. >> let's get to work. good morning and welcome to everyone for what i think will be a very important and productive hearing.

we manage mr. sloan gibson who will be discussing with us what he has been doing in what i perceive to be a very active six weeks since you've held that position. and we also look forward to hearing from him as to what he perceived the problems facing the va in the months and years to come. and i would want to mention to the members of the committee that next week on the 22nd, we will be holding a confirmation hearing for bob mcdonald, the president's nominee for secretary of va. last week, despite -- last month, despite a very partisan environment here in congress, 93 senators put their differences aside to vote in favor of the significant piece of legislation

which we hope will address many of the immediate problems facing the va, an issue senator mccain and i and all of us in this room worked very hard on, i want to thanker for their support. it is my hope that that legislation and the conference committee we're having with the house will be completed by the time we leave here for the august break. it is clear to all of us that the va faces many, many challenges and they are well documented. the concerns that i have that of have been well publicized is that we have many, many, many veterans in many parts of this country who are unable to access va care in a timely manner. we have significant problems in terms of accountability. all of us find it totally unacceptable that people have manipulated data in terms of waiting times.

people have treated whistle blowers in a contemptuous way. people have lied. and that is unacceptable. and we want to hear from mr. gibson in terms what was he is doing to address those many problems. but the issue that i want to focus on is that while we are determined to do everything that we can to make the va, which is a huge institution providing 6.5 million veterans a year with health care, while we want to do everything that we can to make that agency efficient and accountable, there is another issue that we have got to address that is also part of our responsibility, and that is what are the legitimate needs, what are the real needs facing the 22 million veterans in this country and how as a congress are we responding to those needs? so number one, the va has got to be accountable, it has got to be efficient, we've got to address many of the internal problems that we have all heard in the

last several months. secondly, we have also got to ascertain what the problems facing the veterans community and their families are and do everything we can to make sure that the va is on the kind of position that it needs to be to address those problems. let me just mention some of them. of the 2 million men and women who served our country, put their lives on the line in afghanistan and iraq, studies suggest that 20% to 30% have come home with ptsd or tbi. simply stated, that means those wars have created some 500,000 mentally wounded american veterans, and as a result very serious problems regarding suicide, and this committee will be dealing with that issue in connection with ptsd -- substance abuse, inability to hold on to a job, divorce, emotional problems for the kids.

when you're dealing with ptsd it is not just the veteran. it is the wife, it is the kids. since fiscal year 2006 the number of veterans receiving specialized mental health treatment has risen from just over 927,000 veterans to more than 1.4 million in fiscal year 2013. this means that in fiscal year 2013, over one-quarter of those receiving care at va were being treated for mental health conditions. in other words, va currently provides 49,315 outpatient mental health aappoippointments day. a day. 49,000 mental health outpatient appointments a day. imagine the scope of that. and imagine the challenge.

if we had endless supplies of money, if we had the best, if we had adequate numbers of psychologists and psychiatrists in this country, which we do not have, this would be an insurmountable problem. and yet we are where we are. that is the cost of war. ensuring timely access to high-quality mental health care is critical for our veterans and for their loved ones. and the stakes are high. as i've said we are all aware and i know johnny isakson among others has taken a hard look at suicide. it is a tragedy beyond words. not easily dealt with but it's one that we have got to address. like most americans, we are all concerned about these horrendous waiting periods. and i know that mr. gibson is going to be talking about that in his testimony. 46 -- let me just go through the numbers to understand the scope of the issue that we're dealing with. over 46,000 veterans are on

lists waiting to be scheduled for medical appointments. over 8,000 of them have waited over 120 days. we can have an argument, though i don't think there is much, about whether 14 days was an appropriate number. i think it was not. i think that was overly ambitious. good goal but i don't think we have the resources to deal with it. but i don't think there's much argument that when you have over 8,000 veterans waiting over 120 days to receive an appointment, that's 128 -- 128 days. 84 than 600,000 veterans have an appointment that is more than 30 days from the date that the appointment was initially requested, or from the date that was desired. that is not acceptable. et cetera, et cetera. the numbers are staggering. and that is an issue obviously that we are addressing right now and we'll hear from mr. gibson as to how he is going to about forward with that.

i think the goal of every member of this committee and i would hope and expect every member of congress and of the american people is that the veterans of this country, people who have suffered so much, serve quality health care and they deserve it in a timely manner. and what i look forward to hearing from mr. gibson is some straight, honest talk about the needs of the va in achieving that goal. if we are talking about a staggering number of veterans coming home with ptsd or tbi, how many mental health workers do you need and how are you going to get them? we don't have enough doctors in this country. how many primary care physicians do you need, how many specialist dozen you need? if the foal is to provide quality, timely health care in a cost-effective manner, we need some answers from the va and i hope we'll given to get some of them today from mr. gibson. needless to say the other issues

