actual incidents of racial profiling. my bet is that some people show a lot more of it than others. not everybody can learn everything. not everybody can unlearn everything. what we want our people who have the flexibility of mind to benefit fromit is not rocket sc. is having on announced observers checking who they pay attention to, and finding out whether there are some people who are repeatedly showing racial profiling. you either read-educate or you assign them to a different job. >> thank you for your indulgence, mr. chairman. >> we will always be friends and i will always give you some variances on the time.

i will not be worried about that at all. dr. dr. didomenica, your up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the panel for being here. it is our job. to spend the money of the taxpayer the most debt--- efficacious way. it is really difficult for me to determine whether this spot process is accurate or not. i like to address mr. didomenica about the process all little bit more. from your comments today, it seems even after the behavior, what is the process after that

if there is someone there with doubt as to the next that as to what is happening, the next screening step? are they not trained in the same thing? i would hate to see people get messed. all like to know more about the exact process from the moment that person gets taken out of the ku the -- queue. >> i think that it is effective but it can be improved. the process starts with the observation that may indicate a person that should not get on the airplane or on to that train or in to that government building. based on the evaluation, this spot scoring, which i cannot go into witches that is sensitive and formation, but there are two

levels, one is more screening and one is a law enforcement response. the people who are most high- risk, the protocol is to call a law-enforcement officer into a follow-up interview. this is the opportunity to address the false positives. a lot of people that exhibit the behaviors that may indicate a positive intent are people who are upset or distracted are going to a funeral, and there may be a lot of people they get on the radar. this interview which only takes a couple of minutes is the opportunity to resolve that so you're not creating the false positive. there's also the opportunity to determine if you have the real thing. that this person is high risk. that is another skill. that is the interviews go which is another part of this process. >> are those people skilled enough in this people? the secondary person, are there enough of those people? >> the responsibility ultimately

falls on police officers when there is a high-risk person. i think they're capable. everyday they make decisions around this country, and they deny people their freedom, and so i do not think it is too much to ask them to make a decision, is this person high risk and do we need to slow down the process and figure out what is going on. they are capable of doing it with of the program is funded not. cops are making these decisions every day. i would like to see them more training and more support to make them better at what they do. this program has that potential. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> thank you, doctor. i want to say did you are questioning shows that the tsa should be here because they could answer their, you could directed to the tsa officials and be instructed to the whole committee, democrats and

republicans alike, and help us go forward. the next person on the agenda is my friend. you're recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate you calling this hearing. it is interesting. i find compelling but not to scientific in my opinion. but it is good for us to examine this issue and see how much utility there can be from met. and how much money should be expended to find that utility. dr. hartwig, i think i heard you say did you see how knowledge of the indicators could be useful. >> i think that again, an empirical question. there is not enough research -- there is a lot of research, but

no study that tests whether knowledge -- my first question is to help people not display them, but that would be a second step. a good for step is to establish that these expressions of occur reliably. countermeasures' come second. >> i was going to follow up with you, dr. echman. would you can make that knowledge of those indicators would be a potential use to potential wrongdoers? >> we do not know. could you develop countermeasures? a proposal put into the government to find out, i have reason to believe that the chinese know the answer because they were sending me questions that you would want to prepare on if you were going to do a training study to see. but you could keep people from

not noticing micro expressions and there are dozens of items. our government has not decided that it is worth finding out whether you can beat the system. other governments are finding out and maybe selecting people who can and training them so they can. we just do not know. we know about the polygraph. we know countermeasures are quite successful. we know about some verbal means. they are quite successful. if i could have a moment more, sir, you're some complete contradiction between dr. hartwig and myself. i think if you look at the literature carefully you will find that it comes out supporting me, but how can you know, and when you get a disagreement among scientists, you need to establish an

advisory panel of experts who have no vested interests and no connections to hear from the people who disagree and look at the literature and resolve it, because you are being given in this testimony advice that is 190 degrees opposite in terms of is there a scientific basis for what is being done. but you could argue, and i do not know whether dr. willis wood, that if the validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny to everyone who is looked at, if it is as successful as the report is, imagine getting that kind of success. it is of scientific interest to find out. >> thank you, doctor. go ahead. >> i would like to respond to the doctor's point.

that was the key recommendation of our may 2010 report, an independent panel reviewing the results of this current a .i.r. validation. it needs to be not a current advocate of the program. it is very interesting that the panel shows a lack of consensus which was the basic point i made in my early statement. >> a subject like this you would expect a broad range of disagreements. is a panel -- has a panel been suggested or is this something -- >> there is an agreement to establish to review the methodology of this validation effort as well as to review the final results. but as mr. willis indicated, the latest results have only recently been submitted. as of last night, i believe.

