>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman walter jones, republican of north carolina from the armed services committee. what is your assessment of the isis strategy so far? is it working? guest: let me say that one of the worst mistakes i made since i have been in congress was too vote to pass the aumf, authorization of military force, to give president bush the authority to go into iraq. host: in 2002? isst: yes, ma'am, the reason we have a constitutional responsibility and i do not think we should commit our young men and women to war unless we

debated on the floor of the house when we have a constitution that we promised to uphold. i had just gotten tired -- sick and tired of seeing all these commitments overseas and it's always the american soldier is going there. these other countries at best have limited involvement and i think it's wrong. for me personally, i wanted to say to secretary hagel -- and i like him and i know him -- i wanted to say to him that if you think we in congress should pass another aumf for the presidential and this has nothing to do with president obama -- i would say this to a republican president -- i would congressolleagues in would understand our congressional responsibility. . host: should there be a debate on the floor? for what is happening guest: i do because it's just like when president obama

bypassed congress to bomb libya, to take out qadhafi, there is no debate in the floor of the house. he just made a decision to go in and take out qadhafi. what did we get, benghazi? becausethe mess in iraq it was an unnecessary were manufactured by the bush administration. host: to you put some of the blame for this at the feet of your own litter ship, the republican leaders before the election said the president had the authority he needs right now to fight isis, we don't need another authorization of military force? guest: absolutely, i blame our leadership and i will give you another quick example. president obama bombed libya, i drafted a house resolution that would have to go to the senate for the house to debate saying that if a president without provocation bypasses congress to bomb another country and we will

debate the impeachment of that president. i was trying to get a debate on war powers. i sent it to the subcommittee chair. i even wrote the head of the said i wantedi the experts on war powers to be at the hearing and he got back with me six or seven weeks later and said the leadership said we don't have time to hold a hearing. the don't have time enough to hold a debate or hearing when our young men and women are dying in war and getting their legs blown off, what are we up here for? host: what is your message to your republican leaders? guest: i wrote john boehner a letter prior to the november 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, just wanted to make a statement.

my hope is in the new congress in 2015 that the leadership will see that we have a constitutional responsibility. 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 the siegel group known as isis. host: the president is now asking for $5.6 billion to combat isis. he is sending more advisers there. that isis is evil and you agree they are a threat. will you vote no against more funding for the folks that are going there? guest: when bill clinton left office, in the year 2000, this nation was i $.6 trillion in debt. today as we are talking, the debt of our nation is $17.8 trillion. -- is it notsaid

humility to defend the world? we continue to spend money we do not have an are breaking the military now. at that hearing you showed a moment ago, general dempsey said we know 2015 will be a difficult year for the military so we are spending -- i think i brought this -- we are spending right at $300,000 per hour in fighting isis. these figures are just about to bankrupt this nation. host: are you a no vote? guest: i am a no vote. . tell me how you will pay for it will 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 i grant you that we will not have a future at all. one of my biggest concerns is taking care of our veterans.

i went to walter reed back in september. two marines from my district, cap lejeune, one kid had lost both legs and an arm. i looked his father in the eyes and all i saw were tears. legsars old and lost both and arm. the second marine lost both legs and told me that he is going to have to have his rectum rebuilt. this country is not prepared to take care of our wounded and we are not prepared to pay for the wars we are fighting. we are just saying to the next generation -- you are born into a war that will be bankrupt. that is not right. we want to continue these fights around the world, we need to be strong enough to vote on the floor to raise taxes to pay for the war and not put it on the next generation. host: the administration says is not just united states, we have a coalition. guest: there is a coalition. there was a cartoon in the

"miami herald" that i have and it says it all. host: we will show it to our viewers. guest: you got a sultan sitting back with uncle sam on his knees and he is telling uncle sam " go out there and get those places dogs but don't spill any love my rug." it's always america's blood. these middle east countries -- they should be concerned about ice is like we should be concerned -- they should send their own troops to help our troops when we send our troops into a country that's in the middle east. host: are you clear on the isis strategy? guest: i don't know what the strategy is. that's what i asked secretary hagel if he would put in writing to me -- to the committee, if he would put in writing what our strategy is. what is the import of our strategy? you hear some of the leaders saying we will be there 20 or 30