that i know that members of the committee are going to be asking is what actions the department has taken to reprimand employees who have lied or manipulated data. that is something that nobody in this -- on this committee tolerates. what has the department done to ensure that such manipulation no longer occurs. what has the department done to improve other areas of concern identified by the inspector general, the gao, and other auditing organizations? so with that, let me give the mike over to the ranking member senator burr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and acting secretary gibson, welcome. since our last hearing, there have been several developments related to scheduling irregularities across the va and its negative impact on patient care. va's begun to take the necessary steps to address the systemic problems and the corrosive culture that have been

identified and substantiated by several independent sources. however, these changes will not happen overnight and this committee must provide the critical oversight to ensure those changes occur and are effective. even with the steps va has taken to improve access for many veterans, there will continue to be reports and allegations regarding va health care facilities and workers. these reports will not only highlight critical areas of needed reform, but identify the magnitude and the breadth of the systemic issues facing the va. the ongoing internal evaluation by va as well as investigations currently being conducted by the office of special counsel and the va's office of inspector general are essential to rebuilding not only veterans' trust but also the trust of stakeholders and employees. to undertake the needed reforms within va, the role of the office of special counsel and

the inspector general are even more crucial now than ever before. bo both offices have been essential in identifying systemic issues facing the va. i'd like to highlight a few critical reports that have been released since the last meeting. at the time of may 15th's hearing there were several stakeholders who did not want to rush to judgment until the allegations surrounding phoenix had been substantiated. since that hearing, the ig released an interim report regarding the allegations of scheduling irregularities and a secret wait list at the phoenix va health care system. not only did the ig substantiate scheduling irregularities and a secret wait list in phoenix but the ig identified roughly 1,700 veterans who were waiting for appointments and were not included on an appropriate electronic waiting list. the ig found that scheduling irregularities are a systemic issue across va's health care system and that this was not an

isolated event. additionally, the ig has received numerous allegations regarding "mismanagement, inappropriate hiring decisions, sexual harassment, and bullying behavior by mid and senior level managers at this facility." these allegations speak to the corrosive culture that has taken deep root throughout the entire department. within a three-week period the office of special counsel released a statement on va whistle-blower reprisals and sent a letter to the president regarding va's lack of responsiveness to osc requests. in this letter the office of special counsel described the office of medical inspector -- inspector's consistent use of "harmless errors." this is their defense. where the department acknowledges the problem but claims patients weren't -- their cases were unaffected.

the letter details ten cases of egregious patient care provided by va facilities in which the omi substantiates errors in patient care but dismisses potential patient harm. in one case two veterans were admitted to an inpatient mental health ward at the brock ton va facility, didn't receive comprehensive evaluations for more than seven years after being admitted to the facility. another case in the letter describes how pulmonologists copied previous provider notes in more than 1,200 patient medical records instead of recording current readings for these patients. i want to be crystal clear. the culture that has developed at va and the lack of management and accountability is simply irrehensible. and it will no longer be tolerated. secretary gibson, you've taken

several actionable steps in the last month and a half and i commend the work that you've done. however, what has happened over the course of years is a horrendous blemish on the va's reputation. and much more work will be needed to repair that damage. as va continues to move forward in improving veterans' access to care and changing the culture that has taken deep root within the department this committee has a lot of work to do. the committee needs to take an active, vigorous oversight role to ensure that the problems that have been identified over the last several months, and i might say over the next several months, as a host of ig reports come out, are effectively and appropriately addressed. and they aren't allowed to happen again. again, secretary gibson, thank you for being here, mr. chairman, i yield.

>> thank you, mr. burr. senator murray. >> thank you so much for holding this hearing. as we know this is a critical time for the department. the va is still struggling with major systemic problems. there are many vacancies in key leadership positions. and most importantly, veterans are still waiting too long for care. secretary gibson as we talked about yesterday, i really appreciate your stepping up during this crisis. the department needs strong leadership right now because the va is facing serious challenges. rob neighbors' review identified several of these issues. a corrosive culture has developed in the department, one that is unworthy of va's many dedicated and talented medical provide who do only want to help veterans. management failures, lack of communication is a policemen at all levels of the vha. and va needs more providers, more space, and modern i.t. systems. as we continue to work in the conference committee to craft a final bill, i hope an agreement

will be reached so we can send it to the president and start making the changes needed at va so veterans get into care, we create transparency, and hold people accountable. the compromise bill will be an important first step. as more reviews are done and more problems found, we will need to take additional steps. while we continue working on these problems we cannot lose sight of many other pressing issues. too many veterans still die by suicide each day. sexual assault survivors still need help. va has to continue to make progress towards the commendable and even more challenging goals of eliminating veterans' homelessness and reducing the claims backlog. on a positive note, secretary gibson, i really appreciate your help in finally getting money to build the wall to wall estate veterans home. we've been working on this for a very long time and now hundreds of veterans in that area will be able to access the long-term care that they need. as i have said repeatedly here