>> i have run out of time so i am going to yield back. >> 5 minutes. >> thank you all for being here. i share the frustration with some of the others at tsa not being here today. i am a new member of congress along with others and i've been traveling much more in the last three months than i have ever troubled in my life. just on monday, i had my first experience of the full treatment by tsa out of o'hare. it was interesting. i did not involve rigid and i realize it involved turning your head and coughing. it is a born to have these discussions to protect our liberty and freedom of the same time, making sure that we have security. i thank you for your role. we have a lot more work to do and a lot more discussion that needs to take place. i have a couple of questions.

dr. rubin, if i can address my question to you, much has been made about the science and research behind the ability of an individual or in this case to detect in motion and defeat intent of another person, and i wondered speaking broadly in keeping it as simple as you can for those of us laban, could you tell us the state of the science as a relates to the detection of emotion, deceit, and intent by behavioral cues? >> yes, in general, i guess i would agree with dr. eckman in the sense that we are at the point where there are two things going on. most of the studies, if you look at something -- there was an analysis done out of the defense department. what it basically showed, it is

no different than chance. agreeing with both dr. haartwig, there is a lot of controversy and very little ballot station. there had been a committee established on a spot and i am on that committee. we have not been asked to do any scientific validation overall. just a little one particular thing, it is different than chance. what is really needed on these issues before we continue to invest more money is to really establish without putting any information at risk and stuff like that, establish a baseline about what is doable, what is not, what is known, and what is not. this is the classic issue of test and field for field in test. consider the intrusion on people's privacy.

i think it is absolutely time to be testing, validating, scientifically explore in these things now before we do in significance investment. i do not think that we should not continue the program. but we need to establish something without giving anything away, otherwise we're throwing money down the drain. >> following up on the, one of the concerns operators have is that behavioral science is not dismissed because there are issues dealing with the validation and specific use. can you speak on the importance of behavioral science in the counter-terrorism comtesse? what is limitations and strengths are for our work in counter-terrorism? >> we are changing the topic because we're moving to counter terrorism. the behave real work is broad in counter-terrorism. rigid behavioral work is brought

in counter-terrorism. we are broadening the argument because we get to the analysts and there have been an excellent report in the committee chair, there is a lot that is known and we touched on some of this and a number of panelists did. you start to get involved in haverhill issues, attitude, biases, stemming from the intelligence work on how you -- there is a lot that we know. the issue becomes structural and organizational. given what we know -- what we know, and what do we not know? with the stuff that we do know, how do we make sure it is most effectively use by the intelligence community and whoever else needs to use it? on those issues where we're not entirely clear with controversy, how can we move ahead? and there is emerging technology that we will see use.

we see some of that with the prices. merrill imaging -- and euro imaging -- neuro imaging. but we need to get a handle on it. i think the behavior of stuff is growing rapidly. but i think that we are not doing a comprehensive approach to deploying it in the field before it is publicly evaluated. >> my time is up. i want to thank you all for being here. i feel that this is the start of a discussion we need to continue. i appreciate all of you being here. i will still it has forged by sonny micra facial expression days -- any micro facial expressions i may have. >> i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, be allowed to sit on the

dias and participate in the hearing. you're recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, thank you mr. chairman, and ranking member edwards and other members of the panel. i have a great interest in this subject that you have before you, and as you may know, i was involved in the tsa creation the when i chaired the aviation subcommittee in 2001 for some six years after lap. and i watched its evolution. first i might say that i am absolutely distraught that your subcommittee would be denied by tsa the opportunity to be here

