sglp a strategy to protect christians abroad? >> i would hope that there is, i hope that there would be a strategy, which is inclussive of christians. we have eye set of human rights val valu valu val

values, the kurds themselves, are the largest minority population in the world. without a country themselves. therefore, the same question would be posed for them. >> not sure it would be long. >> the message the committee received from the government is that they desperately need equipment, what is the government response for that? >> can i throw it back at you and ask what specifically they requested? >> machine guns, we saw that. they wanted armored vehicles, things like that to assist them. request to the uk government at that time?

>> the defense secretary visited recently, and certainly, as has been covered by the media, we have given a number of weapon systems and heavy machine guns, which comes with training as well. they are complicated weapons to fire. 50 cal. so, i think the yorkshire has gone out to help with the training. i have a little bit of concern here, i express them careful. this has been their hour of need. no doubt about it. they were up against it, the world responded. by providing weapon systems and training to main sure that the line could be held. we are in a situation where they are wanting to bolster their capability. we have been involved in taking munitions from romania, and

bulgaria, which we air lifted, in fact, they used warsaw pact weapons, and we ended up transferring those across. they have a regular drum beat of planes landing providing systems. my worry is, i share it with the committee. this is in a tough neighborhood. those political wings were at war, civil war in the 90s there, are a lost weapon systems coming in itself it i have no problem that we are arming their moment of need. i have encouraged, and i have been frank with the kurdish government, it needs to be

transparent. make sure that the quarter master is in place. we see where the weapons are going. they are not swirled away or disappear. worst case scenario, look at libya. not saying it would end up that way. so flush with respect systems now, it is difficult. everybody feels the need to open. i don't know it is three times the population of weapon systems. i would say, on the army of the depech moger, it is upgrading, the transparency and the accountable to the kurdish government. britain stands ready to support in that request. that said, we provided a number of weapon systems, most importantly, counter ied trainingly, one of the things they requested.

we stand to answer any questions that come britain's way. >> for example, the reform. >> i am not away of any conditions as such. i have been very, very frank with the government themselves, top say, this is your hour of need. we recognize that also, we see all sortds of containers from around the world. requests. anybody with the scream will be aware, you have to have a standard set of equipment, which your forces become familiar w rather than bits of kit that come from either nato standard or warsaw pact or chinese weapon systems, it can be confusioning, if it long term, you want to

have a strong capability. >> the two factions, that needs to reform structure. >> beg your pardon. i agree. that is what we have been encouraging to do. you have one, the ministry. answering to the government, rather than any party. there is a third party, that has not been mentioned yet, the grand party, are they not going to want their own military itself. that is not the direction they would want to see. >> if i could, just say, that all of our gifted equipment, we asked to be used in accordance with international humanitarian law. to be used to meet urgent operational needs, including not

to be stock piled or sold to third parties, we got assurances, from the kurdish government, they would observe those requirements. >> did you feel that nato is playing a part? >> i think this is something that foreign secretary races in brussels. at the foreign affairs council, he asked that it come on the agenda for december's meeting. so that he himself will be obliged to address this. sfr the nato requirement, i think the whale summit came out with a statement that says, i may have to write to you with the details of that. you -- >> essentially, that nato was looking at how best it could

contribute to the iraq and syria mission, if tulike, overall. particularly, in respect of training, and coming back to earlier parts of the discussion. whether there were waying in which you could use the coordination mechanisms within nato to ensure a proper sensible division of labor, in terms of who supplies what. >> pleased to see they have come together, that needs to happen more. so there is a synergy of equipment. and what is happening in fighting in built up areas, it

requires a different kind of training as well. >> seemed to be happy that americans are bombing the we don't seem to be willing to do anything about it ourselves. conditional declare an interest as somebody who tabled an early day motion last week, tied to the labor sal darity with kurds, it calls for all parties to give

solidarity to the kurds in suria and iraq. i went last year declare that as well. can i ask you some level of absurdity, we know that it heart of this organization is in -- they are carrying out beheading from the outskirts, they are trying to seize the areas which are currently under the syrian kurds. and yet, we have got this self denying position that somehow, britain is not going to be involved in syria.

i think you are following the same chapter that john barren did. you forget, we are part of a collision, general allen has not whied us to participate. it is not that they are short of or have too many targets and require british airplanes to participate in a campaign. they don't. what they need for us, what we are providing is intelligence

gathering, and we are ability to provide that there is a legal aspect of that it which i think the committee will be well familiar with it. we are in iraq because of the invitation of the iraqi government. there is a legal step, the americans are able to justify it through their attorney general, and not only that t the prime minister made it clear, were we to advance, in the manner in which we describe, it would take us to a vote at the house of commons, that takes us to the world of whether it will be approved or not. >> i am not asking you to say the government would act without political consistent. if the americans think it is legal inside syria, what is the

inhibition of the uk doing it, or do we we have different legal stands. >> the americans are bombing, if they are able to do the bombing that is required, should we not use our assets to focus on areas, from a coalition perspective. there is a need? >> let's try a different way. nonleather equipment to the free syrian army. the free syrian army, as far as i understand is it not engaged directly in many areas, where it is against iso. it may be fighting against the regime. from what i understand then, can you correct me if i am brong, the people in syria, who are actually fighting against isil are syrian kurds, why don't we

give assistant to the surian kurdish forces, engaged in fighting against iso. >> you are right. we are providing for kids. commonwealth equipment, it can be of service to them. they are providing and protecting the north, providing support to the police in that area as well. that is next to the into that space, into as many parts of syria as a whole as we can actually get in to. you want us to jump ahead. >> i want us to take a view. if we are prepared to support some syrians, against isil; i want an explanation, as to why

we are prepared to support it, why are we not providing- -- again, going back to the legagity. there is no legal game for us to do that it the people who are doing that, gaining support, we had just been through it, is the depech mugger, they are taking on that fight themselves. >> i don't understand thafrp legal case k clarify they? >> when we first looked at this. legal justification for us to be able to enter syria without their permission. >> i am not asking for us to enter syria. what was the legal objection for

us providing support as we have done for the free syrian army -- >> i am not away of any questions. >> you said there were legal problems, i am not clear what legal -- i we are able to do this it is not in that sense. >> final question. is it our priority to defeat isil, in syria, or to remove the regime in syria? which is more personal? >> the international coalition

to create isil. we have to create space for the suny engagement to take over that space. they will involve operationos both sides of the border itself. we are participating in one aspect of that. contributing to the success of isil, creating a space, and denying them it ability to have the voice. because there is no voice, they have gone against him. this is an example of that. now, himself, he is somebody that we believe has caused this. therefore, that is why it isn't a choice simply because two adversaries in one country have

to swit now, isil, you are saying that priority is to get rid of isil. we all accept this will not be immediate. long term process. two years ago, now, controlling considerable parts of syrian territory, for years, etch longer to come. well, you want to, i will return to this nia second. >> the answer is no, we are not. we do think that the first concentration of our intervention should sub against isil. the effect of that must not be that we while we fight with