in this room, when the nation goes to war, it also commits to taking care of the veterans when they return home. their needs are a cost of war and we will provide for them no matter what. we know many veterans will need va care for several decades to come. others will come to the va for the first time many years after their service has ended. so today i'm hoping to hear about solutions to these systemic problems and smart ways to strengthen the va for the long-term. because the va does need to be there for our veterans, ready to help right away every time. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield to senator isakson. >> thank you, senator murray. secretary gibson, thank you very much for accept this will interim responsibility. you're a brave and courageous man. while i'm encouraged by some of the serious steps you've taken i'm still not satisfied. we have tremendous problems. as indicated by the letter from special counsel lerner to the president of the united states

of which i want to quote one paragraph. "i remain concerned. >> the department's ilingness to acknowledge and address the impact of these problems" the whistle blowers problems "may have had on the safety and health of veterans. consistently used the term and i quote harmless error as a defense where the department acknowledges problem claims patients have been unaffected. this approach has prevented va from acknowledging the severity of systemic problems and from taking necessary steps to provide quality care to veterans." the letter goes on to delineate specification cases where veterans' health suffered because of the agency looking the other way. i have become personally convinced that this begins and ends with the failure of senior leadership in the va, for years, to overlook or to look over the manipulation of numbers, to make things look better than they really were, to hope that congress wouldn't come and look. i think congress is partially to blame for in the coming and looking enough.

i learned when i was raising my children that if parents come and every now and then open the bedroom door and look inside you have a better-behaved kid than if you never look inside. i think some of the departments in the va are exactly the same thing. the pervasive culture of cooking the books for personal benefit, such as pay raises, is absolutely inexcusable. lastly, i hope in your remarks which i'm looking forward to you'll address how the memo that was written by mr. showen hard august the 26th of 2010 that delineated specifically many of the problems we are now discover recognize this was four years ago. how a memo to senior leaders across the network ask senior management could have gone totally unhooked at by anybody in the va and the problems that we're now trying to fix lasted four more years within the va because there was a culture of just looking the other way when there was a criticism or there was accountability in place. so while i appreciate very much your willingness to come forward as a citizen and take on this

interim responsibility and i appreciate the steps that you've made i am not satisfied yet the va's culture is any different than it has been and we're going to have to see to it the culture at the va changes and we have accountability top to bottom but in particular the senior management of veterans administration and health vans health care. >> a vote has been called so a number of senators are going to be leaving. we'll go to senator tester, moran. >> thank you, senator murray. i want to thank sanders and burr even though they're not here for their work on this committee. access to health care for veterans did not pop up overnight. this is a topic that many of us have been working on for years. solutions must be based on good information. you can't make good decisions without good information. hopefully conversation today will be straightforward and frank so we can get down to some solutions. it's going to require tough

decisions. it's going to require some creativity. it will require focus and engagement from folks on the ground and washington that last well beyond the media span. veterans deserve better than to have folks jump on the latest crisis or two and then you never hear about it again. they want answers. they want solutions. they want the benefits that they've earned. not press releases. i'm approached by veterans every time i go home, whether it's in the grocery store, at the service station. they are direct, they are straightforwa straightforward, and they give me the best view of what's going on on the ground with the va. in fact, this friday i'm going to be holding another roundtable, this time in the capital city of helena in montana, to hear about the veterans in the va and the services they're getting and the difficulties they're having, along with the successes. since our last hearing on va health care the va conducted a nationwide audience dealt. it found the biggest obstacle to

timely medical care at va is lack of service providers. a lack of service providers. i'm looking forward to hear from the va on this audit and follow-up actions moving forward. since our last meeting the white house has also complete review on issues impacting access to care. this review echoed what we've already heard, that the va provides high-quality health care once veterans get in the door. va scheduling technology is outdated, i believe 30 years old. it is secondary to the need for additional resources such as doctors, nurses, other health care professionals. physical space, inappropriately trained administrative support personnel. since our last hearing the senate also passed a comprehensive bipartisan pill that would address some major issues impacting access to timely medical care at the va. it passed by an overwhelming 93 votes. we seldom get 93 votes for anything in the united states senate. right now we're in the fourth week. there isn't much to show for it.

those questions would be good to get answered today too. because some members of this body, i think, of the conference committee, are balking at the cost. look, we just shipped 800 folks off to iraq. i didn't hear one person talk about cost. back in 2003 when we invaded iraq, i was not here, but i certainly never heard anybody talk about the cost. and making sure that there were offsets for that cost. look, these folks went to war. they performed incredibly well. some of them came back missing arms, legs. some of them came back with mental health conditions that they didn't have when they left. health problems they didn't have when they left. it is very frustrating from my perspective when i come from a state where we're about 22 docs down to hear folks on the conference committee a few weeks aceh what we need to do is schedule more patients for the doctors. that will solve the problem. that will not solve the problem.

