him to do that. i don't buy it. in this case, the republicans have consistently made clear they would not accept more taxes on the rich. they have been given multiple chances and they have made it clear. if he was only concerned about the optics, he would not if he was only concerned about the optics, he would not be having private dinners with republican senators. he says to them i'm willing to cut social security benefits, please tell your colleagues let's cut a deal. that would be unnecessary for that type of implant. the only thing that is in >> see the rest of this conversation in the c-span video library. now, the house focusing on cyber security legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 15, 2013. hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. -- 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, for the past two months, i have been speaking each week about hunger in america. today, i want to focus on hunger among our senior citizens which is a silent scourge in our nation. over 49 million americans are hungry and out of those 8.3 million are seniors. that's one in seven seniors and nearly 15% of everyone over 60 years old. in fact, from 2001 to 2009, hunger among americans over the age of 50 increased by nearly 80%. 80%. that is unconscionable. one reason for this significant rise in senior hunger is the economy. the recession has made hunger in america worse for everyone and has been particularly bad among people between ages 50 and 59, a population too young for social security, medicare, but too old for programs that target families with children. and it's not just the very poor. in fact, between 2007 and 2009,

the most dramatic increase in hunger was among those whose annual incomes were twice the poverty line. food, good and healthy food, is important at age ages, but it's critical for young children and senior citizens. for kids, nutritious food is critical for physical and mental development. for seniors, good, healthy food is critical for an entirely different but no less important reason. hunger can exacerbate existing medical conditions and many medications need to be taken with food. taking some medicine on an empty stomach can result in illness or hospitalization. problems that not only result in increased medical costs but can be deadly for people with reduced immune systems. a common problem is that seniors are home-bound, unable to travel to grocery stores or food banks. it's easy to see why senior

hunger is a hidden problem. in many cases the hungry citizen is hidden away behind closed doors. that's why it's so important to have senior advocacy groups like aarp, the national council on aging and ampleharvest.org, to name a few, who focus on senior hunger. aarp has the drive to end hunger campaign with nascar and jeff gordon. the national council on aging is working with feeding america and other food banks to prioritize and target hunger among seniors. ampleharvest.org is working with seniors to grow their own food. and of course there is meals on wheels which delivers food directly to home-bound seniors. a recent brown university report found that for every additional $25 a state spends on meals on wheels each year for a person over 65, the low-care nursing home population decreases by 1%. that helps save medicaid

dollars and lowers health care costs overall. in fact, the cost of feeding a senior for one year through meals on wheels is roughly equal to the cost of just one day in the hospital. and the average patient stays in the hospital for almost five days. so funding for meals on wheels is an important investment to decreasing health care spending. i also want to highlight the seniors farmers markets nutrition program which helps more than 860,000 seniors who make less than $15,000 per year to have access to local fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets. a qualified senior is awarded between $20 and $50 to spend at their local farmers market. over 19,000 farmers participate and benefit from the money seniors spend throughout this program. wholesome wave is an organization that doubles the purchasing power of the seniors farmers market nutrition program. its double value coupon program

operates at more than 300 farmers markets and 26 states and the district of columbia. boston mayor has a similar program called the boston bounty bucks. these programs allow low-income seniors on fixed incomes to buy more fresh fruits and vegetables with their limited funds. mr. speaker, these are terrific programs but they simply can't do it all. in the case of senior hunger, we need to make sure that programs like seniors farmers market nutrition program are well funded. we also need to work with doctors and nurses, with medicare and medicaid and with other health care professionals to treat hunger as a health issue. we need to prevent costly hospital readmissions that are preventable with proper nutrition. we need to ensure that seniors aren't falling through the cracks and they aren't going hungry. mr. speaker, we need presidential leadership to end hunger now and we need a white house conference on food and nutrition to talk about senior hunger, to brainstorm, to plan

and execute a national anti-hunger plan that will truly end hunger now. we are the most prosperous nation in the world. there is absolutely no reason why anyone should go hungry in the united states of america, and it is especially shameful that so many older people, people who have made this country great, find themselves in a position where they are hungry. we can do something about it. i hope we can come together and i hope we end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. well, there's a

lot of talk in washington, d.c. about something called the chained c.p.i. now, a lot of people don't know what that means, but we have assurances from the white house and the republicans who originated this idea is that it's an innocuous little change to social security, veterans' benefits, other programs because we overstate inflation in the c.p.i. actually particularly for seniors, the reverse is true. the consumer price index, as measured, significantly understates inflation that impacts seniors because seniors have a different buying pattern than 20-year-olds. they are not buying out the latest iphone. they're buying a lot of medical care, going up much faster than measured inflation. pharmaceuticals going up at an obscene rate. housing, energy, all those things make up a bigger percentage of their budget and retirement. for years i proposed

legislation to accurately measure the cost of living for seniors which actually would increase their annual cost-of-living adjustments. but now come the white house and the republicans say, oh, we're overstating inflation. let's change c.p.i. it's all about substitution. if they can't do chicken they'll buy pasta. if they can't buy that they'll buy dog food. if they can't do that they'll starve. now, here's the graphic that demonstrates this a little better. this shows for a retired single woman, widowed or otherwise, how much food would be lost on an annual basis with the chained c.p.i., as it eats away at the annual adjustments and the things that she purchases go up faster and faster. this is each shopping cart represents a weekly food budget

of $53. not exactly living high on the hog here. so at 65 she loses two weeks of food. a woman retiring at age 65 this year has a life expectancy of 20 years. that means at age 85, with this new device, the chained c.p.i., she would lose 16 weeks worth of her food budget. 16 weeks. everybody as they get older works through their savings and other means of support and if you live too long you are going to have a hard time making ends meet. if we chained the c.p.i. it will get even harder for the next generation of seniors. now, there's kind of a mixed message here. republicans want to cut entitlements. they never supported social security and medicare. they just want to cut them to make sure they're there in the future. ll, if you chain the c.p.i.,

social security to pay guaranteed benefits for 2033, will pick up two years. we cut benefits for 100% of seniors retiring now and in the future and social security will last two years longer. that doesn't exactly save social security, does it? on the converse, my plan where we lift the cap so people who earn a $1 million or $2 million or one of the hedge fund guys that earn $1 billion, would pay social security tax on all of his or her income. we add 50 years to the life of social security. about as far as you can measure into the future. so if they wanted to save social security, if that's what the white house is up to, if that's what the republicans are up, there is a much better way of doing it without penalizing seniors. but that's not what it's about. it's to take a program, social security, which is self-funding, doesn't draw on the general fund, doesn't collect -- doesn't create any deficit. it's to take money from social security and use it elsewhere

to plug holes in our budget. now, that's not right. it's the highest tax paid by many american workers to the federal government. almost half of workers pay more in social security taxes, particularly the self-employed, than they do income taxes to the federal government. and if you earn over $112,000 a year, your tax rate goes down. you get to $1 million, $200,000, your tax rate is .1 of that of someone who earns $50,000 a year. $12 million, .01. and those billionaires are pacing less than one-second wages in social security taxes. so if you want to fix the program, lift the cap and maybe everybody pay the same percentage of their income into social security. but don't pretend by taking food out of the mouths of seniors in the future that you're fixing the problems for full funding of social security beyond 2033. you're not.

that's a lie. admit what you're doing. you want to cut benefits to seniors, veterans and other working americans with this chained c.p.i. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate is also back today at 2:00 p.m. eastern for general debate and vote for a judicial nomination. tomorrow, work will start on a minutes to the gun bill. first, expanded background

checks. there are will be others including an assault weapons ban, high-capacity ammunition. see live coverage of the senate on our campaign you network, c- span2. more hearings this week on the 2014 budget request, which was released last week. today, the veterans affairs secretary testifies on the senate side of capitol hill on his department budget. last week he was on the health side. we will bring you secretary shin seki's testimony today starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern. this morning, we sat down with mississippi senator roger wicker to talk about a number of issues coming up in congress. here is a look. senator roger wicker is our guest, republican of mississippi. we want to talk about a range of things. let's talk about what we saw out of the sunday talk shows yesterday. senator rubio blanketed the airwaves. he gave his support to this gang

of eight plan. what do you make of it? >> he set a record yesterday, seven sunday talk shows. for marcoo say this rubio, he is showing some leadership. he is in a unique position to do as a freshman, a cuban- american, representing the hispanic community. my hat is off to him for trying to solve a problem we would all like to solve. it does not kick in until the border is secure. that is 100% situational awareness of what is going on on the border. 90% enforcement. the situation right now is we have 50% enforcement. that just amounts to a porous border. one of the definitions of sovereignty is that the nation should be able to protect its border.

that is something that conservatives like me have been saying for a long time. let's first enforce the border. according to summaries of the law -- i have not read it because it will not be introduced until tomorrow, i believe it -- one of the summaries is that the law does not even trigger until we can certify that the border is secure. another aspect of it that i really like is a better system of e-verify. i get a lot of calls from businessmen who want to hire people and who don't mind hiring people here in the country legally even though they may have been born elsewhere. they say that e-verify is totally unreliable and sometimes is very slow and cumbersome. i understand this new proposal would require in states where --u have to eberts certificate

have a birth certificate to get a drivers license, it would require an applicant for hiring to present that driver's license. not a passport. in either case, citizenship would have to be proven. -- if not a driver's license, a passport. when you start enforcing the border, that's a good start. are a lot of questions. i know from having been out there as a representative for 13 years and now as a senator for five years, there's a lot of skepticism out there. i was not here in 1987 when president reagan, one of the great conservatives, agreed to what has now been called an amnesty. i know it is something people who really worried about illegal immigration are concerned about, is this going to be a repeat of what a well-intentioned president and well-intentioned congress did in 1987? so that's an overview of two issues.