years. i know we have to fight isis but to we have to fight isis around the world only cannot secure our own borders in america? people in the third district of north carolina and some of the active-duty marines as well as retired marines agree with me. we continue to find reasons to go to these other countries but we don't have them end opoint. if you have no endpoint, you have no strategy. host: let's look at what the defense secretary had to say because he laid out where the strategy is working. [video clip] steady andeeing sustainable progress along dod's two main lines of effort, where for seeing effort integrating and destroying isil's were fighting capacity and in denying safe haven to its fighters. directly and through support of iraqi forces, coalition airstrikes have hit isil command-and-control of his leadership and its revenue

sources, its supply lines and logistics and impaired its ability to mass forces. in recent weeks, the strikes helped push forces out of zumar in northern iraq and helped iraqi security forces begin retaking areas around major oil refinery at bajir. lest we can, airstrikes they gathering of isis commanders at mosul,. l still fighters had to -- isi l fighters had to adapt their approach. they are maneuvering in smaller groups sometimes making it more difficult to identify targets, hiding large equipment, and changing their communications methods. sustaining this pressure on isil will provide 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 collaborators striking a blow to morale. we know that and their intelligence is clear. guest: it goes back to my point - why is it always america? where are the german troops? where are the other countries? isisl is a threat to the world, not just to america but to the world and 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. i know we will forget when we went into iraq how many hearings i attended and they would always say we are making progress. things are fragile but they are 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 cannot even police are a country. this is where we are continuing to go down a road of collapse. that is why i use thatquote by pat buchanan. in march of this year, we will 2015, weher debate -- will have another debate for raising the debt ceiling grid we raise the debt ceiling seven out of eight times and george bush was president to allow him to spend more money than the government was taking in. we have already raise the debt ceiling on the -- on president obama 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 will say we don't trust you to pay down your debt. therefore, we will not buy your assets. host: let's get to calls. tucson, arizona, democrat. caller: i'm a little bit disappointed. the gentleman you have sitting there things the -- sounds like

it does not understand anything. he supposed to have some knowledge. i'm a retired army. i'm not understanding how you do not know what a plan of attack is as far as dealing with these people. knows thatrstand, he the number one objective is to get them out of iraq. the number two objective is to demolish them completely once we push them back into syria. that is the plan. i amhat plan breaks down, sad to hear him talk and not understand exactly what's going on. it is said. as for his or borders in this country, the borders are secure. that's a scare tactic. host: let's have the congressman respond. west: larry, the problem is were going to take out saddam hussein who i would be the first to admit was an evil leader. we take him out because we wanted to make a better iraq for the iraqi people.

we lost over 4000 american kids and women. we had over 30, 40,000 severely limit did wounded and.400,000 iraqis killed we can stay there for 10 or 15 more years but you don't agree with me and that's fine. how do we pay for it? how are we going to pay for it? are you willing to pay taxes? do you want is to raise taxes to pay for these wars or do you want to put them on your grandchildren? that's were a nation that cannot -- we are a debtor nation. we cannot pay our bills unless every year we raise the debt ceiling so we can spend more money that we don't take in. if you think that works, then find but there will come a time when the go down this road that we will not be able to afford the bombs we drop, that's where we are headed. host: you brought this chart with you that we were just showing --

where did these numbers come from? >> this comes from antiwar.com and any of your listeners can find it. it's a running figure. if you go on the website, it will show it to you and show you where they get the information from. as james madison said, the power to declare war includes the power of judging the causes of war and it's fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. that is congress, not the executive. it's congress and we continue to say come as you said a few minutes ago about her leadership, we will find $5.6 billion to give the president to continue to bomb in libya and iraq.

calleray to the first that i care about the defense of this country but i see that we are breaking the defense of this country. secretary hagel and general dempsey of already said 2013 will be one of the most ethical budget years for our military. host: will go to taxes, don the republican line. go ahead. listenedes, sir, i 100%. i'm a vietnam veteran myself. the biggest problem i have seen is that when we wage these wars, weeds that -- we waste them on a political basis. -- we wage them on a political basis. we end up walking away like iraq and lose all the ground we had. if it is the will of the from an to fight isis american point of view, i agree that other country should be