we need more health care professionals on the ground. sloan, i hope to hear from you today on those issues about what those editiongycys are because i think it's critically important we get our arms around that as a committee so we can move forward, so that we can provide the kind of accountability that needs to happen within the va to make sure ultimately the veterans get the care they deserve. i am very concerned that this conference committee will end up taking a step backward for veterans health care in this country. that cannot happen. veterans deserve better. they've earned the health care. we need to make sure we step up to the plate, give them the resources they need, and then hold them accountable for the job that they do. veterans deserve our best. they've demonstrated their best in the field. we need to demonstrate our best as policymakers. and you folks as leaders of the va. with that i would yield the floor to my friend senator moran. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, thank you for

joining us. thank you very much for having a conversation with me by phone several weeks ago, i appreciate that outreach. it's been one of the experiences that i've had in recent years with the va is just no ability to convey the concerns of kansas veterans. we have the ability to convey that information to the department, but virtually no response time and time again. and so i appreciate the fact that you took time to have a telephone conversation with me. i'm going to present to you today, or shortly, a letter that i have compiled addressed to you. i heard the testimony from the house veterans affairs committee last week in which some of the topic was about whistle blowers and the apology that the department made. what i have discovered as a result of what's transpired over the last several months is that many kansans, veterans in particular, also many employees at department of vet raps affairs, are presenting me now with stories of problems went the va. and they are reluctant, in fact,

decline to present that information to a whistle-blower, as a whistle-blower, in a formal way. because of fear of retribution and concern about their future and their employment. so mr. secretary, we will be providing you an outline of things that we still consider significant challenges and problems in my home state of kansas. i indicated several months ago that i have been a member of the veterans committee since i came to congress, 14 years in the house, four years in the senate. and there have always been challenges at the va. there is always challenges in health care. what seems to me to be different today, mr. secretary, and it's occurred over time, is the recognition that the va in a sense was just shrugging its shoulders. no real attention to problems. and what that resulted in then were veterans telling me that they no longer had faith in the department of veterans affairs to provide the services that

they are entitled to as military men and women of our country. and so i thought a change in leadership at department of veterans affairs was required. it's now taking place. i look forward to meeting mr. mcdonald this afternoon in my office. but what i know is that the -- that only changing the secretary, only changing the top leadership, is insufficient to solve the problems that exist. and so i look forward to working with you at your time at the department of vet rans affairs to see that the results are things that we all can be proud of and that the commitments that we have made are kept to our veterans. most of my conversations with secretary of veterans affairs, i think there have been nine of them in my time, have dealt with rural issues. and i want to explore that with you today in your testimony. but i'm very anxious to hear about the steps that you are

taking to change the nature so it doesn't matter whether you're an urban, suburban, rural veteran that the veterans affairs department is something different than it has been the last several years. then i'm happy to get to the specific issues that we face in a rural state like ours. mr. secretary, as we know, change is necessarily. i want to do everything i wan to make certain that the department of veterans affairs has the tools necessary. it's been my commitment since i came to congress. but i need the commitment from the department of veterans affairs that those resources that they're provided, the tools they are given, are going to be used in a cost effective, compassionate, and caring way and that there's an attitude at the department of veterans affairs that there is no higher calling than to take care of the men and women who served our country. thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator moran. senator mor rono. >> thank you, secretary gibson, for being here. thank you, chairman sanders and ranking member burr, for our

continuing focus on the issues and challenging facing the va. when the issues referring to wait times first arose over a month ago the situation was described as an emergency. there was a sense of urgency. i want this committee and this congress to continue to be motivated by the sense of urgency and to continue to recognize that this emergency needs to be addressed. because there is every potential for other issues to come to the fore and for congress to be distracted. important as these other issues may be, we owe it to the veterans to stay the course. and so i share the sentiments of the chairman and many of the members' statements this morning that we need to hear from you as to your short-term solutions and addressing the issues at hand. and over the long-term to address the systemic problems and challenges facing va.

i like so many of my colleagues have been visiting with the veterans in my state, frankly long before the particular crisis arose. and of course they have shared with mr. their concerns about the lack of doctors, the changeover of doctors, and those are some of the practical considerations that they've raised with me. and so most of us -- i think all of us have had the opportunity to talk with veterans in our communities one on one. and we have a commitment to make sure that we continue to stay the course. that to me is the most important thing that this committee can do. and i thank the chairman for not allowing us to move on to other matters that may be pressing but what could be more pressing, to make sure that our veterans receive the care that they need and deserve. thank you action mr. chairman.

>> other members will be filtering back. but i would like to hear from the acting secretary now. and customarily we give five minutes but you will have more time. this is a serious discussion and we want you to have the time you need to make your case and we want the members here to have the time they need to ask you the questions. all right, senator burr suggests that maybe we should wait a few minutes to make sure that other members come back here, so let's take a very quick recess here.