host: "politico" website says the senator began his public campaign yesterday to win over conservative support for overhauling the nation's immigration laws. he offered a finely calibrated pitch designed to alleviate conservatives' concerns about reform. he pushed back against claims that a pathway to citizenship was tantamount to amnesty. he rebutted arguments that an agreement would impose dramatic new costs on taxpayers and defended the changes as necessary to keep the border secure. is he speaking? to your constituents back speaking guest: i think so. also, there's a broad support around the country to try to solve this, if we can. i remember the last time the effort was made in 2007, i was in the house. my predecessor was trying to take the lead on this issue and at least get the bill up to the senate floor. his phones exploded. he could not anything done for a week.

i noticed senator andcornyn on one of the talk shows yesterday said that he had the scars to prove it. -- senator cornyn. i have always opposed and misty i have always opposed amnesty. we don't want to put those people ahead of other people in line got here legally. rubio says this is not an amnesty. the american voters and policy makers will decide that. when he says is we are making it much harder and much longer for people who came here illegally. -- who came here legally. that would be better if they got

in line in their native countries and went through. that's not forgiveness, which is not amnesty is. so he is doing his best to make a point. my hat is off to this young senator for energy and for leadership. i want to say this. he is demonstrating the kind of leadership that we look for and will look for some day in a president of the united states. i am very high on this young senator from a florida. host: another issue in the news. gun control of the legislation. we see a major gun rights group is breaking with the powerful nra and coming out in favor of the bipartisan proposal on background checks by senator joe manchin of west virginia and senator pat toomey, republican of pennsylvania. the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms. how significant is this, senator? guest: i don't know. these people have a right to their viewpoint, but i'm a

lifelong member of the national rifle association. when my son was born 26 years ago, my only goal gave him a subscription -- my uncle gave him a subscription of the youth magazine of the nra. the second amendment protects gun rights for decades and decades. for another group to come along and claim to be the second- largest gun rights organization is fine. there's more of a schism than this article mentions. i looked at it this morning on the front page of the washington post, also. there's another group to the right of the nra. while the nra on thursday said it's probably a good idea to get this issue to the floor, talk about it, poke holes in it, but get the issue resolved for this

year appear there's another saying absolutely no, don't even vote for the motion to proceed. i will say there are probably at least four national groups out there with different viewpoints. i have to say, decade in an decade out, year in and year out, the nra has been a stalwart defender of the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. host: if they came out for the background check, would that sway you? guest: they don't have veto rights over my point of view. i speak in terms of relying on their strategy is they have always been pretty good. as a matter of fact, they have come out against pat toomey and

joe manchin pose a compromise at school falls and unworkable -- as full of holes and something that might need to a national registry. i would not support it. host: our guest served in the u.s. house of representatives prior to serving in the senate. he has also served in the mississippi state senator and was once counsel to senator trent lott on the house rules committee, has experience with both sides of congress. guest: before that i went to page, virginia, with him in the 1960's. i've been in this town for a while. host: he retired from the u.s. air force reserve in 2004 with the rank of lieutenant colonel. he's on the armed services committee, the budget committee, among others. if he's ready to take your

calls. ron in florida on our democrats line. caller: good morning. two things. we will start with gun-control. i am a gun owner. i was in the marines. guest: appreciate your service. caller: thank you for yours. i think the second and and it should evolve like our guns have evolved, from a single shot to 100 shots. we should make it to keep up with the times if we want to have a strong second amendment like we had when it was born with our country, then we should go back to 1 shot. the thing i really want to talk to is taxes. when i go to work and i come home and pay my bills, like you

say a country has to pay its bills, my bills seemed to keep going up because of common sense, everything goes up. when i go back to work, i have to ask my boss for arrays. if i went as long as the republicans have gone without asking the country for arrays -- a raise, we would be in the poorhouse. we are in the poorhouse. host: are you willing to pay more on your taxes? caller: everybody should pay more on their taxes, to be even. host: let's get a response from the senator? guest: well, i don't agree that everybody should pay more taxes. i think ron is advocating for fairness. is no question about that.

but let's make these points. in december, the automatic taxes that were set to go on the top 1% of wage earners actually did kick in. we were able to get the president to sign a law making the estate tax law that president bush passed permanent, making the tax makingfor 99% of wage earners permanent -- making the tax rates for the 99% of wage earners permanent. as we all know, the payroll tax exemption went away for people like you and me and everybody else. so there has been a tax increase from an automatic standpoint. it went into effect because there were not renewed. we have done taxes.

frankly, if i had had my druthers, and if i were making all the decisions in this country, we would not have even had those. to talk about it even more taxes, on the economy, which is still in the doldrums, i think that would hurt economic growth and job opportunity. that's what you're talking about when we talk about a budget. the president proposed $1.10 trillion extra in taxes in his budget. it was two months late, but it did come out last week and we had a hearing in the budget committee where i am a member. it proposes $1.10 trillion in additional taxes over a decade. i am opposed to that. the senate bill proposed $1.50 trillion in extra taxes or they say it's just $1 trillion the way they say it. the house bill, the ryan budget

actually balances the budget within 10 years and it does so without a tax increase. it does so by limiting the --owth that we cut spending. it does not cut spending. we can simply grow the economy by about 3.5% each year for 10 years and we can balance the budget. president's budget, with its huge tax increase, never balances the budget, not 10 years and not ever. we did not get to ron's question about gun control, but i will be happy to take that. i think he mentioned you now can get off 100 rounds. back when the constitution was ratified and the bill of rights and sec amendment added, we did not have such a thing. -- second amendment. my question is this, are we just

looking at symbols or will we actually do something that will work? in gun-control legislation, we need to ask ourselves, is someone who is mentally deranged going to worry about what the law says? is someone who is intent on a mass murder going to be concerned about how many rounds the law provides for a law- abiding citizen to have? i think the answer is no. anything that is cosmetics like that is simply a matter of trying to do something that sounds good, that sounds sympathetic to the families that have had horrible tragedies. i would look at mental health issues and school safety. i have to go back to the nra and congratulate them for getting former congressman hutchinson of

arkansas to get a task force together and come up with two recommendations. that is school safety officers. and allowing school personnel will want to, to be trained to protect students. and better coordination between schools and local governments, and better coordination within the school system for school safety. school safety and dealing with mental illness is something that might actually have an effect on preventing the kind of tragedy that we had. something that is cosmetic and assumes that a criminal or mentally deranged person will obey the law, to me, is really not worth talking about. host: senator roger wicker, you mentioned the president's budget. let's listen to run the treasury secretary as he testified before the house ways i and means house >>yst this past [video clip]

at the same time, the budget incorporates all elements in the administration's offer to speaker boehner last december. demonstrating the president's readiness to stay at the table and make very difficult choices and find common ground. consistent with that, the budget includes things the president would not normally put forward, such as means testing medicare to income related premiums for and adopting accurate but lest and it measures costs of inflation on a chained cpi. host: senator, is this the deal the republicans can work with? guest: well, no. actually, i don't even think the president expects this to be anywhere near a deal. if there's a chance for grand bargain -- we had dinner with the president wednesday night. we all agree the chances are less than 5054 grand bargain. -- 50-50 for a grand bargain. mr. lowe's statement, that would

get zero votes on the floor. it would be attacks from the right because it never gets us anywhere near a balanced budget. it would be attacked by the right because the inflation adjuster. this is called the chained cpi. it has an ominous ring to it. i think we should call truth in cost-of-living adjustment. all it is is it says we have been measuring a little too generously the inflation- adjusted each year. when i go on social security, when i became an air force retiree, that's not the check

i'm going to get forever. each year there is a little of an inflation adjustment to help it keep up with inflation. that's all this chained cpi would be. it is just netroots in saying let's get it as accurate as possible in keeping our retirees up with inflation. if we can do something like that and saw a 25% of the social security actuarial problem, then we ought to look at doing that. -- solve. ] i have to congratulate democrats and the so-called gang of six and some democrats on the budget committee like senator boren, for saying this is something we should look at. if the inflation-adjusted is fair, we can save a little money, then we ought to look at that. host: senator roger wicker. let's hear from independent caller mark in philadelphia. caller: i've been listening to

your views on gun control and they sound pretty reasonable. the problem is the republicans are not getting their points across clearly to the american people, so the polls show there are a lot of support for things that if the american people were shown a real facts on, they would not support as much. as far as background checks, they don't seem to be very controversial. background checks would have had no effect on newtown, connecticut. when the president has these poor families around, he's being disingenuous, because it would not have stopped that incident. going after the assault weapons, the same thing. their proposal would not have stopped that. all those victims would still be victims of the matter what gun legislation they are producing. republicans are failing to address why people need assault weapons. the reason they need them is the same reason all law-enforcement professional need them.

they have determined it is the necessary gun to defend themselves and to prosecute criminals. we have the same type of individuals that law enforcement has. if the criminals come to our house, we need to defend ourselves. handguns will not defeat body armor. only an assault weapon bill. when they say we don't need them, they are dead wrong. host: senator pat toomey, a republican of your state, is one of the two brokers of the background check deal. what do you think about the politics? caller: i was really opposed to it initially. i spoke to the senator's staff about it. most of the proposals in it are reasonable. i'm a little concerned on the mental issue because that can be fine-tuned out to include almost anybody. that scares me, because they could get a whole list of people that would not qualify for guns and the people that really are dangerous and would get through it because they would not go to the doctors. on average, i don't think closing the gun show loophole would.