others, isil the flame of the opposition is extinguished, therefore, we have to able to do both concurrently. and we have i think also recognized in syria, you can't have a military solution. there needs to be a political process as well. one of the things we are trying to do is react to that politically process. to get a sense of forward movement. and to underline despite all of the international discussion around this we can't see a future north syria after everything that happened. how do we, we as part of the

international community, move both the military, if you like, intervention forward, but military part of the picture, but the political as l, they go hand in hand. there is no doubt what is happening in syria is complex and unpredictable to some extent. what is happening, whilst, from an isis perspective, there is a thoroughfare of people from around the world, who continue to join the forces of isil. the same cannot be said for a sat. his officer class is being depleelted. thereafter, there could be a moment in the future, to be made, under the a sad regime

gim, that is an important to recognize when it will be. a lot of war lordism is taking place. it is not dead. that patient, do we want it to die completely? the asset to be overrun, with the criminality, and vacuum of power, all the others, do we want that patient to remain alive enough that we can have the infrastructure and the state capability is there for whether it be the syrian coalition or

have the state collapse would be terrible for it entire region. they are being replennished, sadly, many, often from around the region are joining forces or being trained in small numbers, anything between 20 and 30,000. >> you reject the reports made that british government's figures are massively understating the number of is fighters. >> i am not sure what you mean. the number of those britains- -- who have chosen to leave here? >> the total number of fighters,

there have been reports, recently, including in the media, that british government is estimating the actual number. >> i don't think we will get an extra figure. they are a combination of a military and insurgency. there is not a role call that we can lean on. these are estimates. >> i understand that. we we are not talking about marginal difference, we are talking about six figure numbers rather than five figure numbers. >> i think what he is referring to is as much as the security 5d visor of the kig staying they have an army of 200,000.

he was directing his ire at the americans as much as anyone, i think. i would have to say, our confidence doesn't support it it the point he was trying to make is that the so-called control an area of a third of syria or a third of iraq, that includes some several million people. how could such a small number of fighters control that? the structure of the dash, what they call, their term, not ours, the tip of the spear, the people who do the fighting, that is small. single figuresor thousands, then the people come in afterwards, and the great mass that come and

go along with a great mass, the number who sustained. the incidental evidence, that is difficult to get, hard facts on all of this, the number of people who for example run all the other places. by any standards, this figure of 200,000 looks massively inflated. >> there are many tribes, they come down the tiger ris river, i feel better off, i am happy, they seem to be on the winning side, they seem to be the winning side, i do support that do you include that, when you count the numbers up?

they are trying to enforce a program of additional fighters from men, adolescent boys. >> i think it is fair to say that is what is happening, there is a sense of fear that the iso abuses in order to force individuals who perhaps went there with intent to fight. britain returned or come back to europe said that they were monitored, if they were seen not to continue to fight with the same level of energies, they would be killed or persecuted. you are right. i think there is a massive amount of fear and brutality that iso is using to contain the ranks.

>> at the moment, the it is based on, is that good. >> i visited that, when we arrived, i have to say, i was surprised, we arrived at the location, what is fair to said i am please that there are reinforcements coming in. bolstered the numbers, i have to get back to tuwith more information on the location. commit ourselves to a ne new

building, bearing in mind, the increase fd involvement and commitment we are having to northern iraq. >> there is going to an undertaking for a new building that is supposed to open in the second part of next year. >> there is a land, there was an existing plan to build a counsellor general, why was it taking so long to get on the ground. we were having a number of issues with the kurdish getting the necessaries to build, so on and so forth.

it became clear, after everything that happened in june, july, august, that we were going to go in to a spike of activity. say what sort of building do we need that will we are sure that what we were going to build in 2013 -- >> there is no agreement to open a new consalate in the second half of 2015? that is -- have you seen that is not the case? >> we cannot physically meet the time table. >> yes or no. >> hold on, if i may. the time table to complete the new consalate building, by the summer of next year.

was about gosh, became impractical seven or eight months ago, that time table would take six, nine months, the point is that knowledges it would have produced now is no longer large enough for what we will need going forward. we are trying to urgently figure out what building we would need. are the facilities adequate? no, they are not. >> so, the plan to move by 2015, the second part of 2015, has now been stopped? >> well, the time table to acheer that by 2015 is no longer practical for the reasons i explained. from seven months ago, when we couldn't get the necessary permissions, it wasn't going to be anyway. >> can you understand the local

frustration, it took them so long to look at the last building, actually, the russians and talking about the extension. can you understand local politician frustration, how they perceive the united kingdom to be dragging their heels on this particular project? >> you make an important point. i hear it loud and clear. i would like to think that the local politicians judge our commitment, or relationship, not just on the building itself. if i may, i will investigate further, if i can, i will write to the committee, beering in mind, there is an increase in

the number of size of accommodation has grown from what was needed before, because we upgraded the number of staff that will be working in northern ir iraq. >> we saw the germanings in the shining new building. >> the problems, they stay up, which we were told about again. >> sir, repeat the question again. >> the joint committee, that is supposed to be set up after the visit. by the politicians and me, hasn't been set up.

>> when he was here in may, we agreed to set up the committee, not surprisingly, the kurdish government had other things to focus on since then. when we have seen him in the since, when the foreign secretary was there, about a month over a month ago, we agreed it is something we needed to press ahead with. that -- >> just to clar iskify, it has not been set up or started yet? >> it hasn't met for the first time yet. >> okay, try something else. can you update us as to pakistan regional government, on reform

of -- public dlufry. >> there is security we are trying to endeavor to strengthen relationships this is something that britain does well, and indeed, there is training now taking place. you can ask me, has it started, i am not sure. we are training now, civil servants, in various ministries, and working with them in order to enhance trance parency and reliability. >> it is worth mentioning the 20-20 documents, this one as well. can i ask why you asked the question? >> why did i ask the question, it is the job of the committee

to emphasize front office policy. >> that is in no doubt, britain, i think has the largest number of businesses operating in northern iraq than any other country that is why i ask. we are in a very, very strong position, and obviously, we want to be able to do more. now, there are -- >> more detailed answer. we picked up the vibes that uk presence is not as strong as it could be. and that other companies, countries, corporations from other countries were far more active. to give you examples, there are travel advice, the ukba, airport, and the lack of direct air links in the uk. to name the three. >> there already exists a huge

footprint. britain is established in northern iraq, and with the hydrocarbons, there has been, in the oil and gas industry, there has been difficults, because of the licenses agreements, and the approval, not gone anywhere noor it, because of the there are -- there is more we can do. uk it i, soon to be established in the consalate. we will be bridging more businesses to a bit. bill, in order to introduce them to the opportunities that there there. are investing that i am aware of, health care, infrastructure,

legal and financial services. >> direct -- there is a note on this. there are some issues to do with british, with the british being able to check on the side of the terminal. if we can get these sorted, from a british perspective. it then requires an airline to pick it up. there are just some issues to deal with, certification of standard of security, from a british perspective. extremely high, once they are confirmed, british airlines in particular, will have eye direct

flight. >> plans to review the travel advice? >> travel advice is constantly under review. it is something they personally have to sign off myself. i am aware of that. i was starting to take a look at it. we did recently, i will take a look at it from this committee. we have to bear in mind the environment we are dealing with. in iraq and northern iraq, and for kurdis stan, to do as well as possible and britain to participate in that. if there is a possibility of reducing the threats on the travel, we will engage in that. >> the question about regional government.