let's reconvene. and senator johanson, i think we're up to you and your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. -- chairman sanders, and ranking member burr, for convening another very important hearing to address the issues at the va. it's critical that we continue to have these oversight hearings to do everything we can to hold va's feet to the fire and make sure that accountability is there. we know some things now that we did not know at the last hearing. we know for a fact that va's wait list manipulation in and access to care issues is, in

fact, systemic. report after report has confirmed this. in fact, 77 facilities are currently under investigation by the va inspector general. it's an astounding number. i believe the scheduling problems are the tip of the iceberg. now we have allegations of whistle-blower retaliation and improper payment of claims. the cancer doesn't seem to stop. but it must be stopped. while i appreciate your efforts, secretary gibson, i think you have done some things and they are recognized and acknowledged. but i think we'd all acknowledge there's so much more to be done. there has to be accountability for wrongdoing or these issues will continue and the senate will have more hearings, not only next week or the week

after, but in five, 10, 20 years from now. there's a serious lack of leadership from the top. the white house needs to have a more visible role in addressing the crisis. we collectively have the ability to fix this agency. we just have to find a will and the common ground to do it. all of us have to be a part of the solution. in may during our last committee hearing i encouraged the expanded use of non-va care to get urgent treatment to those veterans that were languishing on both secret and official waiting lists. the bill recently passed by the senate gives greater flexibility and treatment options for veterans faced with long wait times or lengthy travel. the choice card injects much-needed competition, in my opinion, into the process and it

demands of the va that they get their act together. and the accountability and transparency pieces of the legislation are not only important, they're critical. the notion that employment should be tied to performance might seem elementary to most people. but this has not been happening at the va. there have been several instances in which senior va executives who were involved in mismanagement or negligence were not reprimanded, but instead, received bonuses and positive performance reviews. shameful. and while senior executive service employees can be disciplined and fired under curt law, it's a very long and it's a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.law, it's a very long and it's a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.claw, a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.ulaw, s a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.rlaw, it's a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.rlaw, it's a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.elaw,

it's a very drawn-out process. again, that doesn't work.ntlaw,d it's a very drawn-out process. again, the secretary needs the authority this bill provides to cut through bureaucratic red tape. and most importantly, to hold individuals responsible. we have to root out the culture of corruption that is contributing to nearly all of va's most pressing issues. it's a huge challenge but we can and must get the va back on track and focused on their core mission of providing quality health care to our veterans. they deserve nothing less. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, senator johanns. now i want to take this opportunity to welcome mr. sloan gibson, acting secretary of the va. thank you very much for joining us. to give us an update on the state of health care at the department of veterans affairs. and we look forward to hearing your testimony. secretary gibson is accompanied by mr. philip macao ski. the assistant deputy undersecretary for health for

administrative operations. and your prepared remarks will be submitted for the record. secretary gibson, senator tester, you've already made your statement, okay. secretary gibson, please begin. things and get straight to business. as has been recounted we have serious problems. here is how i see the issues, first and foremost veterans are waiting to long to care. and second, scheduling acts were widespread. and third an environment exist where many staff members are afraid to raise concerns or offer suggestions for fear of retaliation. forth, a vast number of vocal points for staff are not focused on the veterans we are here to serve. fifth, the va has failed to hold

people accountable. and last we lack physicians, space, staff, information technology and perchase care funding to meet the current demand for timely health care. furthermore we don't have the capacity to quantify the staffing because we have not built resources from the bottom up. we have instead managed to a budget number. as a consequence of all of the failures the trust that is the foundation of all we do, the trust of the veterans we serve and the trust of the american people and their elected representatives has eroded. we will have to earn that trust back through deliberate and decisive action and by creating an open, transparent approach to deal with veterans. to begin restoring trust we focused on six key priorities.

get veterans off the wait list and into clinics. fix systemic scheduling problems, address cultural issues, hold people accountable, establish regular and ongoing disclosures of information, and finally quantify the resources needed to consistently deliver timely, high quality health care. here is what we are doing now. vha reached out to over 160,000 veterans to get them off wait list and into clinics and made over 543,000 referrals for veterans to receive care in the private sector. 91,000 more in the period a year a ago. and i would point out for each referral on average they result in seven visits to a clinician. vha facilities are adding more

clinic hours, aggressively recruiting to fill spots, deploying mobile medical units. we are moving to augment and improve our scheduling system and buying a commercial off the shelf state of the art scheduling system. i have directed people to conduct monthly in-person inspections to identify any related obsticals to timely care for veterans. over 1100 to date have been conducted. we are putting in place an ex ternal audit of scheduling across the entire system and building a robust situation to measure patient satisfaction which i believe will be central to measurement processes in the

future. i have visited 10 va centers to hear from the field on the action to get the veterans off the wait list and into the clinic. i leave later today for two locations in new mexico. they are eliminating any motives for scheduling practice and over 13,000 performance plans were amended in the process. where willful misconduct is documented action will be taken and this always applies to whistle blower retaliation. hiring is a first step to ensure we are all working to support those delivering care to veterans. vha dispatched teams to provide direct assistance to facilities

requiring the most improvement including a large team on the ground right now in phoenix. all vha senior executivexecutiv for 2014 have been suspended. vha is expeneding the use of private sector health care to improve access. i sent a message to 341,000 to veterans and reiterated that whistle blowers will be protected and we will not tolerate retaliation against whistle blowers. i named dr. carry for the secretary of health and she will spear head the immediate access for veteran care and restore the trust. a former health secretary is on

leave of absence from chief medical officer and president of clinical services for hospital corporation of america has begun his two month stint as senior secretary advisor. he will help bridge the gap until there is a confirmed secretary for health. dr. jerry cox is serving as interim of medical am specter. a navy office for 30 years and the former assistant inspector of the navvy for medical matters. he will ensure a strong internal audit function. as we complete reviews and fact finding, we are beginning to initiate personal allegations to those who were doing wrong.