there was a gentleman in new jersey that just went to jail for five years because he owned a long gun. he was a retired police officer. that scares me. he did not do anything wrong. host: let's get your questions and comments to senator wicker. guest: i commend you on making a statement that i agree with almost entirely and saying it well. one thing you alluded to that we need to emphasize is the most gun shows there's already a background check. and the people at gun shows don't mind this. they're happy to comply. when it comes to pat toomey's agreement, i appreciate you calling his staff and try to clarify this, i do think there's a great big loophole that you can drive a truck through.

until that gets fixed, it's not a workable. until i can be convinced that this does not infringe on second amendment rights and does not end up with some sort of list that law enforcement, state or national, can get ahold of and call that registry, no. there may still be time to fix that. the more we are looking at it, the more problems we see. you are absolutely right on the size of the weapons and the so- called assault weapons. it just comes back to this. what are we going to do to protect second amendment rights and at the same time if we can do something to provide better safety for schools, like a private schools have, and public schools are to have backup, too. but to do something that is cosmetic and appear sympathetic, if it infringes on second amendment rights, that is going

to be a no go in the senate the way it is currently configured. and certainly in the house of representatives. host: on twitter -- guest: well, here's what thel aw intends to do -- what a lot intends to do, to identify felons ineligible to own a gun and people who for various reasons are not mentally stable enough. there's another aspect. we don't have good enforcement of violations prepare are very few prosecutions of criminals going to try to buy a weapon. name comes up on the national registry and there is no consequence in many, many situations. before we start launching off

into new legislation, why does the administration, which has been very vocal about this, why don't they say we will certainly prosecute the violations that we know are occurring? that would be really good place for the obama administration to start. host: senator roger wicker just won his election a couple months go. he is on the armed services committee and the budget committee. commerce, science, and transportation, joint economic, environment and public works. a lot of committees. guest: you bet. environment and public works, we had the water resources development act which we think might actually boost the economy and get us ready for the panama canal expansion. that would be a good thing to do. we have not talked about north korea yet. kim bilson olson --

101st birthday today. there are direct korea talks with secretary john kerry over there in the region, offering to have direct talks with the young dictator. and then a really interesting editorial, if i might say so, in ,he "wall street journal" today north korea and intelligence. it says that congressman lamborn read an unclassified sentence from the defense intelligence agency, concluding with moderate confidence that north korea may have a nuclear warhead small enough to be placed on a ballistic missile. going to seee are some sort of show of force today , and iis young dictator hope we do not overreact with too many concessions in our talks. actually, i have a good degree

of confidence in senator kerry that he will not give away the store. had agreements with north korea before to our detriment, and it would be a mistake to agree to anything that amounted to an east toward -- sort of united states concession. we need to keep talking to the dictatorship, but we need to realize that they are very unlikely to comply. here is the secretary kerry is saying, north korea talks are possible, but the secretary of state is hinting at conditions. he did not say specifically what steps would be needed, but they might include a public commitment to the nuclearization and such measures as halting the production of nuclear material, refraining from testing missiles. one of your colleagues, senate majority whip date durban, was on fox news sunday yesterday talking about the role of china. let's take a listen.

[video clip] >> the last thing we want is the launch of a nuclear missile or nuclear weapon on the korean peninsula or anywhere in this world. we have to de-escalate the rhetoric and the testing going on in north korea, and we are turning primarily to china, saying it is time to step up and show leadership in this region of the world. we are prepared to work toward a common goal of peace, but we need the chinese to tell the north koreans that if they want to continue this rhetoric, it is that the expense of the safety of this world, as well as their own economy. your thoughts on what he said regarding china? guest: he makes a good point. the two players that senator kerry is talking to, he is trying to reassure japan that we have their back. clearly, if north korea does anything to either south korea major,n, there will be

severe, catastrophic consequences coming from the united states of america. dig durban is right about china. china has sort of allowed this bad boy in the neighborhood as a way of sort of having a counterbalance against the united states influence. they do not want them to act up too much. in away, there is no other way of looking at it -- china is somewhat glad that they're causing us problems and causing and extend our diplomatic energy. toban is right, china needs step up. this young leader is trying to .ssert his boldness he is brand-new, nobody knows him. he wants people to think he is strong. if he should do a birthday, a

display of fireworks today, and some the goes in the wrong has broughthen he devastation down on himself and his people. i hope he has got some mature people around him who are saying, you know, bring us much fire as you want to and if you can bring the secretary of state over here, good for you, but don't you dare do anything that endangers anybody's lives, particularly the lives of our allies. > felix is an independent caller. i would like to know -- how do the republicans feel about the extra securities at airports, points of entry for ships, and along borders, how

will they be paid for without raising taxes? guest: well, ok. i would -- that is not an area where i have been proposing cuts in the budget. the supreme court says provide for the common defense. of course that includes the , and over the last decade or so it has also involved homeland security. ini would not save money terms of national security -- as a matter of fact, i went on national television last summer, giving the saturday response to the president's address and talked about sequestration on our national security budget. our position all along has been that when it comes to sequestration, those harmful cuts should be avoided.

they were minted to go into effect in the first place. when sequestration did go into ago,t, it was a few weeks we offered to give the president flex ability -- flexibility. take the top level appropriation money and move it around if you would like to. protect the country. do the essential things. but the president said no, no, no, do not put this monkey on my back. we all need to be responsible for the sequestration cuts. i was really, frankly, disappointed in the president for not saying, ok, since we have to meet the budget cuts and since sequestration is here even though we do not really like it, at least give the executive branch the power to do the essential things, like the caller mentioned. shreveport, louisiana,

i've been on independent line. -- ivan. , i want to talk about the situation with the nuclear warhead. the missile warhead. , but years and years ago -- [indiscernible] we know what will happen. the people are starving there. guest: absolutely, absolutely. it up. he is firing he is young. but he has been out of korea before. there is a hope that we could have had, except during the months that he has been in power, he shows no real sign of having learned anything from his

education in the west. have read ayear, i fiction book and a nonfiction book about north korea, and i think our listeners today would be absolutely astonished at the level of repression and impoverishment, in slavery from generation to generation that goes on in this north korean regime. it resembles less the country than a criminal enterprise. they make their money through trafficking, through illegal weapon sales, and have no economy whatsoever. our goal should be denuclearization of north korea. but the propaganda machine over ande has got to people they're so desperate, they actually believe that when we

wake up every morning, the first thing on our minds as war with north korea. of course, that is the furthest thing from the truth. we hope they do not become a threat to the continental united states, and we hope to do nuclear eyes them. but we cannot spend every waking hour thinking about north korea. but that is their view of the united states, that we are constantly at war. histhe young man puts constituency up into a frenzy about that. we have come into agreements with them, the goal had to do with you where -- had to do with what you worried about, getting them to lay down their nuclear weapons. if there is a missile capability and north korea, there will be the proliferation everywhere in that region. and we need to avoided at all costs. to be secretary

of state, please call me up and remind me not to do that. i am not cut out to be a diplomat. my hat is off to people that join the state department and discuss things over and over and still get no progress. but we need our most skillful diplomats to keep hacking away at this. hopefully the right thing will happen in the end. host: senator wicker, republican of mississippi am a armed services committee member among others. let's go to north carolina and hear from james on our democrats line. caller: hello, senator. one thingke to make clear on background checks for guns. background checks for guns do an arrest.ust make background checks, first of all, if they identify the criminal

before they get the gun, then he will not have the gun. but you concentrate more on what .ind of arrests are being made if the proper background check is set up to where we identify these criminals before they get the gun, we would not have to worry so much about arresting them. just make sure they do not get the gun. host: ok, thanks. let's get a response. this, wet's agree to certainly need to keep felons from getting guns, and that is a reason for the background check. also, people who are mentally disturbed, we need to have a way to let law-abiding citizens have their second amendment rights and keep criminals and people with mental illnesses from getting guns. but if a felon comes in and is eligible to buy a gun and his

name comes up as a felon, he is committing a crime at that very moment, trying to buy a gun illegally, and he should be prosecuted. so i do not know why we cannot have both. host: republican, fort lauderdale, florida. , i am calling in because i have a question for the senator. marco that he applauded rubio this weekend. hi. he applauded the senator, marco rubio, and what i want to know to includebio's plan a comprehensive immigration reform -- i say this because right now cubans are arriving on our shores and automatically, within a few days, they are

moved to the front of the line. they get the legal documentation, which means a cuban can never be called illegal. they automatically get food stamps, but a care, housing stipend, at a cash stipend. so how can we say that people who have been waiting here, who have been living under the shadows for decades, should be pushed back onto five years when cubans get to move forward? know more clearly about the treatment of cuban refugees from the castro dictatorship in florida than i do. so i do not want to challenge you on the fact there. that would you say is absolutely correct, and i have no reason to doubt that. need to dotill something to enforce the border and to make sure that our system of employment is accurate so