i and i think others, they have made good progress on this. there is a possibility that there may be an independence referendum in kurdisstan, do you think that is possible? >> i think it is a lot of work to be done in other areas, i am aware, this is something that people have one approach. i think it is in the constitution as well, to be considered. i believe this is a difficult neighborhood. i believe, government believes, that iraq, the country is stronger by having the influence of the kurds in baghdad.

the nation of iraq, the reality is, that the people of kurdistan would like to have independence, no doubt about that. is it not time for the uk to think about how in the long term, the region can be changed, the boundaries of the nations can be changed, and recreated to ensure there is more stability and that there is more ability to create stronger nations longer term than the instability, which i don't think

will ever be resolved in the current boundaries. >> i can only repeat what i just said. it is our view that country is far stronger, the kurds have a pragmatic approach, with the other two, in providing transparent, integrated government in baghdad. that is why i believe the country itself, the region itself, is from a security perspective, from an economic perspective. is better met by the country staying as one. >> i understand that point, it is a valid point, is it fair to expect that kurds to tie themselves to an artificial construction of which they don't feel part of, when they have proved themselves, to be able to run a successful state

independently of that. surely give the people the right to have self determination, as we would with anywhere else in the world. >> you answered your own question, anywhere else in the world can follow an example we have, not long ago in scotland, that it was done with the consent of the entire country, and done, in a manner that had a result, and we honored. that is important. >> i am not 100% certain, with the consent of the rest of the united king dom -- >> are you saying -- are you saying if there was to keep scotland -- >> i don't think there it was a

uk agreement. scotland, the government, we are going down a side road here. my point -- >> a rather dangerous one. >> my point being simply, the people of kurdisstan or the kurdish region of iraq, what criteria, if the uk government were to support them to become independent, what crit teria would have to be laid down -- >> it would be a hypothesis, it would be dangerous to build perimeters, if a particular country wanted to seek independence. i cannot stress, this is a tough neighborhood. the kurds are a powerful, stabilizing force in iraq as a whole. the countries are stronger for it. >> are we gaent any

possibilities in principle, that iraq must stay together come what may, or is there circumstances, you can see in the future, not only in the kurd interest but in the uks interest, to allow separate states to evolve from ashes in the middle east in the moment. >> i am afraid will be the same answer. we feel the country is far stronger as one intricle solid iraq. >> on a motion from myself, the house, without division, that this house recognizes the genocide against the people of iraq and kurdis stan, and currentlies the government to do the same, the then minister, to his credit, didn't oppose the motion. said that we building have

further meetings, to look at the government, may damage the standings of the uk and kurd kurdisstan, what would be your response to that? >> i think that it horrors of war, this should never be forgotten. i am grateful for the london representative, who took the delegation to the, what happened

in 1988. it is for the criminal courts, it is a judicial matter, i am afraid to use that term genocide, rather than for any government, the court made that clear. in predating 2002, from the criminal court was established, you can't go back in retrospect, and use that judicial term, they have the reasons for coming out with that line, to events that happened once the about asking

questions, in the approach. the confusion about traps, our job, is to actually skrutinize our own government. when it comes to the defense of the people of kurdis stan, our allies, what more can we do to encourage abroader approach. a greater support. what is the british government doing, what is the best doing, in order to encourage more regional support to achieve our

overall objectives, we all know air strikes won't achieve the task and we don't want to put western troops on the ground. >> i repeat what i said before. we are part of a wider equation. the offers that we provide is what is requested of us. is there a further request for example to participate in syria? they will be taken on board. if required a vote in parliament, so will be it. we have to take the nation with us, and have the support of the nation. that is yet prime minister brought it in the first place. you ask an important question, i don't think it is asked enough. it is easy to defeat millitarily, any unsurgency, you defeat the idea.

i think not enough is done to discredit or dele jit myself, i think there is more that can be done, for the region itself. the voices saying that islam is a peaceful regulation. this isn't who we are. this isn't the calling that you should be listening to. and pursue a different ideology, a different one, that we see peace in iraq and syria. >> i think it is a fair point. you have to take on the ideology, as well as the force on the ground. the immediate threat shlths when it comes to kurdis stan, and this is the purpose of the inquiry, the isil threat in front of them. side tracked in the nicest

possible way, sidetracked the question. coming back to any other support. one accepts the point of ideology, is there anything more the regional a, lies can do, in taking on help take on isil on the ground? >> i would say that the strategy at the moment, which is allowing the states for both the peshmokur and the iraqi forces is working. the ad campaign is providing the attrition that we need to hold back isil in iraq itself. i think syria as has been exposed a little bit is a bigger challenge. this entity is working. >> they're not needed, is what you're saying? the region albuquerque lal allye ground. >> no, i think it's actually

working. iraq doesn't want to see other countries bringing in and putting boots on the ground because that would compound the masses themselves. they must take over the space, push back that idealogy and provide that security environment for the country to move forward peacefully. having said that, there is multiple military from peshmode from the north itself. there is military that can come from a variety of sources. germany just brought in more equipment, weapon systems and so forth. but regionally, i would like to see more done as well. >> minister, you mentioned what happens if the idea is still around as far as isis is concerned, the idealogy would still be there.

isn't it also helped by i.s. got considerable financial resources made available and we saw oil on the black market that was being sold, and taken over to get currency as well. isn't that part of the equation in terms of when in overpopulation, and making sure that even though we may not like the idealogy, how difficult would that be? >> i think you raise an important point. i think there are many that are simply tolerating it because they feel they have no choice. this goes back to the situation that developed under asset where the cities were not given free space and therefore they ended up rallying around a flag which ended up in extremists. and that complicates the challenge that we face. >> well, do you think that

challenge is insurmountable? do you think we can win this by the air with a little help on the ground? >> i think you oversimplify what's happening on the ground with what we do to contribute. it isn't just an air campaign that takes place, there is a multifaceted approach to take on the capability, not the least in supporting indigenous ground troops to be able to take on the fight themselves. >> how long do you think it will last? >> i wouldn't like to speculate, but i should perhaps say not to expect anything in months or years. i think this will take a number of years. in the same way that al qaeda is an idealogy, remains with us in the fact that there are this competition that we're seeing between isil and aq at the moment. it still remains with us, even though the leader himself was killed in pakistan a number of years ago. >> forgive me for not being

present when you began your evidence. because of obama, when you were asked how long it would take, you said two or three years. >> i'm glad to know robert is in agreement with me. >> i'm sure he's quite relieved as well. >> the question i wanted to ask you is this. how far do you think success would be made easier if there could be serious disruption of the black market and oil from which isis is profiting very considerably? >> there is where oil is being bought by asset himself, and there is an awful lot going through in other courses on the black market itself. there is enormous borders with, you know, jordan and turkey and so forth. it is difficult and short in