and possibly learn something or participate. they have ignored our committee and others. we have a history of this. we will work with you and others, and in fact, we need to convene a panel of chairs of various committees and somehow rain this agency in. it has an important mission. i am just done again that they would not have someone from the excellent panel of witnesses you have had here today. particularly when they come and ask for more money. let me tell you my involvement with the spot program. as chair of the committee that created it, i followed it in its successes and failures and we

have deployed a lot of expensive technology out there. unfortunately the technology does not do a very good job. and the personnel, a failure performance rate, it is just off the charts. if you have not had a classified briefing on the latest of technology, the back scanner, and the millimeter wave, i urge you to do that. that was in december of last year, and then the patdown, they're backed up new procedure which they put into place at the end of last year. i had that reviewed by a gao in january. but that failure rate is totally unacceptable. the way we got started on spot is that biotechnology lacking both by screeners and the equipment that they use, leaving

us vulnerable, particularly after chechen bombers. at think we've bought some machines at the time, they did not work but they promised me that they would. they deployed them and they did not work. we needed something in place. we encouraged looking at the israeli model, and you cannot really adopt the israeli model, because they have a much smaller amount of traffic. we have 67% to 75% of all the traveling the world. and that is america, you have a mac -- you cannot have a magic carpet through radiation in this country. so that is how we started this. we observe the operations and i cannot evaluate -- we had gao and evaluate them.

and we had some representatives to tell you that failure rate is unacceptable. it is almost a total failure. if it was not money and personnel, maybe it would not matter, but they have 3300 spot officers, i believe, in the program. and they got $250 million in expenditures and they are asking for more. i did not actually get to hear the suggestions and i would look for them. i had to leave before i heard all of them, some of the suggestions, and the amount of time to do a verbal interview may be finding some way to get us to a number that we can have some exchange. ms. edwards made an excellent

point in her comments that we have to have some way to improve this. unless there is some verbal exchange with a standoff observation, we are wasting time, money, and resources. i do not have a specific recommendation for the replacement. i do know what is in place does not work. but i cannot tell you how much i appreciate your subcommittee taking time to review this matter and try to seek a better approach, better science, and did better application of something so important. because we are at risk. these people are determined to take this out. this came from another meeting were folks had developed backscatter and the millimeter wave, the technologies we are using. the scary thing there is that

we had witnesses in one of the other hearings that said that both of those technologies will not be able to detect other body cavity or surgical implants, and we already see that these guys are always going one step ahead of where we put in place. we have a failed system, we are spending a lot of money on it, it is supposed to provide us with a backup, the information that we had and the review shows that it is not doing that and it needs to be replaced or dramatically revised if it is going to be effective in keeping us from this next set of threats. those are my comments. i would ask that if you have suggestions, we do have a faa bill which we can include some positive suggestions.

we could not do that on the house side because of jurisdiction, but we can do it in conference and the door has been opened by the senate. i would love to hear recommendations from you and from those who participated today, how we can do it better. thank you for allowing me to participate. >> thank you, chairman mica. i appreciate you being here and your comments. i can speak for ms. edwards, we are both very concerned about national security. both concerned about civil liberties and we are both concerned that we make sure that the flying public are safe and i appreciate her input. and i hope that you will find some way that we will have those subjects and put in the study so that maybe some kind of the haverhill rigid behavioral science can be identified to

identify these both periods we will go to our next round of questions. i recognize myself for five and is. even nine times more effective than random, we're talking about very low rates. mr. didomenica states that the base rate for terrorism is 0.0000006 -- i hope i did not get too many zeros. any panelist help put that into perspective, anybody? >> that statistic implies that acts of terrorism are very rare events. that makes it very difficult to test the efficacy of the program and develop as we recommended in our report performance metrics to determine

whether the program works as designed. but we do not think that should deter you from trying to craft what we would call proxy measures, other measures that help you get at this indirectly, and we made that important recommendation and tsa agreed to try to get to develop these indicators. the one step we think it could take that would make this exercise a lot more useful is that they use a very long list of behaviors in their list. the characteristics are considered sensitive security information, but we pose a question -- how you know that this is the right number? and that also assigned. scores to each of these behaviors, details are security, but that is one way to make the program more useful in identifying potential acts of terrorism. validate the points system, come

up with a list of behaviors, call the list, and come up with something more related to an individual or rest. and there ways to do that statistically. >> thank you. anybody else? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first off, proxy measures are a standard part of research, especially in the area of terrorism. there are no direct measures in sufficient quantities typically to use for terrorism. criminal activity is often used as a low proxy measure. is it -- is an accepted practice mainly because when one is looking for terrorism or as of terrorism and a lot of transit areas coming you're looking for someone who is coming in to try to use false identification, or you're looking for someone who is smuggling.