that we can give the people that want to put folks to work the ability to know that they are hiring somebody that is legal? i think those two steps are pretty positive. so it may be that you read the proposal. i have not. as i understand it, there are summaries out. the actual bill will be cemented tomorrow. will be submitted tomorrow. but from what i hear is that senator rubio will get credit for leadership on a tough issue. i am going to look at it. i will not rule it out. i think rapidly he is right, and i am glad i thought of this -- he is right to say we need regular order. it does not need to come to the floor next week or next month. it needs to go to committees. committees need to submit amendments and have hearings. the caller from florida needs to be able to listen to those

hearings and see if this concern can be addressed. theseeciate the work of eight senators. there are 92 other senators now that need to look at it and 435 or so members of the house of representatives. let's go to committees, so we have gone away from in recent years, and harry reid's senate. host: another republican, manchester, maryland. ifler: i would like to know it has been considered as to whether the chinese are actually the ones arming north korea, that we are underestimating their nuclear capabilities and that they are actually the ones that are supplying them? and they have a stronger element than anybody gives them credit for and that all the pressure that is heating this up right now is because the

chinese are there. , i know that, in many ways, particularly with the non-nuclear weapons, north -- i do not have the intelligence information to be able to comment on that on television. further in the, "wall street journal" opinion piece in today's paper, it says that the director of national intelligence issued a statement telling everyone not to worry, so this is the position of the national intelligence director of the obama administration. a pentagon statement that it would be an accurate to suggest

that north korea has a developed and tested nuclear weapon. and in any case, he added the statement read by the member is not an intelligence community assessment. yeah, the piece is worth reading. we can form our own conclusions. but i think it is a very serious issue. regardless of who has helped them develop this capability, they have nuclear weapons at this point. they just do not have the deliverable capability. host: the senator is talking about something in the review and outlook section of the "wall street journal." u.s. officials could underestimating the nuclear threat. there are reports that former basketball player dennis rodman says he would like to go back to north korea. what is the pop-culture element of this? is there a danger? is this good for america to have a citizen going back and forth? is it bad for america?

does it matter? dennisi would hope that rodman wants to go back because -- since he was over there a few weeks ago, he has learned so much about the repression, the murder, the slavery, the absolute impoverishment of the entire country, so he wants to go back and not be quite as chu mmy. i would hope that would be the reason. host: he says there are no plans and we will just hang out and have some fun. isst: while mr. romney man having some fun with the north korean dictator, there are -- is having funan with the north korean dictator, there are families who have no hope of ever getting out of north korean prison camps. ofdreds of thousands dictators, fellow north koreans , who are absolutely in the most

debased situation than you can ever imagine. and i hope that if movie stars and athletes go over there, we can have some more openness, then so be it. but i hope they would at least read an article or two or a book or two. i read a book last year from the only person who has ever escaped from the north korean prison camp. and the information and there , and it is a short read before mr. dennis rodman goes back to north korea and goes to a nice basketball game with this dictator, it might not hurt him to read about the awful treatment that most north koreans received at the hands of this regime. ,ost: senator roger wicker republican of mississippi, thank you so much for joining. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the house will be back this afternoon, looking at a cybersecurity bill. looking at the potential cyber threat you control the house live here on c-span. gabbling and again at 2:00 p.m. the senate is back for discussion on judicial nominations. tomorrow, work on the gun- control bill. the amendment debate expected to take up much of the time this week. the senate is live here on c- span2. or hearing this week on the president's 2014 budget request which was released last week. eric shinseki will be testifying on the test senate side of capital on his department's budget. last week, he spoke to house members addressing a number of issues, including the backlog of benefit claims. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> to many veterans have to wait too long for the benefits they deserve. we know this is unacceptable and

nobody wants to turn the situation around more than the workers at our veterans benefits administration. 52% of them are veterans themselves. we are resolved to eliminate the claims backlog in 2015, when claims will be processed in 125 days or less, at a 90% accuracy level. our efforts mandates efforts in vba, people, processes, and technology. more than 2100 claims processes to improve the quality and productivity of claims decisions. more are being trained to complete more claims a day than their predecessors. processes. use of disability benefits, questionnaires, what we call the dbq's. online forms for submitting medical evidence has dropped times of medical exams and improved accuracy. there are now three lea for processing claims. express lane, 34%, for those

that will predictably takes less time. a special lane for special operations for about 10% of claims for unusual cases or those requiring special handling. and then the core lane, 60% of the processing. technology is critical to ending the backlog. the paper less processing system, the veterans' benefit management system, will be faster, improve access, drive automation and reduce variants. 30 regional offices now use vbms. all 60 will be on the program by the end of the year. >> secretary since jackie last week. you can see that hearing in our video library. today at 2:30 eastern he will testify before the senate veterans' affairs committee. a discussion now on improving government efficiency and saving more federal dollars from

today's "washington journal." host: we look at your money and how taxpayer dollars are spent on government programs. we will learn more today from nicole clowers. she is with the government accountability office where she serves as financial market and community investment director. last week released their third annual report on federal programs that are duplicated in the federal budget. why did you get this report. tell us more about it. guest: this the third report we have looked at duplication. we required a few years ago to study these issues and this year we put out a report where we identified 31 new areas that either we found evidence of duplication and fragmentation or opportunities for cost savings to. host: define for us the overlap of duplication and fragmentation.

guest: you can think of them in tiers. fragmentation is the lowest level where we have multiple agencies working on the same broad national interest. for example you might have multiple agencies in international affairs. then you would have overlap, which would have multiple agencies working in the same area but also providing the same type of activities or benefits to -- or similar types of benefits or activities to other populations. at the highest level you have duplication, which is multiple agencies providing the same benefits or activities to the same target or population. you can imagine there are a number of programs that would be fragmented on any type of issue that is broad and probably has multiple agencies working in it. the only included fragmented programs were refined attendance in the region where we find in efficiency. -- fragmented programs where we find inefficiency. we identified 17 programs that

we fou oadndums of duplication and allow fragmentation. the fragmentation we found was in the area of renewable energies. we did a study where we identified over 679 projects related to renewable energy such as by a few, solar, wind -- we found that is fragmented across 23 agencies and even over 100 sub-agencies that are working on this issue. it is fragmented and needs to be coordinated. host: how does that happen? does that start to occur over time? guest: these are long standing issues. the program develops over a number of years for policymakers see a potential need and want to do something about it. or they feel the program is not

working so create additional programs. it becomes an layering thing over time. it is made more problematic because there is not a comprehensive list of all federal programs just make it go check to see if a program already exists. if it exists we just make that better rather than creating a new one. in addition of the area of going back to renewable energies, this is what we wanted to include the fragmentation issues in the sunday -- in the study, we drove down projects and a dignified 82 wind projects. in that case we did find duplication and that there was federal government support for multiple sources going towards a single project. it was not clear that duplicates support was needed. host: you also look at a veteran health care. there is a backlog for the

services. what did you find in terms of veteran health care? guest: we found potential overlap between the dod and va health systems, which are two of the largest health care systems in the world. the cost over $100 billion together. these facilities are often located in the same areas. there is potential for collaboration providing similar services to beneficiaries. what we have found is often there is not a systematic approach at the federal level to identify potential -- or that collaboration breed a more systematic approach was taken -- or the collaboration. if a more systematic approach was taken we feel more money could be saved. host: a caller from union, washington on the republican side.

caller: i want to make a statement about fraud and abuse in the federal government briefly. i am a sub-contractor in a software project. i am in the mix of 80 employees, independent. we are working for fat -- working for a couple of projects for the federal government. in a nutshell on every product there are six to seven developers working on something that should take one developer or two developers six months or three months. the projects are lasting a year with seven developers and a project manager. probably three out of five of everyone working on a project is an h1b. i was wondering if there were any studies done on whistle- blowers. thank you. aest: this report examined duplication of fragmentation and instances of cost saving.

it is not its duty -- it does not address the issue of fraud in particular but we do have a series of reports on fraud across different federal governments. we include those types of issues in our high risk series where we identify the potential for fraud solutions for them. drug you also look at abuse programs. give us a sense of what you have found. guest: we found over 76 different types of drug abuse and prevention programs and they are fragmented across 16 agencies. they are overlapping in that they provide certain types of services or target certain types of populations. they are not adequately coordinated. better coordination among these programs could more efficiently use the resources that are provided, which are four $0.5 billion. -- which are $4.5 billion.

host: what did you find? guest: we have a large body on the defense issues. in past reports identified a number of dod related issues. this year one of the identified issues was combat related uniforms. military services have increased the number of camouflage print uniforms from two to seven in recent years. in doing so they have not taken a coordinated approach and it has been very fragmented. as a result they missed the potential opportunity to leverage their buying power. we estimate that they could save $82 million at least by federal court nation. it's beyond the money. we also find that the fragmented approach -- it is a safety issue for our military personnel who are often in joint combat zones. it is important that they have of consistent performance and

performance based uniforms in this situation. host: nikki clowers is our guest. let us hear from doug from severs the region from several cities -- from doug from silver cities, colorado. host: the whole issue of the a. responsibility goes to records. -- of va responsibility goes to records. there are stories about them being in the reviewer's office, back up to the floor. i think i heard that on c-span one morning. that is absolutely incompetent. i am a physician. i am in practice. we have been computerized for 20 years. we can get records from the hospital.

there is no reason there should be paid for charts in the va system. -- there should be paper charts in the va system. guest: i am not an expert in the issues but i know that we continue to look at this issue between electronic pressure to between the va and dod and whether there is opportunity for cooperation. host: as we mentioned the head of the veterans affairs will be testifying before congress today. he will appear before the senate veterans' affairs committee, talking about president's 2014 budget. you can find that live on c- span 3 at two o'clock three today. nick is on our independent line.