involved obviously, they are not very concerned. if we decide that we need to be the ones, let's fight them. don't have a president saying we are managing wher what the tactics will be. give to the military and let them do it. i think we can handle that and in pretty short order and it would be expensive. i'm certainly not for that. guest: let me first thank don for the service to our nation in the vietnam war. we all appreciate him being a veteran and that's the point that i am trying to say that if it is worth the financial investment and more importantly, the investment ever young men and women to give the life of this country, let's follow the constitution and let's debate. but the president say to congress, i need for you to declare war. and go got to defeat isa after these jihadist and i want this to be a declaration of war united states of america and then do what we need to do to help our troops, funds the war,

do the things we need to do. one of the biggest tsunamis that is coming is to take care of our mentally and physically wounded from afghanistan and iraq. we are not prepared for that yet. it will be trillions of dollars and that's down the road. it's coming. host: are you a yes vote if all that were to happen? i would be more willing to support a declaration of war and i would this kind of authorization of military force is once it's in place, adam schiff from california, at this past june, we have the national defense authorization act and he had an amendment that would sunset both the aumf's and we lost that by 30 or 40 votes. once you put these things in place, it's hard to get them out.

therefore, let's do it the constitution says and go to the american people and say we will have to pay for this war now, not tomorrow. we will have a debate in congress and we will declare war. host: will go to maryland, independent caller. caller: the last time i was interested in being a republican was when eisenhower was in office and warning against military industrial complex. if all republicans talked as intelligently as you do, i would be interested again. athink it's wonderful that member of your party has the courage to speak up like this. that alan impressed greenspan retired and he said the reason we went into iraq was for oil. i never heard that being publicized print i saw the interview on tv. i think it was the c-span. do you ever get pushback from your republican leaders about the things you say? guest: one quick story -- when i

came out against the iraq war back in 2005, the republic is a just lost the house of representatives and one of my dearest friends and still one of duncanest friends, is hunt senior. and he said jones is coming out against the war. duncan hunter came to me and said walter, i hate to tell you deserve to be a ranking member with republican surges the house but i cannot suggest you become the ranking member on the subcommittee because you'll but with the democrats to get out of iraq and he was right i would. i eventually did. i joined them as and for a timetable to get our troops out of iraq. we had no winning strategy. that's with the gentleman said earlier. we did not have a winning

strategy. at one time, saddam hussein was our friend. donald rumsfeld under the leadership of president reagan -- i have a picture of donald moms felt thanking saddam hussein and shaking his hand. it would have been easier if saddam, we would have slapped him down instead of taking them out and creating these jihadist running around the world. our fallen policy has felt for the last 25 years. host: some believe that a winning strategy of isis is to get rid of by sheer al-assad in syria. guest: yesterday i heard that six or seven syrian military were beheaded. i have a feeling that assad is an evil man but i think he is also anti-isis as well. host: bedford, ohio, democratic caller. that how want to say

the war started was the republicans -- it was a lie and that's what it's always been. all of this is him president obama now is he is trying to get a set of something. -- to get us out of something. guest: i would agree that i have said many times that we were manipulated and basically made our decisions based on information that had been manipulated which is basically a lie to go into iraq. i agree with him totally on that. the presidentg obama per se but i'm blaming the process. the process is what i have problems with. that is it. just happens that mr. obama is the president. if this was a republican president, i would be upset with the process. we have a responsibility to the people of this country to debate these issues on the floor of the house and we are not debating these issues.

we're always saying we are fine with $5.6 billion to give to the president and we will get the money to him, just keep doing what you want to do, mr. president. this is not about obama. this is about our constitutional responsibility and i am disappointed we don't have more debates when we send these kids to die. i have signed over 11,000 letters. i take no pride in this but i've signed 11,000 letters to families in this country because of my weakness to vote my conscience on the rack were. i will always -- on the iraq war. i will be outspoken when it comes to sending our kids to dive because we have a constitution and we should follow the constitution. host: 11,000 letters to whom? guest: families and extended families, lost loved ones in iraq and some in afghanistan. host: not just from your district? guest: no ma'am, across this country. the way the process works, very

quickly, is if a soldier is killed or whatever, the liaison office will contact the family and say would you like to receive a console and -- a condolence letter member of congress? i have signed over 11,000 letters. host: and in that, apologizing for your vote? guest: yes, ma'am. i have a book that pick with response letters to my condolence letters. i have never read but one because it breaks my heart. i have saved of them. whatever happens when i'm gone, someone will have them, but people respond back to me and i want to say, i wish you would not do this because i made a bad decision. on twitter, your point of other countries helping to fight against isis. maybe other countries feel we started it, we should finish it.