help, at least. we are in a hostage situation. but i saw as many lebanese hostages but for much lower levels of payments, which keeps the money coming in as well, because they're paid off because they're much smaller amounts. but there is also, sadly, many individual donors from around the world that are -- continue to fund this idealogy and fund isil. one of the reasons why u.n. security council resolution, at-2170 took place was to prevent individuals from any country being a law, breaking the law, that you can start individuals in countries and states themselves can continue to fund terrorism in this manner. >> i understand that. really, i should have asked a

more direct question. is there any action being taken to try to disrupt the black market in oil? >> there is a number of sites, without giving too much away, but i think you sat on another committee that perhaps looks into this as well. there are operations. we are trying to disturb the oil path, let's put it that way. >> i am content with that. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, indeed. it's really helpful to us to have these sessions like this where we can speak quite openly and freely and get the evidence that we need. it's very helpful. >> as long as we keep it to ourselves. >> i'm afraid i can't assure you of that. adjourned. >> thank you. a couple live events to talk about on c-span3. the acting director of the secret service, joseph clancy,

will give an oversight on security following a security breach. live coverage from the judiciary committee at 10:30 eastern. in the afternoon, president obama's choice to be deputy secretary of state, tony blinken, will testify at a senate foreign relations committee. that's live at 2:30 eastern. now, north carolina republican congressman walter jones talks about president obama's friendly request to combat the military group isis in iraq and syria. from the washington journal, this is 45 minutes. and we are back with congressman walter jones, republican of north carolina, serves on the armed services committee. our viewers are just watching that exchange you had last week

with the defense secretary. what is your assessment of the isis strategy so far? is it working? >> well, let me say first that one of the worst mistakes i've made since i've been in congress was to pass -- to vote to pass the au authorization military force to give president bush the authority to go into iraq. >> in 2002? >> yes, ma'am. the reason for that is we have a constitutional responsibility. and i do not think we should commit our young men and women to war unless we debate it on the floor of the house when we have a constitution that we promise to uphold. and i have just gotten sick and tired of seeing all these commitments overseas, and it's always the american soldier that's going there. these other countries at best have limited involvement. and i just think it's wrong. so for me personally, i wanted to say to secretary hagel -- and i like him and i know him, and i

like him -- i wanted to say to him that if you think that we in congress should pass another aumf for the present -- and this has nothing to do with president obama -- then i hope my colleagues in congress will debate and understand our constitutional responsibility. >> do you think there should be a debate on the floor for this -- for what's happening? >> i do. because it's just like when president obama bypassed congress to bomb libya, to take out gadhafi, there was no debate on the floor of the house. he just actually made a decision to go in and take out gadhafi. what did we get, benghazi? look at the mess we're in because of iraq. it was manufactured by the bush administration. >> do you put some of the blame for this, though, at the feet of your own leadership? the republican leaders before the election said the president has the authority he needs right

now to fight isis. we don't need another authorization of military force. >> absolutely. i blame our leadership. i will give you another quick example. after president obama bombed libya, i drafted a house resolution, and it would not have to go to the senate, for the house to debate saying if a president without provocation y bypasses congress to bomb another country, then we will debate the impeachment of that president. i was just trying to give a debate war powers. i sent it to the subcommittee chair from california, who is a goodfellow. i even wrote a letter saying, trent, please hold a hearing. i wanted the experts of war powers to be at the hearing. he got back with me maybe six or seven weeks later saying the leadership says we don't have time enough to hold a hearing. if you don't have time enough to hold a debate or hearing on our

young men and women dying in war or getting their legs blown off in war, then what are we up here for? >> what's your message, then, to your republican leaders? >> well, i wrote john boehner a letter prior to the general election and asked him to please allow us to have a debate on this issue of syria and iraq sometime before the end of the year. we have two more weeks after thanksgiving. to be realistic, i just wanted to make a statement. my hope is in the new congress and 2015 that the leadership will see that we have a constitutional responsibility, because i think at some point in time with the buildup in iraq, one of our soldiers is bound to get seriously injured or killed or captured by this evil group known as isil. >> the president, though, is now asking for 5.6 millibillion to t isis. he is sending more advisers

there. you have said that isis is evil, you agree that they're a threat. so will you vote no against more funding for the folks that are going there? >> real quick point, greta. when bill clinton left office in the year 2000, this nation was $5.6 trillion in debt. and today as we're talking, the debt of our nation is $17.8 trillion. you know what pat buchanan said, is it not senility to borrow from the world to defend the world? that it says all. we continue to spend money we don't have. we're breaking the military now. and that hearing that you showed just a moment ago, general dempsey said -- he even, in some of his comments said, we know 2015 is going to be a very difficult budget year for our military. so we're spending -- i think i brought this -- we're spending right at $300,000 an hour in fighting isil.

these are -- these figures are just about to bankrupt this nation. >> so are you a no vote, then, for more furnding? >> i am a no vote until you tell me how you'll pay for it. if we're going to continue to fight these wars around the world, we need to look seriously at a tax increase to raise taxes and let the american people help us pay for this war, because our grandchildren are not going to have a future at all. one of my biggest concerns are taking care of our veterans. i went to walter reed back in september. two marines from my district, camp legime. one kid had lost both legs and an arm. i looked the father in the eyes. all i saw was tears. 23 years old, lost both legs and an arm. the second marine i saw in my district lost both legs and told me he's going to have to have his rectum rebuilt. this country is not prepared to be able to take care of our wounded and we're not prepared

to pay for the wars we're fighting. we're just saying to the next generation, you were born into a world that you'll be bankrupt. tha that's not right. if we want to continue these fights around the world, then we'll be strong enough to vote on the floor to raise taxes to pay for the war and not put it on the next generation. >> the administration says it's not just the united states, we have a coalition. >> where is the coalition? there was a cartoon in the miami herald that i have, and i will tell you, that says it all. >> we're showing it to our viewers. >> you got a sultan sitting back with uncle sam on his knees, and he's telling uncle sam, go out there and get those isil thugs and don't spill any blood on my rug. it's always america's blood. if these middle east countries, and they should be concerned about isil just like we should be concerned, they should send

their own combat troops to help our troops when we send our troops into a country that's in the middle east. >> are you clear on the isis strategy? >> i don't know what the strategy is. that's what i asked secretary hagel if he would put in writing to me -- excuse me, to the committee, to the committee. if he would put in writing what is your strategy, what is the end point of our central strate? you hear some of the leaders saying we'll be there 20 years, we'll be there 30 years. i know we have to fight isil, but do we have to fight isil around the world when we can't even secure our own borders here in america. people in the third district of north carolina as well as active duty marines as well as retired marines, they agree with me. we continue to find reasons to go to these other countries, but we don't have an end point. if you don't have an end point, you have no strategy. >> let's listen to what the defense secretary said during that hearing last week, because

he laid out where the strategy is working. take a listen. >> we are seeing steady and sustainable progress along d.o.d.'s two main lines of effort. first, we are seeing progress in degrading and destroying isil's war-fighting capacity and denying safe haven to its fighters. directly and through support of iraqi forces, co lialition have ended and impaired its ability for mass forces. in recent weeks, they have helped push isil out of zumar in northern iraq and helped iraqi security forces begin retaking areas around major oil refinery at biji. last weekend the air strikes began gathering near mosul. isil fighters have been forced to alter their tactics.