hello. muchr: i want to know how money we're spending on the part of home that security -- the department of paul led security. -- of homeland security. are they aren't to fight america? this is not for national defense or anything else. guest: you bring up a good point with sequestration. that is on the mind of a lot of people. that is one of the issues we point out in our report. theal pressures built in nation so that the need for us to make to the government is working efficiently and effectively and opportunities

to produce overlap and fragmentation is more important in terms of the fiscal environment. regarding d.h. s one of the issues we examine this year was their research and development program. what we found was the department as a whole does not have good visibility over all it is spending on research and development projects. as a result i cannot tell us how much they're spending on these projects. we found at least six different components that are providing grants in the research development area. one report a sample of those -- when we report the samples of those we found a different context. we made recommendations in that area to help the department did a better understanding of what they are spending on r&d. host: tamis joining us from west palm beach pam is joining us from west palm beach, florida.

host: i want to address your statement that there is no comprehensive list of government agencies. if that is true you can understand how all this fragmentation and overlap occurs. my first question is has such a list been developed and has there been some requirement going forward that before any program or money is spent we verify we do not have an agency or group performing the same service were you can coordinate. number two it is, as a taxpayer i have listened to this story more years than i care to repeal -- care to reveal. we have duplication and fragmentation and overlapping government agencies. theear about what

government is doing about it every year and every year the numbers are larger. is there really some end in sight to how this is corrected? overlap us found have or to petition are required to get it fixed. i will take my response of the air. thank you. guest: he brings of the number of good points. the first regarding the comprehensive list. today there is no comprehensive list of all federal programs. there is a requirement in the government's performance and results act, the moderation at devils past few years ago, with the office of management and budget began developing that list. they expect to put out the initial list in may of this year. in just the few weeks we will have initial list of 24 agencies and programs. it is a list inventory they plan to continue to update moving forward.

we look for to examining that list as it is developed. in terms of -- i agree this a longstanding issue where we are applying this report as unique and we are putting together a number of issues. gao has previously highlighted and continues to highlight problems across the government. you probably have heard a lot of these issues in the press. seeing say that we are progress. these reports bring increased attention to these issues. one thing we do is track the extent which government agencies take on the issues we identified. over the last three years identified 380 actions or recommendations that we want the congress or executive branch to take on to address issues

that we have found. we are finding that they are making progress in tackling these issues. we have developed a new website, you can find it at gao.gov, which contains all of the different recommendations we have made in these areas. a member of the public can go on and search by the public and see what type of progress has been made. host: nicole clowers is with the government accountability of this. she is a financial market andthe community investment director. federal news radio has a story from last week about your most recent report. it says it is the final chapter in a three-year study of congress -- a congressionally requested the gao studies.

guest: this third report marks the completion of a systematic government that we started three years ago. it was our way to break it up into managing pieces. this year we identified 131 new issues in next to replant to continue to look -- and the next year we plan to continue to look. as i mentioned before, in 2011 and 2012 at the five almost 300 actions that congress or the executive branch agencies could take to help identify and address this duplication or fragmentation. what we found is that almost 80% of those actions or recommendations have been addressed or partially addressed by the agencies. we will continue to report. host: renee is calling from

bellevue, nebraska on the independent line. toler: the comment i wanted make was made by the previous caller. it is the exact same thing. what nicole is stating about the overlap in services has existed for decades. it is nothing new and nothing that anyone in state or federal current has worked to in any degree. are if the recommendations made there has to be somebody who action takes those recommendations and follows through with cuts. since there is no master plan there is no one person responsible for doing that. what happens then? do you go to the individual people in the department and say, "let us look it what you

can trend." and are they going to take the recommendation heart and follow through? and who is accountable for seeing that all of this happens? there so fragmented that is no one person responsible or accountable for following through on any of these recommendations. ofst: you bring up a number good points. one of them was the need for sustained leadership of within congress and the executive branch to tackle these issues. as you say the work a lot and the overlap and duplication fragmentation occurred over a number of years. it is likely to take time to untangle the web the we have identified.

it will take leadership. we are highlighting an issue to keep the pressure on by reporting the progress that is being made. host: let us look to some of the cost-saving suggestions. you can expand on them for us. improving irs enforcement of tax laws is one of recommendation from the gao. also modifying the federal crop insurance program, cancel medicare advantage quality bonus payment programs. let us start with those three. where they significant. guest: the irs issue -- the amount of taxes versus taxes selected is a gap. we have highlighted this issue in each of our reports because gao believes it is important that we work to address the tax

fountain and reduce it. in this report will continue to identify additional opportunities for the irs to continue to take this tack steps. one of the issues we highlight this year is a return on investment. it is some whole idea. instead of focusing on everyone equally, focus on the issues that could yield the highest return. for example, focusing on audits from lower income tax returns to those of higher income tax returns. you get a better bang for the buck for example. and behind the plot -- and the high cost of crop insurance, it continues to increase every years -- to increase over the years. the subsidies the federal government provides to farmers to pay for their insurance premium -- unlike other federal programs of the farm programs

are more specific. it is not tied to the individual income of the farmer. the adjustments to the program to take into account those issues to save taxpayers $1.2 billion each year. in another issue that you highlight was that the medicare advantage is a bonus program. the medicare advantage is a health coverage program alternative from the traditional medicare program in which health coverage is provided to private plans but under contract with the centers for medicare and medicaid services. what we have found was cms -- we found flaws in the design so it makes measuring the

effectiveness of that program overall difficult. the bonuses that are being paid to encourage that performance are going to plans that just have an average performance. therefore we recommend cancelling the remaining year of that program, which was six two billion dollars. host: one other recommendation was modifying tobacco tax rates. why? guest: the tobacco tax rates have increased in recent years but have done so in -- they created a disparity across the different tobacco products and different types. as a result we have seen a marked shift on both the consumer examples and producers to lower the price of tobacco products. there is potential for revenues gained here if the taxes were equalized. we're talking in the neighborhood of between $600

million and a little over a billion dollars per year. host: let us hear from manchester, new jersey. marlene is a republican. good morning. caller: off of the last caller's back, there was a gentleman who is concerned about the contract situation that appear to be duplicates sales. they have two or more companies that they haven't approached to sell the same problem. initial contract is done to find out which one has the better approach. it is contracted it is contractually run at the same time to get the opportunities to find out what the bugs are. it may cost more money to run this with two or three more contracts at the same time.

the final contract will be done for projection. it would be much wiser to find out the buttocks in this initial phase -- to find out the bugs in this initial phase. with tens of millions of producing something that is not the best and results. host: let us get a response. guest: we have done work the looks of the importance of proper testing phase for any type of r&d initiative. there is a number of reports we issued on properly testing something before rolling out. this report related to contracting and increased use of strategic forcing which could save the government a good significant amount of money.

what strategic sourcing is is rather than letting individual contracts over multiple agencies or within departments looking for ways to leverage their buying power. by doing so we found an example of agencies. we are -- if they spend more expansively dick is a $4 million budget increasing that strategic force by 1%. host: we are talking about a government accountability of this report. it is looking at federal programs that are duplicated in other branches of government. nicole clowers is our guest with gao. here is it tweet coming in from moscow -- coming into us from rich.

is there any exchange in terms of the research? guest: we are frequently in contact with members of congress. the report is addressed to a number of congressional committees and also addressed to -- we talked to them about the issues that we are studying. i keep them -- host: let us hear from tom from eastlake, ohio. good morning. theer: i am a veteran from end of world war two but have not had to use the va until maybe 10 years ago. from what i see in the cleveland area -- they have improved their system. ism worried this directive

improved in a certain area. i have one further comment that the fact that we are in so many wars that our veterans and this system is so much more compromised than peace time. there are people like you who are trying to improve upon our fine system and are making strides and heading in the right direction. i appreciate c-span and very much. i watch it all the time. guest: we certainly appreciate the sentiments and i thank him

for his service. about his questions, whether this is isolated in duplication and fragmentation, unfortunately it is not. what we have found is these issues span across all governments. when you look at our ports you will see that we identify issues of duplication and fragmentation in all areas of the government. we now examined and identified issues in all 15 cabinets, and independent agencies. when you look at the actions that we identified four agencies to take to address these issues while they can stand the government, they are a focus -- the are focused in particular in certain departments such as health and human services and treasury. this represents 50% of the

budget. host: a question for gaz on twitter -- guest: sequestration at g a zero, we have been planning for these types of situations as soon as we heard about them. we have taken prudent steps to matching this effectively as we can. we are currently at the lowest levels in terms of our work force. as the consular general has said quality will be maintained. we will continue to work in a prudent manner. host: nicole clowers is a community investment director at t zero. chris is on the line. caller: i was wondering how the work around the dod budget?