guest: i don't disagree with that, but the point is, if we are not smart enough to she is right, i agree with that. we broke it. the problem is, we are trying to thatto a world, a culture has been this way for thousands of years, and we think we can change? that is why other countries in the middle east need to be involved. they better understand the culture. not so much with isil. but the point is, we are not going to do it. host: florida, bush is next. republican. caller: i know you represent a lot of marines. i am disappointed when you have had said. i am a vietnam veteran. mess, you people --

there are things in the constitution that you are supposed to use, to stop this kind of lawlessness. if you truly feel that we are doing is wrong, how can you sit up there and not be voting for impeachment of the gentleman for what he is doing? you are sending men to die. you are going to give him billions of dollars without any declaration of anything. host: let the congressman respond. you may have missed what he said earlier. guest: thank you for your service to our nation. i want to restate this. when president obama bypassed congress to bomb libya, i put in on the house side a resolution that we would impeach a president who bypassed congress without provocation to bomb another country. i agree with you. i actually voted for a previous

revolution by dennis kucinich to impeach george bush. that is a matter of record. i agree with you. the constitution needs to be followed. i have said that about 50 times today. the constitution needs to be followed and we are not doing, and i blame the leadership. we are speaking with walter jones from north carolina, sits on the armed services committee. he represents the third district of north carolina, served in the north carolina general assembly in theyears, four years north carolina national guard, and a former businessman. robert in baton rouge, louisiana. thank you for calling. caller: nice to talk to you. thesis starting to lose public relations battle with the

ever spring? atrocities,rbaric instead of inspiring and intimidating, looking like freedom fighters, are they repulsing the average person on the arab streets? either they are intimidated or sign in or are not condemning publicly, as many of us would like them to do. know, this, sadly, is how anyone can be encouraged by seeing a human being beheaded, i do not understand. but this is a culture that is a dangerous culture. i him for fighting isil. i think they are evil and need to be eliminated, but i don't think america can go this route alone, and iily don't think we can continue to borrow money from foreign governments to defend those governments.

so therefore, we have to come back and we have to have a policy plan, that in my opinion, needs to be debated in the congress of the united states, and vote on it up or down. i want a president to say this is so serious, we are talking about 10 to 20 more years to win this war. i don't care what anyone says, this is a war. i do understand our country is in deep trouble and we are wearing out our military. there is a survey that you may have seen a few weeks ago. the military does not believe in putting boots on the ground. that i read iny "the marine times." have a debate, that is our responsibility. these jihadist groups are doing certain things to encourage people who are, frankly, in need of help.

do you think there needs to be boots on the ground in order to defeat isis? guest: not at this time. i am not convinced. as i said to secretary hagel, give me the strategy, give me the endpoint. i saw 12 years of our men and women being killed and worn out, limbs gone, in iraq. look at afghanistan. right now we are in the process of waiting for the new leadership of afghanistan to sign a bilateral strategic agreement to keep us there for 10 more years. we have not talked about that and have not time. that is another obligation for 10 more years. we will reduce the number of troops come a but we will still make billions of dollars of investment. you have had the inspector general on your show and he has talked about the waste, fraud, and abuse in afghanistan.

host: this is a "washington le talking about the afghan war final chapter. the u.s. will base about 1000 and may personnel retain the ability to use attack lanes to support local forces until then. robert -- excuse me. sierra in california. republican. good morning. my question to you -- and the statement. you have spoken that this is a political war that we have embarked on, and it is congres'' ultimate right to choose the direction that the united states travels in this. my question to you is, it is a political war.

how come we do not have the other countries financially donating or levying their assets for the united states to come in and protect their countries? we are not just their protecting our rights, but we are protecting their country, their livelihood, their civilians, men, women, and children. guest: thank you for the statement. that is what i have been trying to convey for the last 30 minutes. that is what i'm saying. that is my frustration. that is why i'm outspoken. i work with conservatives and liberals on this issue of war and the involvement of our country and the lack of respect for the constitution by members of congress who continue to allow any president to continue to commit our troops and spend the money that we do not have. you said it well. where are the other countries?