both of these things are representatives and they have high numbers, even though they are low base rates, in criminal activity. that is why that is typically used and by other organizations as proxy measures. i want to make sure that you're comfortable that we had given for thought to that and use the best practice for proxy measures. >> there are a number of organizations i work with, airport security in england, i have seen the videos of the bombers before they bombed. i worked in israel where they do a lot of security. even within our own government, the different parts of dot, the deal with counterterrorism and the attempt to identify terrorists in field, military situations, there is no sharing

of information. there is a lot of information out there that has not been brought together. it is sensitive but it needs to be brought together and then with that data base, take a look at what is on the spotless. i've not seen what has been on the spot list for four years. i do not know how it has changed or been informed by research findings from our groups and other groups and from observations by special forces, like our counterintelligence, nypd, there is a lot of information in this country in separate little pockets that has not been brought together. >> thank you. my time has expired. my question, and i recognize the ranking member edwards 45 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to go to a question raised by mr. m mica's comments while it was here. from the perspective of gao and the report and analysis that you have done, mr. lord, we do not know if the spot program is "up fiasco." isn't that correct? >> that is absolutely correct. those were his words, that is not an our vocabulary. >> and just to be clear again, what metrics would you use to determine the success or failure as an operational program for summer to the and one metric is scrubbing the current list of behavioral indicators that they have, as well as the associated points scores. we've identified several videotapes of their movements. are they exhibiting signs of stress or as some literature suggests, they do not demote

much because they believe they're going on to a more blissful state? it is done clear to us whether there would micthere is videota evidence that would be invaluable in fine-tyne being the program. >> i think i highlighted that in your testimony because there are a number of examples that we have and i wonder, has d.h.s. made an attempt to pull together not just video evidence in the united states but with international partners to do some kind of assessment stacked up against the screening techniques that have been to see whether we are on target. spend lot of money to out putting it up against realtime data. >> again, i represent d.h.s. science and technology, not the operational community. >> this is a science question.

>> from a science and technology perspective we are attempting to locate video of terrorist threats in other countries as well as within the u.s. and it is very difficult to get access to that information or successfully get access to that video. >> part of the reason we pulled d.h.s. together is because it is a collection of all of our sort of security and investigative interests under one house to work with our international it is a little staggering to me to know that you do not have the capacity in a decade to look at video and use it to make an analysis about whether the techniques that you seem to be employing would be

successf successful. seems like a basic scientific question that d.h.s. should be in a position, with our partners internationally and here in the united states, to get that video and conduct some real scientific analysis of that. i would urge d.h.s. to consider that. i want to go to dr. hartwick because in your testimony you indicated there are other recommend dictions th -- recommendations that you might make and i wonder if you would describe them. >> i think it is roughly captured by what mr. mica said before he left. it is important to engage the person in conversation to elicit cues to deception. overall the research shows that statements carry some cues to

deception and there is new research that focuses on how to elicit cues to defection. because there is such an abundance of research showing that people don't just automatic leak. my basic answer is that some form of questioning protocol, some kind of brief interview protocol that is based on the scientific research on how to elicit cues to defection and how to ask questions so the liars and truth tellers respond differently. >> so you are not -- this is yes or no -- you are not saying scrap the program but that there are ars where we need to significantly improve the techniques to take us down a track of really being able it identify potential terrorists? >> yes, i think if efforts would be spent on the questioning part

of the program that would have put it more in line with the scientific research. >> thank you. >> thank you, mrs. edwards. we have been joined by the congresswoman from florida. >> earlier it was said there were 71,000 raoefrpls and you made a -- referrals and you made a distinction of the behavior leading to arrests. how many were arrested? >> of the 71,000? >> yes. >> that is the random selection method. nine arrests were made. >> in the other method? >> using spot, 23,000 and a little bit were referred and 151 were arrested. >> the types of arrests? >> i don't have the nature of the arrests.