how does that figure into your overall reference as far as the g a zero accounting of all the programs within the government. -- as far as the g a zero accounting of all of the government's rigid -- of all the gao programs within the government. guest: 1 of the areas of the side in terms of our review was intelligence. and we also made some decisions in terms of dollar threshold's. anything under $10 million we have taken off the table for now. that does not mean in the future we will not include those types of issues. we started with the budget, looked across the budget, our rate them across arrayed budget

functions -- arrayed them across a raid but it functions. be a raid that information across the department which started to indicate where there is potential overlap and fragmentation our institutional knowledge help some programs to identify the issue. host: tell us about your process and where you started how you figure out some of the overlap. you started out by talking about how you look at fragmentation overlap and duplication. guest: it is a very big product for the office of the past three years. i think every group within gao has produced a report. pullve been able to together a number of reports the issue of the last decade or so. we have been highlighting these

issues of overlap fragmentation and duplication but we did was hold them together and put them in one place for policymakers to consider. in 2012 or 2013 to help organize our work, we spend a systematic approach where we started with a budget, a rate that information across the agencies. by doing that in sort of graphic sense we can check to see whether there is tensions of fragmentation. we took budget documents, documents, went out into the field, interviewed people, went out and observe the progress of actions to further conduct our work on these issues. host: freeport, florida. alex -- go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a couple of questions for nicole clowers.

the two undercover any kind of underhanded doings in your research? -- did you uncover any kind of underhand dealings in your research? to do research the fed or u.s. treasury? do you have one big cumulative number of how much could be saved if the government took your suggestions? host: i will start with your last question first. guest: in terms of savings, we addressed the issues we found, the government has saved tens of billions of dollars each year. we provide that information in a magnitude order because in some cases we are not able to get good the funding information from the federal agencies on the amount of spending for certain programs. we are able to provide a specific number or a range. we are confident that at

minimum tens of billions of dollars would be saved. host: he asked about a treasury department and the fed. guest: 1 of the issues we included was the asset forfeiture program. it was administered both by the department of justice and treasury, which is where they seized different assets that are involved in criminal activities. and that we cited potential overlap program. we found facilities closely located together within 20 miles and they will provide better cooperation. there's potential for savings. host: bill for massachusetts -- a democrat caller:. thank you for taking my call. i watched c-span all the time and i also watched the senate and house and have a pretty good idea of what they are doing up there. my question is i always see

senator cauldron always marching out these documents from europe and telling us how much we are having duplication of different positions and different jobs and fundings. can you answer that question -- is what he is saying accurate? host: senator coper uses heavy use of our words. i've seen the presentation as well were see " -- where he will present the information on the floor. host: republican call-up caller:. has gao looked at the impact of the sequestered by the sense of by the time you get through everything you will actually be losing money?

in the dod you cannot do any long-range planning or coordinate. if we get under international stress we're going have to actually come back and redo things in a very efficient and costly matter. guest: we have work that is just beginning to look at sequestration and i imagine that we will get additional requests to examine those issues. in terms of this report -- what this report does highlight potential for savings, which is especially important in today's's fiscal environment. host: this information is available on-line. is it in a digestible format? guest: it is. we have made it as user-friendly as possible. you can go to gao.gov and you will find a link there. you will be able to see the various reports and testing

that we have seen on this. an action trecker will allow the public and policymakers to identify the issues that they are interested in, read about problems we described in our report. host: the report is from the to report. nicole clower, thank you for joining us this morning. >> the u.s. house gavels in for the this would work in about 20 minutes. coming up this week, cybersecurity bill that encourages companies to share information about potential cyber threats with each other and the federal government.

today's suspension bill does with taxes and the government accountability office. the u.s. senate cavils in this afternoon at about the same time, 2:00 p.m. eastern, for general speeches and a debate on judicial nomination. tomorrow, work is underway on the gun-control bill with amendment debate expected to take much of the debate. final passage could take place over the next few weeks. once again, the house coming in at 2:00 eastern. right now, your phone calls from this morning's washington journal. host: year is the wall street journal cover potential immigration bill. expectancy this. you can see images of senator rubio on a variety of shows, including cbs, fox, abc, nbc. he kicked up his hard sell for

the immigration overhaul has come to a seller republicans on sunday with expected unveiling of legislation he has helped representative. pitchinge key to immigration plan to conservative lawmakers. "the wall street journal" says the possible 2016 contender focused on the bills border security measures and hurdles that immigrants would need to clear before gaining citizenship. those components could make the broad legislation easier to swallow for some republicans who worry that a warning citizenship to people in the u.s. illegally would amount to amnesty. we will hear from the senator himself. here are some segments of what he had to say. details of what he is posing as well as what others are shaping up. we want to take a look at some more of the stories. what is going to be in the bill? a bill to prevent immigration laws including giving millions of undocumented immigrants in

the country a pathway to citizenship is expected to be introduced in the senate this week. that is from "bloomberg." the bill would be subject to hearings and negotiations as lawmakers and president barack obama's administration attempt to craft a major overhaul of u.s. immigration laws for the decades. here to tell us more about the immigration bill is -- a reporter from politico. talk to us about any sense of a time line and what we may see and fail regarding immigration. thisr: there's a chance bill could be revealed as early as tuesday. there is always a lot of opposition to this bill, which would provide a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million people in this country who came illegally.

senator mark rubio and the gang of eight do have a tough road ahead. republicans are very critical. they believe the path to citizenship is a deal breaker. the want to see a bill that is strictly focused on the border security first. many republicans do not believe that is the case. mark rubio said or security is a top focus. >> immigration not the only thing. we are hearing about gun control. was the game plan now? there is the bill on the floor. what might we see? people wally had keep like senator susan collins saying they would vote for the compromise, people tell us they are not entirely sure if this bill has enough backing behind it. a representative believes it will be very slow.

there are a lot of heavy hitters such as the national rifle association raid began -- national rifle association weighing in. host: we also had the president unveiled his 2014 but last week. will we hear a conversation about budgeting? caller: there always will be. republicans do not believe the budget unveiled and the white house last week represents a compromise. the president is not dealing with in the confines of sequestration. many folks who are in charge are coming out to defend the 2014 budget. gun-control issues are not going away, either. host: what else are you watching?

caller: all eyes are really on the transition to 2014 when american forces start to get out of town -- when american forces get out of afghanistan. dearest love threat of further missile test from north korea. john kerry is in south korea this week. host: we also will see the head of the veterans affairs testify for the senate veterans' affairs committee. that is at 2:30 this afternoon why is that significant? caller: he has been under fire from the recent backlog of disability. they say he has not done enough

to make sure the men and women who served this country are getting the disability claims money they need to be cared for. a lot of congressmen will faceup -- allow congressmen will show opposition. it is important to engage in a public dialogue with him. host: juana summers, thank you so much for giving us a sense someone to watch this week in congress. caller: law. host: there is a lot going on including a potential immigration bill. michael rubio hit the sunday talk shows. let us take a listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> they don't get anything. what is the opportunity to apply for. the staff still qualify for tweet have to pass a background check, a registration fee, pay a fine, and then they have to renew it. this is a renewal thing.

they do not qualify for any federal benefits. no federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no obama care. if they have to prove they are gainfully employed. they have to be able to support themselves of the never become a public charge. these are all the things we it would have to do to just keep that status. it will have to stay in that status until at least 10 years in lapses. all of that has to happen. the only thing they get is the chance to apply for a green card via legal immigration system. we do not award anything to anyone. host: senator mark rubio on fox news. we like to get your reaction to the news that an immigration bill is expected in the senate this week. rina is our first caller on a are independent line. caller: good morning. i live in los angeles. i have seen the face of immigration here. it is always the republicans,

what the republicans do not want. they never have asked us what we want. i know how difficult it is for the americans -- for african americans to get a job. most of the jobs they have -- president at the because this seems to be a tough issue to him. americansu gonna get back to work on america is going to have to start competing with illegal immigrants to get jobs? i think these people need to be deported. this country can do basically whatever they want to do. i am really disappointed and i am seen the effects of it in our schools. our schools are overcrowded. thatget free health care we are paying for. i do not think they're being realistic.

they never asked is how we feel about it. it is all political to me. thank you for letting me comment. host: here is what joseph rights on twitter -- -- george in florida. host: where you live? caller: horse country. it is a nice town. host: what are your thoughts on the immigration bill? dider: they have no way checking thousands of people who came here.

he was no communication between a them and other countries. at the same time so many people walk from canada into the united states. i remember having of goals that did that. term it is the spanish that protects them. i am a service connected vietnam veteran. it took me years to find hospital records. you lose the freedom of information act. after 35 years of getting my records i commend 12 days. thank you very much. host: as we mentioned that trend -- the secretary of veterans affairs will be testifying this afternoon. that is at 2:30. 2014ll be talking about

budget. we also to expect senators to ask him questions about the backlog of cases. here is the headline in the washington times. matt from aldrich, new jersey, an independent, what you think? >> just want to say that any attempt to restrict immigration at this point it's kind of fuel.

if you look at the democratic population in 2015. united states is quick to be left behind. the competition for resources like water, clean energy, food, etc. is going to be so keen from countries like china and india that we are going to need all of the people we can get in this country to continue to compete with those countries. those resources will go to the people who can take them or get them through either buying them or for taking them by force. the united states is going to have to open up its borders and let as many people in in order to continue to compete. this book of the population demographics for the year 2015. the scare the out of me. host: did you hear senator

rubio yesterday? there are elements of this proposal -- caller: the thing about his proposal is it still restrict people who want to come to this country from coming to this country for legitimate reasons. i think open borders is the only way we are, to resolve some of the issues that we are going to encounter in terms of population and competition for things like natural resources in the year 2015. that is only 35 years away. if you think about 35 years ago, it was 1967. think about all the things that have evolved since 1967 in terms of world population and competition. all of the difficulties that have evolved -- just look at oil. host: let us take a listen to his own words -- senator rubio had a say in his own words.