they drop a few bombs and everyone says they are involved. the coalition in the iraq war was almost zero. you could say these troops from yugoslavia and other countries, yes, they went, and it was nice for them to do that, but it is always the americans carry the brunt of the load. host: independent caller in austin, texas. guest: good morning. --caller: good morning, representative. it should be a more important issue in our country. it seems like a lot of people want to sweep it under the rug. you showed those figures. almost a trillion dollars -- almost $2 trillion since 2001. 52,000 people wounded in these wars. why is this not something that in every race, every district

across the country? it seems like people just want to show that we are a war-fighting country and we are there to protect them, and that is just our cause. we all live a good life, but then again, we want to kick the let the the road and people in the next generation pay for this. i just wanted to encourage you to continue to work with folks across the aisle, and this program does a great job of informing people. i will take any type of response you have off the air. i appreciate your service. guest: thank you for those comments. i will tell you what it will take. either you start debating raising the taxes on american people to pay for the war now, and not later, or you institute the draft.

think, -- thisi war has been fought by less than 1% of the population. i think the majority of american , we careike you and i about our troops, we want the best for them. we do not want to see them die or be wounded. yet, it is one of those things, unless you have a family member that is over there, you do not think about it daily, likely debated raising taxes and paying for the wounded now and not later, and we talked about reinstituting the draft. host: tony in spotsylvania, virginia. go ahead. hi, greta, congressman jones. i'm going to ask some simplistic questions. you touched on raising taxes. it just seems like it is going

to be on the backs of americans -- average americans -- who have to work hard for a living for a war we did not ask for. as you clearly stated, we were dragged into it, many of us .elieve, under false pretext look at where we're at now. it has created a whole vacuum of .roblems as far as going to war is concerned, even if congress did vote for it, i don't know that i would agree with it, only because you do not know what the end will be when you are dealing with a stateless enemy. in terms of taxes, how do you , in a time when the national debate is that workers are not being paid enough, wages are stagnant, corporations do not want to pay more than what they feel they should?

it seems like corporations are also unwilling to invest in their own country. they would rather offshore their own money. at least my view is that corporations are not paying enough into the tax coffers into our own country, so you are asking people like me -- and by the way, i agree with you, so far i have liked everything you said, but this question stood out to me. host: we get where you are going with this. guest: thank you very much, and i agree, i don't want to see taxes on the american people. i am not a well-to-do man but i am blessed. i will say this. to get the american people involved -- that is the point i was trying to make.

i appreciate you making that point for me. i am trying to say, if this congress -- if a bill was introduced and they brought it weward to debate and said will debate raising the taxes on the american people to pay for the war, then we would get the people involved. this goes back to a point i was making earlier, and a caller made earlier, the american people need to understand that what we are doing in washington -- they need to be involved. if it takes a bill to get people involved to not see taxes raised, maybe they do not want to see us commit all of these troops overseas. it ties in one way or the other. it is either taxes or the draft to get people's attention. i have a district where a lot of people are hurting right now and i am hurting with them. i am tired of seeing jobs go overseas. that is another issue for another time.

but i'm with you, you made some great points. host: columbia city, indiana. dean, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. both of you deserve a pat on the back. you should be proud of what you're doing today. i am one of those injured soldiers. i am a combat iraq veteran who is retired because of injuries sustained in the line of duty. my specific point is, right now, compensation is upsetting my army retirement. the reason for that is because i was retired at 17 years of service. wasalize, that compensation created to try to bridge that gap, but i can let you know, the amount of money that is offset is my entire army retirement

pay. i do not feel that somebody with 20 years of service is going to retire because of medical , and you, ie i did believe, congressman jones, are in a position to dissect this not havehis where i do my entire army retirement pay offset, even though i am receiving combat related special compensation. this is an issue that, again, goes back to -- we are going to have a difficult 2015 -- for the budget militaries and retirees -- the budget will be in a fragile state. i will look into this issue you brought to me. if you have been injured in war time in this country, you deserve every benefit you can get. i will assure you, my staff is

probably watching back in the office. we will get this and look into the issue. there are a lot of issues, the money situation. that is what got us started on the show. but i am very concerned that for our wounded, our retirees, when we get into 2015, it will be a different year. if we are spending all of that money that you showed a minute ago in these other countries, how can we take care of dean's problems? are we going to cut him and people like him because we are spending this money overseas, and those countries are not sending their troops on the ground? that is the point of me being here today. nn is from upper marlboro, maryland, a democrat. caller: i have a comment and a question. this country, my father was in world war i, so i'm pretty old.