we knew they would. they will adapt, they will adjust. maneuvering in smaller groups, sometimes making it more difficult to identify targets, hiding large equipment and changing their communications methods. sustaining this pressure in isil will help provide time and space, time and space for iraq to reconstitute its forces and continue going on the offense. this pressure is having an effect on potential isil recruits and clollaborators. we know that. our knowledge is very clear on that. >> congressman jones? >> where are the other troops? isil is a threat to the world, not just to america but to the world. and they need to be taken care of. i think we as the world can take care of isil.

but here we go again, america taking the lead. let me tell you, go at it truthfully. i know we will forget when we went into iraq how many hearings i attended, and they would always say, well, we're making progress. things are fragile but they're getting a little bit better. 10 years later and the military in iraq is falling apart. we continue to think that we are responsible for the world, to police the world. we can't even police our own country. this is where we are continuing to go down a road of collapse. and that's why i use that quote by pat buchanan. in march of this year, we will have another debate -- 2015, excuse me -- we will have another debate on raising the debt ceiling. we raised the debt ceiling seven out of eight times when george bush was president to allow him to spend more money than this

government had taken in. we already raised the debt ceiling on president obama at least five times in six years so that he can borrow more money to keep the government running. at some point in time, one of these foreign countries are going to say, we don't trust you to pay down on your debt, therefore, we're not going to buy your assets. >> let's get to calls. larry has been waiting in tucson, arizona, democrat. go ahead, larry. >> yes, i'm a little bit disappointed because the gentleman sitting there seems like he doesn't understand anything, where he's supposed to have some knowledge. i'm retired farming. i'm not understanding how you not know what -- it's kind of protecting the agency as far as dealing with these people. to understand, he knows that if number one objective is to get him out of iraq. and then what to do if we push

him into syria. it is sad. and as far as our borders in this country, the borders are secure. >> let's have the congressman respond to your comments about this isis strategy. >> larry, the problem is we were going to take out saddam hussein, who i will be the first to admit was an evil leader. we took him out because we didn't have a better iraq for the iraq people. we also have 400,000 men and women. we had 35,000 severely wounded and 105,000 iraqis killed. larry, how are you willing to pay for it? are you willing to raise taxes

to pay for it or do you want to put it on your grandchildren? we are a debtor nation. we cannot pay out bills unless we every year raise the debt ceiling so we can spend this road that we won't be able to. that's where we're headed. >> congressman, you brought this chart with you. we were just showing our viewers these numbers. 18.18 billion since 2003 spent on a rock. is isis. >> this comes from -- if you go on their well site, it will show it to you and show you where they get the information from. this is where, again.

>> the power to declare war including the power of judges because of war is fully and exclusively vested in the ledge. >> and we continue to say, just as you did a few minute ago. i would say i'm scared for the defense of this country, that we're breaking the defense for this country. 2014 is going to be one of the most difficult budget years for our military. >> republican don, what's the name of your town? >> rabbits pass. >> go ahead. >> yes, sir, i'm with you 100%. i'm an old vietnam veteran

myself, and the biggest problem i've seen is when we waged this war, we wage them on a political basis. we end up walking away and then lose all the ground we had. so if it is the road of congress to fight isis, from an american point of view, i agree to keep the competition, but we don't need to be so concerned. if we need to help fight, let's help fight. we could get it done in pretty short order. >> thank you, don. >> don is a veteran and we all

appreciate it. that's the point i'm trying to say, that if it's worth the financial investment, and more importantly, the investment of our young men and women to give their life for this country, then let's follow the constitution and let's debate. let the president say to congress, i need for you to declare war. we have got to defeat isil, we've got to go after these jihadists, and i want this to be a decoration of war by the united states of america. then do what we need to do to help our troops fund the war, do the things we need to do. one of the biggest tsunamis that's coming is to take care of our physically wounded from afghanistan and iraq. we're not prepared for that yet. it's going to be very difficult.

i would be more willing to support a declaration of war. because once it's in place, adam shipley, we have an authorization act. he had a limit that would. once you put these things in place, it's hard to get them out. so, therefore, let's do what the constitution says and it's only going to war. no, not tomorrow, and we will have a debate in congress and we will declare war. >> hi, marilyn. >> hi. the last time i was interested in being a republican was when eisenhower was leading in office and warning against the industrial complex. if all the republicans talked as intelligently as you do, i would be interested again.

i think it's wonderful that a member of your party has the courage to speak up like this, but i also want iraq to look for oil. i never saw that being published, i saw the interview on tv. i think it was c-span. thank you for your courage. >> congressman, do you ever get push-back from your republican leaders about the things that you say? >> one quick story, the republicans had just lost the house of representatives, and one of my dearest friends, and still one of my dearest friends is. and he came me, the. and duncan hunter came to me and

he said, you deserve to be a ranking member. . i said, you're right, i will. i ooernt wael did. i joined a millions of. we have no winning strategy. that's what the gentleman said earlier, i believe. don. . i have a picture of recommendsfield's hands shaking, so it would have been instead of running out and creating all these jihadists around the world. >> our foreign policy has failed

during the last 25 years. >> some think a winning strategy in isis gives some people a sawed. >> since yesterday, i think i heard that six or seven military were beheaded. i believe he is also isis, too. >> i want to first of all say the war, how it started over here, was the republicans with a lie. that's what it's always been. but all of this is on president obama now, because he's trying to get up. >> congressman? >> i would agree with roger that i said many times that we were manipulated and basically made our decisions based on information that has been

manipulated, which is basically a lie, to go into iraq. i agree with him totally on that. i'm not blaming president obama per se. i'm blaming the process. the process is what i have problems with. that is it. it just happens that mr. obama is the president, but if this is a republican president, roger, i'm upset with the process. we have a commitment to the people in this country to debate these issues on the floor of the house, and we're not debating these issues. we're always saying we're fine with the billions of dollars to give to the president. we're fine with what you do, and you just keep doing what you need to do, mr. president. i'm very disappointed that we don't have more debates and resend these kids to die. i've signed 11,000 letters to families in this country because of my weakness to vote my

conscience on the iraq war. so as long as i have the privilege to serve the people in the third district, i'm going to be outspoken when it comes to sending our kids to die because we have a constitution and we all follow the constitution. >> 11,000 letters to whom? >> families. extended families. >> for those who have lost war in iraq and afghanistan. >> not just your district? >> no, ma'am, across the country. if a soldier and killed, marine, whatever, then the liaison office will contact the family and say, would you like to receive a con dolcondolence let congress? i have actually sent out several letters. >> as a result, i have a book that thick with response