ms. bradley is a formal general council at va and a senior member of the general coun council team at the department of defense and had direct responsibility for the ethics portfolio. let me address the need of additional resources. i believe the greatest risk for the veterans over the immediate and long-term is additional resources are provided not to remedy the historic shortfall of va capacity. such an out come would leave va more poorly positioned. we have been working with the office of budget for several weeks to request refunding. while the amounts under the consideration are large under the context of scope and

represent moderate expenditures. they are non-reoccurring and wouldn't be reflected in long-term rates. resources to meet the demand for fiscal year 2014-2017 total $17.6 billion. these funds address only the current shot short falls in staff, space, technology. we are taking the action to own the problems we face. the president, congress, veterans, the american people, vso's and va staff all understand the need for change. we must, all of us, seize this opportunity. we can turn these challenges

into the the greatest opportunity for improvement in the history of this department. i believe in as little as two years the conversation can change. that va can be the trusted provider of choice tr hilary clinton and benefits. if we are successful who wins? the growing number of veterans that turn to va for health care each year. the 700,000 veterans who are currently diagnosed with ptsd. the million iraq veterans that turned to the va since 2002. and the average veterans who turns to the va who is older, sicker and poorer than average patients in the private sector. these are the veterans who win when va becomes the trusted provider of care and benefits. that is what and where we want to be in the shortest time possible. our ability to get there depends

on our will to seize the opportunity, challenge the status quo, and drive status change. the vast majority of whom i believe care about the mission and want to do the right thing and work hard to take care of the veterans. i appreciate your partners, community stakeholders and volunteers. i respect the role the members of the committee play in serving veterans and i am grateful to you for long-term support. i am prepared to take your questions. >> well, mr. acting secretary, thank you much for not dealing with nisities and dealing with realities. i understand we are talking in a broad sense about two very serious problem areas.

number one, i trust every member of the committee understand we have an immediate crisis. that we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on wait list and those folks must get the medical care they need in a timely manner and am i pleased to see you have acted aggressively in that area. but if i understand you correctly the second point you made it is important to put out the current fire unless we effectively deal with the long-term capacity issues facing the va we will be back here year after year with similar type problems. you mentioned the number. and i want you to get into some detail. what are we talking about? how many in phoenix, other areas of the country there are long waiting periods. the goal of this committee is to end those waiting periods so veterans get quality care in a timely manner.

let's start off with personal. how many doctors, how many nurses, how many other types of medical personal do you need to achieve that goal? be as specific as you can and how much is that going to cost? >> mr. chairman, of the 17.6 billion approximately $10 mill billion is allocated for purchase care and hiring additional staff. the blend of that will change over time as we ramp up that capacity and we are successful in hiring people. >> is it fair to say that to the degree that we stregthen the va we become less dependented on expensive care? >> it is absolutey true. >> continue. i interrupted you. >> that $10 billion is allocated in a portion to purchase care

probably more on the front end than the back end as we are successful in hiring. our ability to develop highly refined bottom up estimates of physician requirements is limited. our best estimates at this time is that this would -- closing this gap requires hiring 10,000 additional clinical staff. those are divided among primary care, specialty care, and mental health care. of the 10,000, roughly 1500 are physicians and others are nurses and nurse practitioners and other direct patient support staff. >> you talked about space. >> yes, sir. >> i trust you are not talking about building some las vegas-type expensive building.

what is the relationship between space and the emergency that we currently have in terms of waiting periods. >> i will tell you, mr. chairman, in every medical center i visited except one and that is augusta, the number one problem is space. fayetteville, north carolina is growing at 7.8% annual rate and when it takes five years to get a building on the ground it doesn't make long to fall behind. so where we are today as a department is we are behind in the in terms of the space required today to serve patients. there are $6 billion in the $17.6 billion that is designed for infrastructure. >> do you have those projects? >> there are -- i will ask

phillip to go into some details. there are 77 lease projects for outpatient clinics that would add about 2 million square feet and 4 million appoiappointment and minor construction and occurring maintenance that would add 4 million additional outpatient visit slots there. >> we have heard time and time again that the dysfunctional for the appointments at the va is due to an outdated computer situation. can you say a word on how you will deal with that? >> there are four parallel issues. 11 existing defects in the

system being patched as we speak. there are four different interfaces in the process of making it easier for schedulers to access and provide the opportunity for veterans to access the schedule. on the 11th of july we led a contract for the existing system that will remedy maybe many of the most problems we make it hard to deal with and parallel with all of that we are pursuing the acquisition of a off the shelf state of the art system that is probably two years down the road in terms of having that functionality in place which is why we are pursuing. >> let me conclude. if we don't have the resources at the va to address the issues with the ptsd folks, space