two brothers. one died, one lived through world war ii. my husband in the korean war. a nephew in the vietnam war. what i want to know is when has this country not been in war? w are always in the more -- ar. you for your family's commitment to our country by serving our nation in the military. that is the problem we are trying to make. for so long, we have been the police of the world. if there is a problem here, we send our troops over there to fight. it is time to change that image. it is time to be a strong country with a strong military but not trying to take care of other countries problems. this is where we get ourselves into trouble. it does impact our budget, the budget of our veterans, the

budget of our military and retirees, and senior citizens. america to wake up and look at the priorities of our country. let's start to have those debates. let's not let any president, democrat or republican, commit our troops without following the constitution. host: yesterday, the steering committee, a republican made his case that he should be the next chairman of the committee. served on the panel. you do not decide who becomes the committee chair, the republican leaders do, but who is your choice? -- guest: i like both of them. maybe you could have someone else from the outside talk about that. they have to have the ability to raise money for the party. both qualify.e,

host: what about your stance on isis? it sounds like you disagree with both of them. i have explained 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, let's have one saudi soldier. if we put a dollar in, they put a dollar in. we have been carrying the burden of the world for too long and we cannot afford to do it anymore. host: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 here. and deputy secretary gibson, please proceed with your testimony. >> chairman miller, distinguished members of the committee, our goiding principles for implementation of the choice act have been to do what's right for veterans and to be good stewards of taxpayer resources. while our challenges are clear, we're turning those challenges

into opportunities to improve the care and service we provide to veterans. we are reorganizing v.a. for success to make sure we maximize those opportunities. we call that reorganization my v.a., an associated customer service solution that goes along with it. because we want veterans to view us as an organization that belongs to them. providing quality care in the ways they need and the ways they want to be served. my v.a. entails functions, operations, improving processes, leveraging technology and enhancing efficiency, increasing productivity and effectively implementing the choice act. a 360-degree effort to provide veterans with a seamless integrated v.a. regardless of how they come us to. top priority is accelerating care to veterans. moving them off the wait list

and into clinics. for example, we have reduced the number of veterans waiting the longest for care by 57%. from june through september we completed 19 million appointments, an increase of 1.2 million over the same period in 2013. over a half a million completed appointments were conducted during extended hours of operations during nights and week ends. we also have access with nonv.a. care. from june to september we approved 1.1 million operations for 7 million, more than 7 million, care appointments in the community. that's about 47% increase from the prior year. we appreciate the enhanced authorities funding and programs. the act provides to ensure veterans have access to health care. we will continue to make the best use of them all to get veterans the high quality they deserve. we also appreciate enactment of the department of veteran's

affairs act of 2014 signed in late september. amended and fine tuned key provisions of the choice act. we'll continue to work collaboratively with you and your staff. as v.a. works through the implementation process which required by the law, we conferred frequently with the committee, veteran service organization answers with other stake holders. we are especially thankful for the opportunity to engage with your staff chairman miller and those of ranking member ma sho and the veterans affairs committee to hear your concerns and work together on making improvements and implementation. we look forward to continuing this partnership as we implement this complex lengs lags in a way that allows us do again the right thing for veterans all being fw stewards of taxpayer resources. among the challenges that we face, in employmenting the acts requirements are estimated $400

million in unfunded requirements. and resources that will be required to implement the provisions enacted over the next couple of years. resources not provided by the act. as mentioned previously, one of the things the act does is streamlines the process to premove or demote senior executives based on poor performance or misconduct. as secretary mcdonald wrote to the chairman last week, v.a. is committed to build a culture of sustainable culture throughout the v.a. employees of all levels must understand what the v.a. expects of them in terms of their performance and conduct and must be held accountable if they fail or refuse to meet those expectations. i think it is important to understand what the new law does and what the new law does not do. the new law does shorten the time to resolve an appeal. the law does not give v.a. leaders the authority to remove executives at will. any removal must still meet

stringent evidentiary standards and have due process. it does not do away with the appeal process. the law does not give v.a. the ability to deprive. only aiding and abetting an enemy as provided by statute can deprive a veteran of a benefit. if our actions fail to meet the preponderance of evidence standard that mspb provided or what is expected under case law then the merit system protection board will simply overturn the decision order the employee return to their position and direct that their back pay and legal costs be awarded. that would not be what is right for veterans or for taxpayers.