letters. there is particularly one because it breaks my heart. i saved them, and whatever happens when i'm gone, people respond back to me and i want to say, gosh, i wish you wouldn't do this because i made a bad decision. >> bamaybe other countries feel like we started it, we broke it, we should fix it. >> if we're not smart enough to understand -- she's right, i agree with that. we broke hers and just means we go into a world of culture that's been there for 500, because they better understand

the culture. . >> havana/florida. >> i'm really. i was stationed there when i got back on the. there are things in the constitution, sir, that you're supposed to use. for example, what we're doing is wrong. how can you sit up there and not be voting for impeachment of this gentleman for what he's doing. he's breaking the damn law, sending men to die. you're going to more building. >> you may have missed what we

said earlier. >> i think i'm dead. >> i'm going to restate this. when president obama bypassed congress to bomb libya. i put in on the house seed, it's called a house resolution, that we would kbe. we said we would follow congress without enough provocation to. that's a matter of record. so i agree with you. the compensation used to be falling. i'm not doing. >> we're talking with congressman walter jones, a republican from north carolina, sits on the armed services

committee, has been in congress for 10 terms. represents the, served four years in a north carolina. >> hi, loretta thank you i was just starting to lose the. are these balance ber i can a chaff and looking like freedom fighters, are they. either come deming. >> we've got your question. this sadly is how anyone could

be encouraged by seeing a human being be headed. i yont, and thets. i think isil is evil, i think they need to be aim eliminated, pray toerl alone and. we need governments to defend those governments. therefore, we've got pho the. vote on it up or down. i want a is the. it is a war because that's what ji audist. but i do understand that our country is in deep, deep trouble

and we're wearing all out tirt coi don't think he's read it marine times. let's have the debate, that is our responsibility. but these dangerous jihadist groups are doing something that i think these people are honestly in need of help. >> i know you don't agree with the process, but do you think there needs to be boots on the ground in order to defeat isis? >> not at this time. i'm not convinced. i'm not convinced, because as i said to secretary hagel, give me the strategy, give me the input. i saw 10 to 20 years of our men and women just being killed and warn out and limbs gone in iraq. look at afghanistan.

goodness sakes, right now we're in the process of waiting for the new leadership of afghanistan to sign a bilateral strategic agreement to keep us there for ten more years. we haven't even talked about that and probably don't have enough time. that's another obligation for ten more years. yes, we're going to reduce the number of troops there, greta, but we're still going to make billions of dollars of investment, and you've had john sapko, inspector general, on your show and he's talked about the abuse in afghanistan. that's another story, i understand. >> they're setting the stage for afghanistan's final chapter, and they said the u.s. plans to add a base of about 1,000 security personnel at the u.s. embassy in kabul after the formal end of the military mission in afghanistan and may retain the ability to use attack planes.

sierra, a republican. sierra, go ahead. >> thank you. my name is sierra. i have a statement more than a question. you stated that this is a political war that we've embarked on, and it's congress' ultimate right to choose the direction that our united states travels with this. my question to you is, it isf i a political war, how come we do not have the other countries financially donating or leveling their assets for the united states to come in and protect their country? we're not just there protecting their rights, but we're there protecting their country, their livelihood, their civilians, their women and children? >> sierra, thank you very much for that statement. that's really what i've been trying to convey in the last 30 minutes and you did it in 30 seconds.

that's what i'm saying. that is my frustration. that's why i'm very out spoken. i work with jim mcgovern, i work with barbara lee. i'm concerned that they are liberals on the issue of this war. the lack of respect for the constitution by members of congress who continue to allow any president to continue to send our troops with money we don't have. you said it right, we drop a few bombs and everybody says, look, they're involved, they're involved. the coalition in the right war was all civilian. you can say these troops are yugoslavian from other countries. yes, they went, and it was nice of them to do that, but it's always america carrying the brunt of the load. and that's what concerns me. >> austin, texas, independent caller. go ahead with your question for congressman jones. >> thank you, greta, for all

your expertise on this issue. it should be a more important issue in our country. it seems like a lot of people just want to sweep it under the rug. you sat there and showed those figures. almost $2 trillion since 2001, almost 50,000 people wounded in these wars. why is this not something that every race and every district across the country? it seems like people just want to show we're a war-fighting country and we're there protecting freedom and that's just the cost for us to be in the state that we're in. we all live a good life, but we just want to kick the can down the road, and the next generation pays for this. i just wanted to encourage you to continue to work with folks across the aisle and people.

i do appreciate your service, sir. >> richard, thank you very much for those comments, and i will tell you what it's going to take. either you start debating raising the taxes on the american people to pay for the war now and not later, as your point was made, richard, or you institute the draft. this is where i think, again, this war has been fought by 1% or less than 1% of the population, and the majority of us, you, i and greta, do care about our troops. we don't want to see them die, we don't want to see them wounded. but it's one of these things that unless you have a family member that's over there, you just don't think about it daily like we would if we debated raising the taxes to pay for war

now and pay for the wounded now and not later, and we talked about reinstituting the draft. that's the problem. >> tony in spotsylvania, pennsylvania. go ahead. >> hi there, greta. hi, greta, congressman jones. i'm going to ask a simplistic question. you just touched on it on raising taxes. it just seems like it's going to be on the backs of americans, average americans who have to work hard for a living, to pay for a war that we didn't ask for. as you clearly stated, you know, we were dragged into it. many of us believe under false pretext, and look at where we're at now. it's created a whole vacuum of problems. as far as going to war is concerned, even if congress did

vote for it, and i don't know if i agree with it only because i don't know what the end will be when you're dealing with a stateless type of enemy. but in terms of taxes, how do you propose that in a time when the national debate is that workers aren't being paid enough? wages are stagnant, corporations don't want to pay more than they feel that they should. and to the extent of -- it seems like corporations are also unwilling to invest in their own country. they would rather offshore their own money. it just seems that, at least my view is, that corporations are not paying enough into the tax coffers in our own country. so you ask people like me -- by the way, i agree with you so

far. i really like everything you said, but this question here kind of stood out. i just don't know -- >> tony, we get where you're going with this. >> tony, thank you very much, and i agree with you. i don't want to see taxes on the american people. i really don't. and i'm not a well-to-do man, but i'm a blessed man. i will say this, that we get the american people involved. that's the point i'm trying to make, so i appreciate you making that point for me. i'm trying to say if a bill was introduced and they brought it to the floor for debate and they said we're going to debate raising the taxes on the american people to pay for the war, then we would get the people involved. that's what i'm trying to say. this goes back to a point i was making earlier that a caller made earlier. the american people need to understand that what we're doing in washington, they need to be involved in.