issues, what happens in years to come? >> the wait times just get longe longer. we don't meet any standard of quality health care. i have committed to the president, veterans, the staff at va -- i will not hold back for asking for resources because we have not been managing to requirements as department. this would never happen in the private sector. you would fail as a business if you did this. i am not holding back now and won't in the future. but i told these folks that worked on the number i don't want a penny in there we can't justify. not one cent. >> senator burr. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and secretary gibson, i commend you, again. you have sort of made us go back

and ask about numbers because it hasn't been that long ago we wrote off maintenance account that means projects are on a 7-10 year timeline. so it is good to see one that va has a sense of urgency and that omb is recognizing the reality of the set of needs. i have a set of questions for you but i want to send them to you and and i would ask for ar all members to have an opportunity. >> without objection. >> i want to focus on data integrity. ...

the little rock va regional office, we are concerned how quickly the number of regional offices with allegations is growing. they removed all provisional rated claims from its pending in inventory. this process misrepresented the actual workload of pending claims and progress toward eliminating the overall claim backlog.

the office of inspector general team sent to philadelphia regional office determined that there were significant opportunities for regional offices to manipulate and in put incorrect dates of claims in the electronic record data integrity related to timeliness of claims processing. then there is this exchange that took place you remarked in your opening statement they have self reported a decrease in the national backlog by more than 50% since march 2013. do you trust those numbers? at this point, i would say, no. we have a lot of work ahead of us to address the allegations that we just received which all seem to focus on data integrity and need to be looked at carefully. i do not want to say a trust in.

in the end of the hearing, one of the things you said in your opening, and that struck me was that some of the success may be comprised by data integrity issues. anything that the secretary has said tonight that alleviates those concerns that he raised in your opening statement simply responding know. also, on the issue of whether the quality metrics are reliable , the general accounting office provided this testimony, and prior work we documented shortcomings in va quality assurance activities and more recently concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency related to changes in the agency's national accuracy rate for disability claims. in several basic areas they are not following general statistical procedures. that looseness in their methodology translates to

numbers that are inaccurate and and helpful in terms of looking at trends over time in terms of performance accuracy and/or comparing relative performance. that is not good metrics. simply, the inspector general's office testified that they continue to identify a high rate of errors and regional offices processing claims decisions. now, undersecretary hickey was the one that testified from the va. and despite her testimony, which was preceded by the inspector general, the gao, the va put out a press release the very next day entitled va takes action to ensure data integrity of disability claims in which said va touts it as reduce the backlog, the number of days it takes to process claims and has improved their rate to over

90 percent. now, listen, you said that you have to regain the trust of the committee. i think we agree with you. let me ask you, how smart was that press release? did you sign off on that press release? how can numbers that were refuted by the people that were actually doing the investigations of va facilities, how can they reviewed the numbers and the next day that va come out with the same numbers and talk to them? >> senator, i think, as you have noted, trust is the foundation of everything that we do. where there are questions about data integrity i think we have got to look deeply. there are a number of issues that have been raised. i could sit and go through and take an item or two, but the fundamental issue remains.

they're is -- there are questions about whether or not we have good data integrity. just as we are undertaking independent reviews, we need to take those. >> so this has been under way. much of it initiated by members of this committee with the inspector general, the general accounting office. you have acknowledged the shortcomings on the fee age a side. this is fresh, this week. and still that press release of stress is that the va will continue to publish these performance data is on its website. >> senator, i would tell you that i come into this organization and look at the transformation over the last two to three years and a fine anybody to show me any major part of the federal government

anywhere that is transformed that much in that amount of time. i think it is amazing looking at it from a private sector perspective, much less in the context of the federal government agency. there is room to improve. we have got to restore trust. the 100 percent provisional ratings were pulled out. my recollection a round numbers, it's about 12,000. that may not be exactly right, but the backlog is down 350,000. so i get it. we need to make sure that the data integrity is there, but i am not going to pull back from standing by that department and the good work that has been done we cannot have back and forth between ing. we have to embrace the findings. >> i appreciate the chairman's lenience. i am not sure you are embracing

those findings. it concerns me because these are veterans that are waiting for their determination is to be made and in some cases it involves overpayments. and it just strikes me -- and now realize this is a vha hearing. it strikes me that we could have testimony like we had on monday night and turn around and put out a press release stating the same numbers the next day when every one of the investigators found that those numbers could not be trusted. this is an area of great concern big, if not bigger because the budget is the biggest budget. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the va has removed the wait time

criteria from the performance contracts. i do understand the need to be wary of creating incentives for people to gain -- game the numbers, but we have a serious accountability problem. how will you hold a network and medical center directors accountable for wait times if it is not in a performance contract ? >> i think the first that we have to do is get to integrity in the data. so the idea behind polling that at this stage of the game was to eliminate any questionable motivation. >> understood. >> i think as we move forward what we are going to find is that average wait times are a very poor gauge firm timeliness of care for a large, integrated health system. you don't really find that in that private sector. it is one of the reasons we are boosting our patient