>> so it could have been brooklyn bridge rapbs seu or anybody? >> some were prohibited items that were on them at the time. others could have been through o outstanding warrants. >> do you think that i have an appearance or would i be a target for spot? every time i go through the airport i get pulled aside and searched and the reason i ask is because being a past law enforcement officer and trained i have concerns about the way you are identifying and pulling people aside. dr. hartwig, you said you thought the program with work if more tools were available. would it be better to use a validated system as opposed to one that is untested? >> first of all, i didn't say tha that. i was talking about where i think more emphasis should be

spent or put. >> so even with more emphasis did you believe that it with work? >> i don't know. i think we would need an appropriately conducted study to find that out and i think it would be important to go beyond examining the arrest rates and look at what are the actual behaviors that are displayed by people that are arrested. and to compare those behaviors with those that are in the list of cues -- i don't know what those can yous a-- i don't know what those cues are because they are not available. are the spot criteria actual indicators. it is definitely we need to know whether it works or not. >> do you believe that the t.s.a. employees have enough training and the skill sets

based on the training they are receiving to provide this type of screening at this level? >> i think with a proper follow-up by trained law enforcement that they do. but if we don't have the proper follow-up by the police officers to figure out what is going on -- because this is like an alarm and it beeps. what does that mean? somebody comes over and pats you down. the cops are like why did this beat? if you have that level of follow-up by trained law enforcement i'm comfortable with the training but without that level of follow-up i'm not comfortable. >> so, would it be your opinion that there needs to be more training? >> yes. >> i have another question.

t.s.a. plan to use r&d to improve the spot program or does it believe that it can't be improved upon? >> we do have ongoing research with them. and if i may say, this is one of the beginning research elements we have with t.s.a., sir. in fact, it was started in 2007, prior to g.a.o.'s interests. its focus is specific, not to evaluate absolutely everything going on with spot. that is a huge tasking of which we are not tasked or resourced to do. this is looking at the indicators, the checklist itself. the first question that needs to be asked from a scientific perspective is does the checklist as it is currently put together and as it is currently

deployed accomplish its mission? you would like to be able to compare that against random and against something else that has been shown to be out there and valid. but the fact is there is not another behavioral based screeni screening out there employed by any other group we are aware of either in the u.s. or abroad statistically value -- valid indicted. so we compare this against random. so, t.s.a. is doing research. we are doing research that supports t.s.a. >> mrs. edwards, do you have another question? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up, mr. willis. my understanding is you shared with our staff that there is a pool of video available of suicide bombers and the like

that could be used to study. and i would expect that if t.s.a. were operating the right kind of way that would also be used for training. so, i'm a little confused by your answer and i want to be clear. do we have video, both from ourselves and perhaps from our international partners, that we could use to assess the techniques that have been developed and the questions, the assessment questions that have been developed so we can make sure we have a program that is working as effectively as we know it can work? >> we don't presently have a sufficient number of videos to conduct scientific tphaplanalys. we are attempting to work with our partners in the u.s. and internationally to gather them.

but being a research we do not have the ability to compel operational organizations much less international ones to provide with us that video. what we are doing is attempting to continue to collect that the best we can, as well as to conduct other kinds of supporting things, such as interviews of direct eyewitnesses to suicide bombings, international subject matter experts in the area, to go beyond what the current validation study was to try to help establish from a scientific perspective what is being used operationally abroad and what is being witnessed by eyewitnesses and subject matter experts so we may be able to then bring that information back and test it. >> is s and t doing that?