if it takes introducing a bill to get the people involved and they don't want to see taxes raised, maybe they don't want to see us commit to these troops overseas. it will take the taxes or the draft to get the people's attention. and i know, because i have a district where a lot of people are hurting right now, and i hurt with them, i really do. and i'm tired of seeing jobs go overseas, but that's another issue for another time. i'm with you, tony, i think you made some great points. >> columbia city, indiana. dean on the line for republicans. go ahead, dean. welcome to the conversation. >> thank you, greta, and congressman jones. both of you deserve a big pat on the back and you can look in the mirror and be proud of what you're doing today. my discussion deals with i'm one of those injured soldiers. i'm a combat iraq veteran who was retired because of injuries sustained in the line of duty in a combat zone. my specific point is, right now my va pay, my va compensation is

offsetting my army retirement. and the reason for that is because i was retired at 17 years of service. and i realize combat-related compensation was trying to bridge that gap, but i can let you know that the amount of money is offset is my entire army retirement pay. and i don't feel that somebody with 20 years of service is going to retire because of medical reasons like i did. and you, i believe, congressman jones, are in a position to actually dissect this and fix this where i don't have my entire army retirement pay offset, even though i'm receiving combat-related special compensation. >> dean, i want to thank you for your service, and this is an issue that, again, goes back to

we're going to have a very difficult 2015. because the budget is going to be -- for our military retirees, the budget will be in a very fragile state. i will look into this issue you brought to me, because if you've been injured in war time in this country, you deserve every single benefit you can get. and i will assure you that my staff is probably watching this back at the office, and we will get this from c-span and make sure we look into this issue. there are a lot of issues that bother me, greta, because of the money situation. that is, again, what got us started with this show. but i'm very concerned that for our wounded, for our retirees, when we get into 2015, it's going to be a different year. so if we're spending all this money that you showed on the show just a moment ago in these other countries, how can we take care of dean's problems who gave so much for our country?

are we going to cut him and people like him because we're spending all this money overseas and the countries over there are not sending their troops on the ground? that's what the whole point of my being here today i've been trying to say. >> ann, for you, congressman, is our last call. she's from upper marlboro, maryland and a democrat. go ahead, ann. >> yes, i just have a comment and a question. this country -- my father was in world war i, so i'm pretty old. i have two brothers, one died, one lived in world war ii. my husband was in the korean war and a nephew in the vietnam war. what i'd like to know is when has this country not been in war, some war? we're always in war. >> i'm sorry, ann, i thought you were finished there. congressman? >> ann, thank you for your family's commitment to our country by serving our nation in the military.

that's the problem we are trying to fix. we for so long have been the policemen of the world. if there is a problem here, we send our troops over there. it's time to change that image. it's time to be a strong country with a strong military but not try to take care of the other countries' problems. and this is where i think we get ourselves into trouble. it does impact our budget, it does impact the budget of our veterans, it does impact the budget of our military and our retir retirees and our senior citizens. it is time for america to wake up and see what are the priorities of our country. let's have those debates. let's not just let any president, democrat or republican, commit our troops without following the constitution. >> yesterday before the steering committee, matt thornberry, republican of texas, made that case that he should be the next chairman of the house armed services committee. you serve on the panel.

you don't get to decide who becomes the committee chair, the republicans do. but who is your choice? >> i like both mac and randy. i've sat in between them. you know, the sad thing, greta, and that could be another show. you maybe have someone else from the outside to talk about people who become chairmen, democrat or republican. they've got to have the ability to raise money for the party. but policywise, both of those people are well qualified. >> so what about your stance, though, on isis? it sounds like you disagree with them, both of them. >> well, i've explained today that i am for defeating isis, but i want to see a policy where other countries in the world join us equally. if there is one american, then let's have one saudi soldier. let's start, and if we put a dollar in, they put a dollar in. we have, for too long, been carrying the burden of the world, and we cannot afford to do it anymore. we need to wake up before it's

too late. >> congressman walter jones, we certainly appreciate your time in talking to our viewers about it. >> thank you. thank you very much. coming up on the next washington journal, senator ron johnson of wisconsin discusses the issues before congress as it lines down this session. examine what's and what's ahead for the new congress in january? we look ahead to the nsa bill that would allow an end to america's phones. michael hersh, national editor of politico magazine on his recent piece regarding president obama's security team. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> thanks for your comments about our programming, and here are a few we received about washington journal. >> i must say, washington

journal first thing in the morning absolutely wonderful. very informative, and i really appreciate you guys letting people such as myself actually call in and sometimes even talk to people who are running our country and our world. i would like to make a suggestion that instead of dividing the country between democrats, republicans, independents, c-span should ask a question and have callers either call and agree or disagree. this would save a lot of partisanship, let the ideas get out there, not the political divisions. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. this morning, today, this is the best show i've seen. that's what we need. please have more shows like the

one today. having a democrat and a republican on there so people can ask them questions about what they're going to do. this was a great show. we need to have them explain what the policies are and how they differ. they gave their reasons and their reasons were just like mine. we need to know how they think, how they vote and how we should vote and have one every day with their ideas, their policies, and what they plan to do for the people and have us call in and question them. thank you so much. >> and continue to let us know when you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @csp

tweet @cspan#comments. veterans health care. members assess the invitation of a law passed over the summer on the subject of falsifying records. va secretary sloan gibson. the committee chair is congressman jeff miller. >> would you saul take your seats, please. the committee will come to order. welcome back, everybody. it's great to have you back. appreciate everybody joining us for this full hearing, an oversight hearing today. i want to ask unanimous consent that several of our colleagues be allowed to join us, representative murphy from pennsylvania and lamofo from california, they have asked to

join us and i would ask unanimous consent. without objection, so ordered. as everyone sitting around this dias today is aware, on the 7th of august, the president signed into law the veteran access choice and accountability act of 2014, which is now public law 113-146. this law was carefully and thoughtfully crafted after months of aggressive oversight by this committee to address the president access and accountability scandal that had engulfed the department of veterans affairs following allegations that were first uncovered in this room that some va medical facility leaders were keeping secret waiting lists in an effort to manipulate wait time data and ensure their own executive bonuses. we are here today to evaluate the progress that va has made to implement this law in accordance with both statutory requirement

deadlines and congressional intent. this includes the timely and effective veterans choice program to help veterans who reside 40 miles from the nearest facility or who cannot get a timely appointment. it also includes the timely assessment of a va's health care system which, in my opinion, should necessarily inform decisions about staffing and infrastructure that are to be made under the law. finally and most importantly, it includes accountability upon which i will focus my remaining remarks. section 707 of the law authorizes the secretary to fire or demote senior executive service employees for misconductmisconduc misconduct or poor performance. it should go without saying that veterans deserve the very best leadership that our government

has to offer. yet the events of the last year have proven that far too many senior va leaders have lied, manipulated data or simply failed to do the job for which they were hired. it's also clear the va's attempt to make stability for these leaders have been made with self-inflicted roadblocks to the form each of us expects. when i originally drafted this provision, i believe it would be able to provide secretary mcdonald with the tools he needed and wanted to finally hold failed leaders accountable. when president obama signed it into law, he agreed by saying, and i quote, if you engage in an unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired, period. it shouldn't be that difficult,

end quote. based on these comments as well as similar statements by secretary mcdonald himself, i am both perplexed and disappointed at the pace at which employees have, in fact, been held accountable. even more worrisome is what secretary mcdonald said on november 6 that, and i quote, the new power i was granted is the appeal time for senior executive service employee of the va has been reduced in half. that's the only change in the law. so the law didn't grant any kind of new power that would suddenly give me the ability to walk into a room and simply fire people, end quote. now, it is clear that the secretary and those advising him remain confused about what the law actually does, which is much more than simply reduce the appeal time.