the v.a. has identified a number of areas within this section that can present implementation challenges or potentially confused veterans. first there were significant challenges inherent in the the 90-daytime line. we had to have a new plane. distribute cards. determine patient eligibility. authorize and manage care. manage utilization. new provider agreements. complex claims. the v.a. launched the choice program last week with a responsible staged implementation focused on the delivering the best possible veteran experience. second we recognize the challenges associated with maintaining continuity of care to insure the best possible health care outcomes for veterans. this is a vital distinction between the choice program and health plan in the private

sector. as an example, we made significant investments fro vied veteran's access to mental health services as part of the holistic integrated care we want to provide. as one-third of veterans receiving v.a. care have a mental health diagnosis, coordinating care, including mental health care is ehe is ss. third, we know that health care systems across the nation face challenges and efficiently sharing treatment information in health care records. in order to ensure sufficient continuity care for those treated in both v.a. and nonv.a. settings we will continue to work to share information and knowledge with these providers. lastly, we modified the 30-daytime limit standard set for the purpose of choice program access.

to measure wait time for the date preferred by the veteran or date that is medically determined by their physician. would all this will help ensure that veterans receive timely access to the benefits of the choice program. it is not a clinical standard for timely care. to the veteran that needs to be seen today, 30-day goal is irrelevant. the goal will always be to provide timely clinical access to care in every case possible and in the shortest amount of time possible. we want to provide veterans to see an organization that belongs to them and provides timely quality care in ways they need and want to be served. >> we will continue to work closely with a committee on any issues involving implementation of this vital legislation. i thank the committee again for your support. we look forward to working with you and making things better for all of america's veterans. this concludes my opening

statement. dr. you too smit and i are available to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you so much for your testimony. i will jump to the independent assessment for my first question. there's been criticism that the department hasn't taken sufficient is it esteps to meet if regard to the intended assessment. the v.a., as far as i know, is only contracted with mighter. . this is not an expert team of independent entities with private sector health care expertise as we intended. is there any intention to subcontractor competitively compete to assess each of the 12 elements to be covered by this assessment? and what, if any information --

the entity that we contracted with is mighter. the element within mighter that will be the integrator of the 12 different component of the independent assessment is an organization called cam h which happens to be an organization with frdc that works closely with the health and human services organization. so we specifically went for an organization that carried the specific qualification of a health care organization. in fact, they will be looking to engij a number of different entity and to ensure that throughout this entire process that what we are doing is

tapping into very independent and objective expertise all across the private sector. doctor? >> sure. so the part of the assessment that they are doing will be done by the cam h folks. some of that, they have partnered with other entities outside of mighter so they have partnered with rand corporation to do some of the assessments. there are some options in there that all of the options have been awarded for all of the 11 assessments, so to the coordinating entity which is cam h. they are assembling an expert panel of health care executives from private sector across the country. and expert panel that will help guide the assessments that are done and will help look at the

various recommendations coming in for the independent assessments to come together with a unified and common set of recommendations which ultimately we will pass to the commission for their deliberation. but we thought it was the intention of congress that this would be independent so we sought an entity outside of the v.a. to do this. clearly the law says that if we have different people doing different parts of the assessment, we need an integrator. that's what cam h is. and i think that health care nature of that you want the expertise that you wanted will be there in this essentially blue ribbon panel that they will be assembling. >> and my time is about to expire, too. but i think that we need to sit down and discuss it a little bit. i think congress's intent is

that those that are not that panel would be brought in to testify before this group, but that people that were experts in their field would have that opportunity. i want to, while i still have about a minute left, i'm referring to the public law and the biggest concern that i have about the accountability portion is that there was a 30-day requirement for notice before you removed an employee, is that correct? >> that's provided in title 5. >> and we, in the law, removed that. it basically says the procedures under section 743 b, where did this come from. >> unequivocally it comes -- >> hold on. it is counsel.