>> s and t. >> so, it would be useful, wouldn't it, to have a real data pool to be able to stack our assessment tools against that? and my question for mr. willis is whether or not -- what agency do you think would be the responsible one to get this pool together? is d.h.s.? is it t.s.a.? >> in our report we made 11 recommendationless. one of them was to use and study available video recording to help refine the spot program in their formal agency comments the department indicated they agreed and they were taking steps it do that. i think the department is already on record saying they agree, it is a good idea, we are

going to do t. th -- do it. we will have to see the extent addressed it. but to chafe, -- clarify, d. d.h.s. has already agreed. >> and d.h.s. has not done a cost-benefit analysis on the program or risk assessment, and it is my understanding that they don't did a great job -- and i apologize for the critique -- either conducting cost/benefit analyses or risk assessments for many of the programs. how do we know if we even need the program? >> well, typically as part of our analysis we would look at the cost/benefit analysis or risk assessment to study, number one, how they -- for example, you need a risk assessment, we assume, to show where you need to deploy the program. it is at 161 airports so the

question is how did you establish that? did you have a risk assessment? the answer is no. they are in the process of ramping up the program now. every year furnished being has increased. we assume that would be justified by a cost-benefit analysis although they have agreed to complete both a risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. but traditionally weld expect to find that at early program interception, not four or five years after you deploy the program. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. chairman, i would say for the record it would be good to get a cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment before we spend another $20 million, $2 million, or $2 on the program. thank you very much. >> mrs. adams, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. the program has been ongoing since 2007. is that what i heard?

>> the validation research study has been ongoing since 2007. >> since 2007. and i heard you say there was no system out there that you could use that was validated or availab available. is that correct? >> we are unaware of any behavioral bill based program t has been rigorously validated, yes. >> what about israel's program? >> we have not located any study that rigorously tests that. >> did they study it? >> we are not provided any information -- >> did you ask? >> yes. >> and they have said they would not provide it? >> we have not been -- they didn't say they wouldn't provide it. >> so, it is maybe the way you asked for it? i'm trying to determine, since 2007 you have been doing a study and you can't give us a

cost-benefit analysis, we're four years out and when you say there is no other program out there, there are some out there, i believe. r. dedominica, are there similar programs? >> there are similar programs for behavior assessment. i have been teach being bass, there is a d.h.s. program called patriot. i have another training course hostile intent detection evaluation. but they are given maybe a few days of training and people go off and do their thing. there is no follow-up of how successful. i think they get good ideas and techniques but it is not done in a way where it can be measured and followed up on. i think that needs to be done. >> and these are all from d.h.s. also?

>> one that is approved for fundi funding, and but they are not d.h.a. programs. >> so they are funded but they are trained and then they are kind of sent out and there is no true follow-up. is that what you are saying? >> there is no collection of data about success or failure or effectiveness. it is like a lot of law enforcement training and you are probably aware that you go in for a class, you sit there for a week, you get a certificate and walk out and that is the end of it. unfortunately that just falls in line with a lot of training that is done. for this program, with what is at stake we need to be better at how we follow-up. >> on my certificate we had to go back for training or else we last the certificate so i can relate to having to keep the training and skills honed. i appreciate that. no more questions, mr. chair. >> thank you, mrs. adams.

i will thank the witnesses for being here today. i appreciate your testimony. i appreciate the members, all the questions that we have had. this is a very interesting to c topic. again i'm disappointed that t.s.a. has refused to come because this are a lot of questions that i know mrs. edwards and i both would have liked to have asked t.s.a. if they had griaced us with ther presence and hopefully we won't have to go down the road and require them but they will be here at some point, i hope voluntarily and i hope you pass that along to the folks that are in the position to make that decision. members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask that you will respond to them in writi writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments by members.

the witnesses are excused and is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks now available in american 100 million homes created by cable, provided as a public service. year's student kacam competition ask students to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. today's third prize winner addressed a topic that better helped them understand the role of the federal government. >> when we ask a service member

go to a fortune count -- a forn country to defend the freedoms we don't ask what the cost is to them. we don't ask are they ready to go. they pick up that pride of service and go without question. we as a nation shouldn't question the cost that it will take us to provide for them when they return from combat. >> due to personal involvement of my father and issues related to service and war i chose that. >> i talked to him about his aspect of what congress should do with legislation. you think that congress should provide minister services to returning veterans? >> we need to appropriate the funds. we are going to have -- we are having a big problem with ptsd and substance and drug and alcohol problems with some