satisfaction measurement activities because i think patient satisfaction is going to become central. the veteran needs to be seen today, we have failed that veteran. >> you are looking for different ways -- >> i think we will be looking at different ways to evaluate timeliness of care, a combination of patient satisfaction, veterans waiting too long and seeing that number coming down steadily. and then as we have the system could ability to do things like you see in the private sector, metrics like the third next available appointment which gives you some gauge of the capacity of the system to be able to handle that veteran as they come in. today at least we are able to look at same day appointments. roughly in the primary care area we see about 100,000 veterans on the same day basis every single month in primary care. that's coming to me, suggests that there is capacity being maintained to take care of that

veteran who cannot wait 14 days or 21 days or 30 days. >> okay. health care from the private sector does play a critical role in making sure that veterans get the care in a timely fashion. there are drawbacks to the care that the va has been trying to overcome like not being able to get medical records returned to the department and a little ability to see the quality of care. if congress were to expand the authority for 90 for health care, what steps would be necessary? >> i will ask philippe to jump in here in a moment. one of the biggest challenges we have with purchase care in the community is maintaining continuity of care for the veteran. the ability to get information, medical information, medical record information back and forth is a vital part of this. ensuring the quality of care. i would tell you if the floodgates open it will present

the department with challenges, but the fact remains we are right now referring out roughly a quarter of a million referrals' every month to purchase care. as i mentioned before, every one of those referrals on average will result in roughly seven appointments. that is an awful lot of activity. last year 15 million visits to non va providers over the course of the year added to the 85 million outpatient clinic visits. 100 million outpatient visits per year that we are managing. it is already a very large number and a challenge for us. but if we open the floodgates it would be an even bigger challenge. >> senator, the one thing i would add is purchasing care in the community does not absolves loss of the requirement and responsibility to coordinate care in addition to the assurance that we can send -- both send and receive clinical data. there is just the hands-on

coordination required to make sure an appointment has occurred, the veteran knows where to go, the family is involved, all the rest of that. for a look at the cost of care alone, we are missing a big responsibility. >> we look at how we do this and expand, we have to look at those issues and get them right or we will create a bigger problem for the future. finally, va has had a lot of difficulty hiring providers for a number of reasons including the that is lower than the private sector and a long, as you mentioned, cumbersome hiring process and hiring in shortage areas in health care anyway. because we know there is a national shortage as well. now va does a lot of training for doctors and nurses and works closely with a lot of universities. what more can that va do to help build the health care workforce necessary to meet the needs of the department and our country? >> that is a great question, ma'am live.

one of the significant opportunities where we can work collaboratively. maybe tuition payment programs or reimbursement programs, ways that we can encourage that. we rely heavily upon our academic affiliations as a source for new conditions. we are doing things from my compensation standpoint as well where we have flexibility to appeal to meet the local markets . >> that is part of the reason for a backlog as well. we cannot ignore that side of it >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator murray. >> following up with a question about referrals and the private sector, i wrote this down from your statement. he said 543,000 referrals for private care. what percentage of those would you guess or mental health referrals? fifth.

>> i'm sorry. i could hasten a guess, but i will take that one for the record. >> the reason i ask that question is to my got into the atlantic va in august of last year when we had two suicides and a drug overdose. when we dug -- they were using a community based provider. va with see the patient, refer them to the community-based provider with no follow-up. and in that time when the person was determined to be at risk, in two cases they took their own life because they did not get timely service. i think there was an interesting observation about coordinated care. as we expand private options and veterans' health care, which we may or may not do. i hope we do. care coordination will be one of the secrets to making that work, not just in reducing wait times but the quality of care -- or

increasing the quality of care for veterans, particularly with the number of mental health people coming forward. that will be an ongoing process, one that will have to be coordinated and monitored. >> the memorandum. >> in may when secretary shinseki and dr. peters were here and ask them both the question had they seen it. dr. peters said he had and the secretary said he had not. i think both of them told me the truth. i don't think he ever saw it because i think the senior leaders did not let him. i think -- my experience is it lies at the highest levels of the veterans administration that insulated leaders from the problems. why else would a memorandum written four years ago that we are discovering now and 2014 not

have been acted on? the last sentence of the third paragraph says these practices will not be tolerated. it does not say look at this when you get a chance and delineates each of the programs. you are an interim director, secretary. you will be handing off this presumably to of mr. macdonald. what are you doing to put in place the type of affirmation transfer and conduits that will see to it he does not become a rookie victim of what a distinguished general was in terms of mr. shinseki. >> i will let my old friend -- are will not let my friend become a rookie victim of anything. >> let me interrupt. i am not being tried when i ask this question. >> i understand. >> for four years va has indicated its leader. >> i will tell you from my personal perspective i have learned to never have all my information filtered through a couple of people. so from