[video clip] >> this is not amnesty. amnesty says do it illegally. under the existing law today, if you are legally in the that is you're not prohibited from getting a green card and ultimately getting citizenship. the only thing is is you have to go at your country and wait 10 years. all we're saying is we could create an alternative to that. youou want to stay here will have to stay more than 10 years, you'll have to pay the fine, pay the registration fee, he will not qualify for any federal benefits. after that you will not be able to apply for anything until the enforcement mechanism are in place. it would be cheaper for people to go home and wait 10 years been through this process that i've outlined. that is why it is not amnesty. you have to qualify and apply for it. that is the key distinction.

if somehow being in this country illegally is somehow cheaper, easier, and quicker, i would not support that. i have not support certain efforts in the past. host: senate to repeal on fox news sunday. bloomberg news reports it will take 10 years for undocumented immigrants currently in the u.s. to apply for lawful residency or a green card. a series of trigger's must be met before they can begin applying for green cards, including tougher border security and the creation of a nationwide worker verification system. they must also create an electronic system to verify whether foreigners have overstayed their visas. art is our next caller in new orleans. caller: good morning.

close been paying attention to what marco rubio is saying. he is no more than a republican talking point. florida is not the only place that republicans are trying to win. what about these other parts in the united states? california, washington state, maine, why would they identify the hispanics as a burden on our country when people cannot walking from a communist country? tot: there is talk for what do about what people -- there is talk about what to do when people overstay their visas. what do you think about that? caller: that would be great. rubiohere's what senator says, the government must

create an electronic system to verify whether foreigners have overstayed their visas. caller: how can my foreigners use someone else's social security numbers and no one picks up on that? this whole thing is something the republicans have boxed and and they are using it trigger mechanism to win votes. i do not go along with anything more rubio has say it. said. more information from bloomberg news about a temporary permit --

clara from mountain view, wyoming -- independent caller. host: thank you for taking my call. i believe there are a few drawing cards or holding cards that have not been put into this bill that i think absolutely should be there. host: like what? caller: first off their our anger babies. this has already served the original purpose. i think that should be repealed. i believe chain migration should be repealed if these people want their families. stay with their families are, cannot bring them in here on us. and i do not believe that individual tax identification

numbers -- i think that should be repealed. i believe marker rupiah mention that he didn't exactly say "mandatory," but i believe it should be mandatory. >> immigration the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you that you give us a

share in your creative work, having endowed with each unique and important talents. on this day we ask your blessing on the men and women of the people's house who have been entrusted with the care of this great nation's people. because of the great blessings you have bestowed on our nation, may we embrace the opportunity to build a better world beyond our borders as well. may all that we do this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery,

please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, today is tax day. this year millions of americans spent more time than ever preparing their taxes as a result of obamacare's 21 new tax increases which added up to more than $1 trillion, destroying jobs. the tax code is extremely complex with over four million

words and is comprised of over 47,000 pages. house republicans understand we need to reform the tax code to make it more fair and simple. our budget proposal, the path to prosperity, not only repeals obamacare and the job-destroying taxes with it, it reforms our tax code, encouraging new jobs for small businesses. by simplifying the tax code, lowering rates, small businesses will begin hiring again and increase wages for american workers. the presidential and senate budget plans keep obamacare taxes in place and advocate for billions in more -- new taxes, raising taxes takes money from small businesses and destroy jobs. i encourage the senate and the president to begin working with house republicans to clean up the tax code rather than increasing regulation and taxes that will destroy jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to remember the tragic shooting of virginia tech. mr. tierney: they lost their lives. one of those students was ross who lived in my district. he was loved by his family and friends and is remembered by countless more. i've had the honor to talk with his mother, lynette, and has seen firsthand how she's turned her sorrow into action, working to prevent tragedies and protect all of our children, our sons and daughters. and she's not alone. in recent months we've seen the strength of moms and dads across the country joining to demand action, to ensure that congress passes responsible legislation to reduce gun violence. in my district alone, some 500

people mountain last few days have joined me online to demand action on commonsense legislation. through my website, facebook and twitter, hundreds of parents and grandparents and students have added their names to the hundreds of thousands of voices across the country calling on speaker boehner to bring legislation to the floor on gun violence. we all deserve a vote. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week is hardworking americans across the country submit their tax returns, we are all reminded of the heavy burden placed upon all taxpayers by our country's broken tax system, like a snowball rolling down a hill, the united states tax code has

grown and resulted in an avalanche of overregulating coming down on the heads of american taxpayers. there have been over 4,400 changes to the tax code in the last duck'd alone. that averages to more than one per day. is it any surprise then that the united states has more tax preparers than we do firefighters and police officers sbind. the house republicans have a plan. we stand committed to fundamental comprehensive tax reform that makes our tax code fairer and simpler for all americans. a tax code that makes our corporations more competitive, that will stop the hemorrhaging of american jobs overseas and bring jobs back to our shores. tax reform would increase hardworking americans' take-home peso they have more money to live on instead of the government having -- take-home

pay so they have more money to live on instead of the government having it. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, a few years ago the first school to offer secondary education in the northern mariana islands senior habo junior high school, commander in chief of the pacific fleet. in 1969 when a senior high school opened it was shordened to habo junior high school. but the school expanded. it now has the second largest student body serving nearly 1,200 young scholars. it extended to an alternative

school, a performing arts building. the motto is make every day the est. they have theater competitions, spelling bees and academic challenge bowls. from humble beginnings to 1949 ntil this day, they have the confidence that the school will distinguish itself in the years to come. congratulations and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the senate's immigration proposal contains a fatal flaw. it legalizes almost everyone in the country illegally, amnesty, before it secures the border. as a result, the senate proposal issues an open

invitation to enter the country illegally. millions more will do so before the border is secure. the senate proposal would dramatically increase illegal immigration. the nonpartisan government accounting office found that 6% of the u.s.-mexico border is under full control of the border patrol, and 40% of all illegally immigrants is visa overstayers. yet it legalizes almost everyone in the country before a system is set up to identify the visa overstayers. the senate proposal amounts to amnesty first, border security later, if ever. it is fatally flawed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> it's that time of year again. folks back in my district and all across america have had to part ways with our hard-earned money as we send our taxes off to washington. how long did it take you to figure out the complicated tax forms just to file your return? it takes the average american 13 hours, not the best use of your time, is it? but then it's not hard to imagine that our tax code contains over 70,000 of pages of regulations. mr. wenstrup: that's not the tax system our fellow americans deserve. we need a tax code that's fairer and simpler for everyone, families, students, business owners and all hardworking taxpayers. that's the kind of comprehensive tax reform that house republicans want to enact. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house

for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. national taxpayer advocate nina e. olson lists, quote, complexity in the tax code, end quote, as the number one most serious problem facing taxpayers. at about four million words in length, it's not hard to see why. our tax code is four times wordier than the bible, minus the grace and mercy. it's so complex and intimidating that many pay good money just tos have someone tell them how much the federal government is going to take on them. they spend more on taxes than food, clothing and housing combined. a fairer, simpler tax code will help families save more and allow them to create new jobs. need a e that doesn't

legal team is the kind of reform we're working in the u.s. house of representatives. it will make a difference in the lives of taxpayers and that's what this congress should strive toward. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately >> while we wait a discussion on cuts to entitlement programs

from today's "washington journal." host: adam green is our guest. thank you for being here. >> thank you. host: tell whause your group is about. uest: we have about million members. we have 30 we helped elect this past cycle. our basic theory is if we work with people on the campaign trail. build their trust and then elect them to office, we have great partners once they are in washington, d.c. and work around issues like healthcare reform and the recent social security stuff. host: we saw the president obama budget last week. here is the story from plilt coe it looks at what your

response is on the budget. democratic law makers who back cuts to entitlement programs. they could face a challenge from the left in the next election. but it's unclear how serious the threat is. how do you want to see members of congress come down on snit guest: maybe it's unclear to politico. you can't call yourself a democrat and cut benefits. we are cutting into the core of the democratic and progressive legacy and that is unacceptable. if you believe in a social safety net and that the role of government is to help people, we can't cuts is benefits. that's why organizations are making clear from the start if democrats support the president's plan to cut benefits we will support primary candidates. we've asked our members would

you be willing to step up and run for office if your representative voted for benefit cuts and 1 people have said yes. over 700 of those in democratic districts, business owners, school board members. we will get into the recruiting business no matter what the encycle. if we have to, we are totally willing to go there in terms of primaries. host: if you run a more liberal candidate and then it gets to the general, are you concerned about losing seats that democrats now hold? guest: no, we are not. we never ask people to take positions outside of what is popular in their district. politicians in d.c. aren't there on position that is are popular back home. so nothing, i can't think of a single thing that is more

popular back home thans is. if we have a democrat willing to cut social security benefits they will be much more prone to lose. if we have a strong person for a defense of theps programs that will be wildly popular which especially in states where there are conservative voters, that is key for democrats. we will support the progressive and more winning candidates if we get involved in primaries. > here are the mubs to call. host: let's thereon president obama last week unveiling his bunth and talking about what he sees as the need to make modest cuts to medicare in order to save the program. >> both parties agree the need

to care for our aging nation is the single biggest driver. the truth is for those who like me deeply tpwhreeve our social insurance programs that it's one of the core things our government needs to do. if we want to keep medicare working like it has, then we're going to have to make some changes. but they don't have to be drastic ones. and instead of making drastic ones later, what we should be oing is making some manageable ones now. host: what's your response to the president saying you have to make some duties can you tell us to save it? guest: it's wrong. saying in order to prevent future cuts we have to make cuts now is weird.