soldiers. we need to have a place for them to go. we have one here at the veterans center in tulsa but it is not adequate. because of the volume of people needing the services we need in congress what we can do is pass an appropriations bill that gives them the funding they need so they can hire the resources that they need to get the job done to help veterans and the medical professionals that will be needed to service them. >> so, i then decided to ask my step dad because i knew he had issues. >> i have been deployed over to the iraq area, middle east, southeast asia at different times. in 2003 on one of my deployments to the middle east i was injured and had to have surgery on my neck, at which time i was discharged. >> when did you realize that you

had more problems? >> at the time of my discharge i wasn't having any real issues. the issues start the exactly one year from the date of the surgery. i started having tingling down my right arm again. at that time i went and applied, went to the v.a. to apply for benefits. >> now he is working through the the things ause of he has done in war. due to these issues he has to take pain medications to make sure he can sleep at night. >> right now i am getting help through the v.a. for that. i see a counselor about once every month. trying to get it worked out. >> i asked my dad about what he thought about the v.a. and what it was providing for him in his circumstances. >> there is not enough money out there for the veterans because

if there was we would be getting the help we need when we need it, not having to go through this red tape of paperwork to get what i think is rightfully owed to me for what i have done for this country. we go over there, we volunteer to go into the service. we go wherever they tell us to go. and we are put through hell in some places. and then sometimes you come back and you try to get help that you need and at certain corners you get denied and you start over. they have my military records in front of them but you just go from there. got to love the v.a. sometimes. >> i think we need to focus first on delivering what we promised to veterans. a lot of times they are promised certain things with healthcare

or they are injured in battle and they are not given the proper healthcare that they should get. >> the biggest thing i could say about the v.a., the personal doctor i have over there is excellent. i have to say that for him. but overall the place is just crowded with all of the later wa wars. you hardly see any world war ii guys there. i'm helping the world war ii guys that i run across that need help. but it doesn't seem that we can get the help for them any more. in fact, i accuse some of them that what you are doing is waiting for them to die and you to process them. >> i spoke to a v.a. physician. >> we offer all primary care surgery, orthopedic newer resurgery, cardiovascular surgery, dialysis. some of these more extensive and

specialized areas need a higher level of care. >> i have seen the v.a. being transformed into one of the fine finest healthcare institutions in the country. in fact, during the health care ebate that was raging the last two years very few people looked at the v.a. model which delivers some of the finest care in the country, perhaps the best in the country many would say. the benchmark criteria for utcomes in diabetes and cloolon cancer and cardiovascular exceeds the national average and medicare average. the primary care system now is divided into a team approach where you have a primary care physician, maybe a mid level

provider, a couple of nurses, a seb secretary. veteran identifies their provider with a team color. so, when they call they call the team, calm the physician or mid level provider or the nurse to talk to them. they have seen some of the highest funding both under president george w. bush and now under president barack obama. in fact, the v.a. budget is probably the least debated in both the house and senate. there is no country in the world that takes care of their veterans as well as the united states of america. it do not matter whether you are a democrat, republican or who is in office, who controls the congress, veterans get excellent care and they make sure that they thank every veteran who comes in for care that they know how grateful they are that the veteran was able to volunteer

and sacrifice for his country. >> so, on research being the topic and learning more about the v.a. and how it played such an important role in my life i came to understand that what the v.a. is doing is not welfare. we are paying the commitment we owe because they served the greatest cost. my dad is being paid for what he served for our country and money from the v.a. my family would be without a home because of the disabilities that my father has with his neck and knees and so much ptsd issu issues. come to respect the role that the federal government plays in my life and what the v.a. does for these veterans. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the videos and continue at our facebook and twitter pages.

>> as a host and trader you are not necessarily a republican or democrat. you are simply lacking at the impact -- looking at the impact of what the government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil markets, trading or wall street firms. >> melissa lee on her career and influences and what she believes is her role in reporting business and financial news. watch the rest of the interview at 8:00 on "q&a." it is one of our many signature interview programs available online at c-span.org/podcast. >> this morning a po