but the law is clear. the law says there is no period or eye pell on the front end but there is on the back end. and we have to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to charges. and as you note under title 5, that's 30 days. and that is shortened to five days. and the view is that if we fail to provide that opportunity to respond that the msp will view that and failure to due process and -- >> please, please. >> if we had intended for there to be an appeal process at the beginning and we put it in at the epd, then why don't you just keep it at 30 dayses. if you're not going to follow the law, why did you come up with this phantom five day appeal. and we understand that the intent of congress is to move expeditiously. but we balance that again the requirement to provide due process or risk that our decisions be overturned.

>> the secretary keeps going out and saying the law needs to be changed if we want people to be fired immediately. no, it doesn't. >> now my question is, should somebody continue to accrue, benefits, while they await disciplinary action, which includes being fired, and if you think it's so, justify that. and if not, will you help me change the law to prevent that pr occurring. because the taxpayers are tired of paying bonuses and benefits to people who are not serving veterans. >> the law requires that federal employees be paid until a disciplinary action has been affected. which in this case is a removal system.

not proposed removal, but a removal decision. as soon as that decision is made they no longer continue to accrue benefits. >> why can't you remove somebody without pay? suspend them without pay? why do you allow them to continue to accrue that benefit. when you know there's a problem, just -- from a personnel standpoint, why don't you or why can't you do that? >> suspension without pay is that disciplinary action. there could be subject to review by the merit system protection board. again, if we take action, disciplinary action, with the evidentiary support, we will find that that gets overturned. >> has everybody that's been involved been suspended without pay? >> no. >> we don't -- it is disciplinary action. >> thanks very much. just to follow up on that same line, so if i understand you correctly, what you're saying is even though we've loosened to give you more authority to discipline employees, the

concern you have if you fire someone is that the discipline them, that you move too quickly, then that actually could be overturned. >> it's not literally moving too quickly. it is that there are two requirements. mspb and they're employmenting regulations stipulated that we are required to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. whether it is removal for misconduct or removal for performance. that's one piece. we have to have evidence because the second piece is that we believe case law is clear, that we have to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges. what we're talking about here is five days. five days to be able to protect these actions, we hope, from an overturn on appeal for failure to provide due process. >> and you think five day says long enough? >> obviously we think it is, because that's what we proposed.

we felt like it was the appropriate balance between what is provided in title 5 and the intent of congress. >> okay. thank you. >> i understand that choice cards are being rolled out in phases right now for our veteran wloes have waited longer than 30 days on wait list but have not yet received their choice card, what is v.a. doing to reach out to those veterans to let them know that they are eligible? >> many of those veterans are already being called to determine whether or not they want to exercise their option for close. we are going through the entire list of veterans that are waiting more than 30 days. uploading those to what we call the veteran's choice list. so that we hope as early as next week we're able to activate the 30-day group as well. and be able to contact those veterans to schedule appointments or to offer them that choice. >> other veterans in the choice program, do you have any sense of how it took them to get an

appointment? >> i don't know if that -- >> for as far as the veterans that are in the choice program, going to try to get an appointment, do you know how long it has taken them to get an appointment? >> we are are still only about five or six days into implementation of the program. so we know that we see the number of calls that are coming in everyday. the number of authorizations and appointments that are beginning to be scheduled. there is a standard stipulated within the contract within which they have to get that appointment scheduled. >> how many days? >> authorization has to be within five days and appointment within 30 days. we only had about a week's worth of experience. i can tell you, as of about yesterday, we had i think 6,000 of the people in the 40-mile group. about 320,000 people in the

40-mile group. about 6,000 of those contact either health net or tri west. i believe in the first week we've had something around maybe 40 appointments scheduled. >> are you keeping an eye on to make sure that what the private sector is not going to do, what some of the v.a. facilita. fac done as far as gaming the system on timeliness? you got metrics in place wsh measures in place? >> we do have metrics and we of course will be auditing and monitoring what goes on with third party administrators. i have to say that both of them are both tri west and health net have done an amazing job of really helping us stand up this program in the timeframe that we had. and i believe that they are sincerely doing everything in their power to make sure that those veterans are referred into the community. as you know, sometimes waits in the community are also