the secretary can't simply walk into a room and fire an employee without evidence warranting that action. but the law does give him the authority to remove that employee for poor performance or misconduct. the secretary has also cited a plethora of numbers that he says illustrates the department's commitment to holding individuals accountable. for example, he says there is one list of a thousand names of employees being removed and another list of 5,600 names of employees being removed, and yet another list of 42 names of senior executives that va is proposing action on. so let me take a moment and try to set the record straight. based on a briefing va provided to committee staff yesterday, va only has one year of aggregated

data on disciplinary actions taken against any of its over 330,000 employees making meaningful comparisons against . further, the list of over discipline due to the crisis which is engulfed the v.a. over the last year. what's more, since august 7,

only one ses employee has been removed under the law and this person's removal was not directly related to patient wait times or data manipulation. . so i don't understand. in the wake of the biggest scandal in the history of department of veteran affairs, only four of which are senior executives were are proposed with discipline with none yet removed. further, v.a. has taken the liberty of creating an additional bureaucratic office. the office of accountability review. to review proposed removals and an additional bureaucratic delay, five-day advanced notice of removal which essentially operates like a new internal appeal process. these questionable actions are nowhere to be found in the law that we wrote and the president signed. in my view the five-day advance

notice of removal only serves to incentivize poor performing senior leaders to drag out the disciplinary process while continuing to collect a hefty paycheck for ultimately retiring with full benefits. further, it perpetuates the perception that the v.a. cares more about protecting employees than the veterans of this country. we should not be providing credit towards a taxpayer funded pension during the time period in which an employee's action caused harm to a veteran. that's why i'm in going to be introducing a bill that would reduce an employee's pension to reflect the years of service for which they participated in actions that made them subject to their removal this proposal is a fair and equitable way to emphasize to poor performing senior employees that retirement

credit is not earned by failing veterans and that their actions have long-lasting and meaningful consequences. and i'm not going to get into individual personnel actions at this time since there are serious legal issues at hand that must be dealt with respectively and appropriately. however, i want to make it clear today that i continue to have serious concerns about accountability at the department of veterans affairs again in response to what is without a doubt the largest scandal that has ever impacted v.a. i am not seeing the corresponding efforts to hold those at fault accountable for their actions. deputy secretary gibson, as we discussed on the phone yesterday, i have an increasing worry that senator mcdonnell and you are simply getting some bad advice from some of those around you with mba's bureaucracy. and i just hope that's not the case.

this is the same issue that i think dooms secretary shin seccy's tenure. i hope you take my opinion seriously when i tell you that the v.a.'s entrenched bureaucracy must be shaken up for the reform, reform that is needed, to help our veteran's succeed. i truly appreciate your service and for you being here this morning. and for that i recognize and welcome back the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for having this very important oversight hearing. we are here today to get an update from the department of veteran's apairs on the implementation of the veteran's access choice and accountability act of 2014. this was passed in august, addressed a number of serious issues that the department had with providing timely quality health care to veterans. long wait times are the problems that got us where we are today.

we shouldn't make veterans wait for the solutions to be implemented while today is a first public update of the v.a.'s implementation of this law, staff level updates have been occurring on a regular basis since early september. so i would like it thank you doctor and i appreciate the time you have invested in openly communicating with the staff on both the house and senate side of the committee on the implementation issues and the progress you've been making on those implementation issues. this is marked change that in the v.a. congressional relations and i hope that as a precedent for improving working relationships as we go forward. the law provided additional resources a and authorities to provide four key improvements for veterans. timely access to health care. expansion of v.a.'s internal

capacity for care. improved accountability and additional educational benefits. today i hope to hear tangible ways that veterans are getting the improved outcomes intended. if there are real and reasonable roadblocks to implementation we need know what they are and how can we fix those roadblocks. with regard to timely access to health care, i'm aware that department has expressed serious concerns with the 90-day deadlines under section 101, the choice program. the program requires v.a. to determine eligibility. authorized and coordinate care, manage utilization, set up a call center and implement a new payment system. v.a. has taken a phased roll-out approach in order to balance expedience with effective programs. this may be reasonable but i want to understand the overall

timing and how the department of veteran's affairs is handling eligible veterans, access to care through the phased approach. a phased approach to administrative rollout may be okay but a phased approach to access to care is not. the law provides $5 billion for the department to augment staff and infrastructure. i know the secretary has personally been out to recruiting and i look forward to hearing how successful that effort has been and how many new doctors and nurses v.a. expects to bring on board and when they expect to bring them on board. i'm also interested in hearing how v.a. will implement the funds and authority for new infrastructure and we have seen many problems with the department of veteran's affairs construction problems in the past and i look forward to hearing the changes v.a. is making to the process in toward deliver these new projects on

time and within budget. with regard to accountability, i understand that removing a federal employee is not a simple as many think it should be even with the new authority in the law. i appreciate the difficult position that department is in when it comes to holding employees accountable for wrongdoing and poor performance in a highly charged and very public environment. that being said, you need to feel that kedepartment of veteran's fairs is moving as quickly as possible and decisively as possible to get rid of those employees who failed the american veterans. the explanation for delays need to be clear, concise and compelling. not just to congress but to veterans and the american public. while much of the focus of the law has been on access and ksbility provisions, we should not forget that the law also includes substantial enhancements to the education benefits for veterans and their

families. and i look forward to hearing what is being done to implement these provisions of the law as well. and beyond the veterans access choice and accountability act of 2014, i know secretary mcdonald has announced a number of reforms in that addressing the cultural and structure of the department of veteran's affairs, many of these reforms that reflect ideas, we have discussed in the past, and i'm pleased to see them being embraced and actively pursued as well. and i would encourage the secretary to quickly define detailed execution plans for these concepts. do not get stuck in analysis of processes and figure out what actions need to be taken and didn't taken a take them. fearless enforcing these reforms just as our nation's veterans are fearless in their battles. once again, i want it thank the panel for appearing before us today. look forward to hearing your

testimony. we appreciate your time and effort and want to thank each of you for all that you're doing to make sure this our veterans and family get the access that quality care and timely manner for our veterans. i know oour you've been under a lot of pressure over the last year and look forward to hearing how the new law actually helps relief some of that burden and what you're doing administratively to help compliment the law that is passed and signed by the president. so once again, thank you very much and thank you under chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. today we will hear from one panel already seated at the table. joining us from the department of veterans affairs, the deputy secretary, honorable sloan gibson. he is accompanied today by mr. james chuch smit there secretary of health and gregory gibbons from the management office. i appreciate you being he