it's horrible policy. people have stories about what social security and medicare mean to them. last week we talked to someone named sam who after paying all his bills for the month had $3.71 in his bank account. this isn't a math problem or a balance sheet. these are real lives. for people like sam there is nothing left to cut. stop picking on grandparents which we see corporations paying no taxes and the rich paying less than their fair share. the millionaires tax never gets put in the bummingt of the president. real corporate reform that would have wall street pay their fair share is never in the president's budget but he's willing to ask our grand foornts pay more. it's wrong. politically it would be devastating for democrats to

support this tpwhunlt 2014 if hey do go there. let's take a look at a twit pic. you can't call yourself a democrat and support social security cuts. guest: yes. there is a lot of room for compromise on lots of issues but if a democrat is willing to take on this issue, they shouldn't call themselves a democrat, they should be on the republican line. we do our homework. we've pulled kentucky, we've pulled ohio and montgomery and all these red states when you ask the social security question in order to reduce the deficit, would you be willing to cut social security benefits. 75% say no, 15% yes and 10% undecide. if democrats can't be there on

this popular of an issue, then we can replace them. host: liberal law pakers see an unlikely ally in cuts. their fiercest political enemies to prevent cuts from gaining ground. is there an unusual aligns here? guest: i wouldn't call it an aligns. the tea party is so creas they blow up every deal they put forward. even when he puts forward a bad deal. we dodged a bullet in december when it looked like social security cuts would pass. thankfully the tea party was so nuts they balked it. plan b is working with some greats in congress who started this letter that's called the gray son letter which says we will vote against any and every

cut to social security, medicaid and medicare benefits. it's not a nedge any way. it's the strongest language. they'll never get over a dozen. we are approaching 40 members in congress who say we will make this promise to our constituents. no is at a website called benefits cuts.com. host: one of our followers ite this is -- guest: is debt moral? that's an interesting question. but it's immoral for us to use this time we have to let the rich not pay their fair share or corporations not pay their fair share and pass that on to children. it's immoral to go as long as we have this w this growing

disparity of wealth in our country and do nothing about it and the only solution to cut benefits for wid dose and grandparents. right now in congress the congresswoman from illinois has a millionaires tax. we have to go beyond the clinton era of tax rates and we're going to ask people making over a million dollars 46%. y 45%, $10 if you are lucky enough to make a billion dollars a year in income 50%. no one talks about that. if that was passed that would put a trillion extra dollars on the table. that would mean we could take social security benefits off the table. there are multiple ways to skin this cat and we approach the one that is more popular with

voters, not asking this guy with $3.71 left in his bank account to pay more. host: the numbers you outlined are what you would stand by? guest: absolutely. then there are other tax proposals. it's the gambling tax. that would raise a ton of money. a lot of people pay no taxes. another tax re230r78 woultm would be asking people like mitt romney who is paying about 14% orless in taxes as we pay a lot more than that asking those people to stop hiding mind loopholes. if we do these things we don't have to cut benefits for our fwrand parents and veterans. if they won't stand blind that principle, they shouldn't call themselves democrats.

host: his past sheerns includes director of strategic communications and civic communications director of moveon.org. he's also served as the press secretary for the democratic committee in cspan.org and communications director for the new jersey democratic party ack in 2003, 2004. let's hear from a democratic caller now. caller: good mornings. i had the pleasure of calling in while you were appearing on a c-span program to thank you for the wonderful work you do renting progressives. thank you again, sir. you are so right on. the american public needs to realize that corporate tax rates and the tax rates on the wealthy are the lowest that they've been in 60 years. this needs to be changed.

it needs to be changed dramatically. and certainly not on the backs of the working poor and the elderly. i can't thank you enough for what you are doing. you reiterate exactly what the journalist bartlett and steel said when he was quoted on c-span on a q & a program. he said if you hear any politician say at any time that earned benefits programs, not entitlement but earned benefits program need to be chipped away to solve this deficit, don't vote for them. host: before we let you go, adam talked about getting members of the committee to run for office locally. what are you doing in terms of sflovement your community? caller: i make sure i call the white house number every chance i get. they get tired of me because

i'm calling and letting them know what i feel about whatever subject is at hand. i'm in customer service. anybody that talks about politics, i love becoming engaged in that. and as far as i write letters to newspapers. i'm kind of off the -- they don't publish a whole lot of what i have to say because i'm a little bit too progressive. we have a newspaper here in town that is solidly right leaning so they don't publish a lot of what i say. but i do what i can and i call the white house as often as possible. guest: thank you again. it's inspiring to hear from people like you. there is a gap in those paying attention in our political dialogue and those who are taking action. it's great you are writing letters and making phone calls. i hope you have gone to our website bold doctors

progressive.org because we need more people like you. we push the reset button on the conversation we are having in washington. we are playing within a right wing frame that check mates the public that the only thing to do is ask wid dose and grand foornt absorb more pain. er the last semple decades wealth disparity has gone -- has increased and gone out of control. we pushed a reset button, make these facts clear and put some items on the table that aren't being discussed, like asking wall street and the corporations to pay their fair share. it's members of you pressuring the white house will get it done. ost:

>> we go live now to capitol is going to inseki estify about the 2014 budget request. we expect amongst the topics to be the va's goal of clearing the backlog question. all of its original f office was will be using computerizeds systems to process requests by the end of the year. we'll watch live now here on c-span.

>> we have a lot of work. let's get hearing under way. i want to welcome tonche this afternoon's hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget and the fiscal year 2015 appropriations request for the department of veteran affairs. earlier this-year, we heard from nearly all of the veteran's service organizations. these groups shared with us their priorities which tresket needs of the men and women who have served our country. i want to thank all of the service organizations not only for their important testimony, but for the great work they do every single day protecting the

interest of america's veterans. if there is anything that many of us have learned in recent years, it is that the real cost of war is far, far greater than simply paying for the tanks and guns and planes and the manpower to fight those wars. i believe that we now understand more fully than we have in the past that soldiers who come home from war are often very different people than when they went. we now understand that the cost of war includes significant care not only for those who lost their legs and their arms and their eyesight, but for those who came home with what we now call the invisible wounds of war. most recently this includes the tens and tens of thousands of brave soldiers who returned om iraq and afghanistan with

brain injury and traumatic post disorder. so while the budget we discuss today is a complicated document with a whole lot of numbers, it call comes down to how the people of our country through their government honor their commitments to those who have sacrificed so much and to the spouse and children who have already sacrificed. in their testimonies the v.f.o.'s discussed important and positive thanges that the va does. sometimes we overlook that. in terms of healthcare, in a nation with over 45 million people lacking any health insurance and at a time when the cost of healthcare in this country is far higher than in any other country on earth, the

va is recognized as providing excellent healthcare in a cost effective way to those who have served our country. like every other healthcare organization the va can do better and must do better. but everyone will agree the va has come a very long way in the last 20 to 30 years in terms of healthcare. another issue, homelessness. at a time when too many americans and people in my home state of vermont are sleeping in the street and their cars, the va has undertaken an effort to significantly reduce the number of homeless veterans in our country. since 2009 there has been a 17% decline in veteran homelessness despite the tough economy. that's the good news. the bad news is there were still more than 62,000 homeless veterans in january of 2012.

the va must sustain its positive efforts in combating veteran homelessness. progress is being made, more must be done. through its world class research program, the va is making advances in healthcare not only for veterans but for the entire country. that progress must continue. didth v.f.o.'s also highlighted the silingt challenges and problems that continue to confront veterans of all generations. and i agree with many of their concerns. among many other issues they spoke of the obligation to address the tragic number of service member and veteran suicides. this is a horrendous tragedy, it's a tough issue we have to address it. further the need to accelerate the transformation claims

system in order to deal with the unacceptable long delays we are now seeing and the huge backlog in cases f. there is any issue veterans are concerned about, it is that issue and i share that concern. while the va is now processing for more claims than ever before, the move to a paperless and efficient system must be completed on schedule and i know we will be discussing that issue during this hearing. further, the responsibility to make smart investments in infrastructure and information technology systems to insure that the va can don't provide the care and benefits veterans have earned is a major issue. this means, this again is a huge issue which this committee will devil into, a significant improvement between the relationship between the va and the department of defense. we may be dealing with two

separate agencies but we are dealing with one human being who goes from the d.o.d. into the va. thinkable year's budget question especially within the constraints is a commitment by this administration to providing care to these veterans and families they deserve. the budget question is $154 llion, $86.1 for mandatory sbilements. increase of 2% last year's enacted amount. while the va budget presented by the administration is a strong one and i applaud the president for that, i remain deeply disappointed that the white house included in their budget request the so-called

chain c.p.i. switching to a chain c.p.i. would mean major cuts in social security and the benefits veterans receive. veterans who started receiving veteran disability benefits at age 30 would have their ben filts reduced by $1425 dollars t age 25, del 2'1" dollars and year by over $3,000 a age 65. tens of thousands of dollars in their lifetime. this is uncoshesable and i will do all i can to prevent these cuts from taking place. when it comes to the issue of funding for suicide prevention. the budget is literally a matter of life or death. insuring timely access to high quality mental healthcare is critical for our veterans and

loved once. to that end i am pleased to see they call for a 7.2 increase in funding for mental health. at our last hearing when we discussed the issue of mental health and suicide, dr. testified the va is on track to hire the 1600 commissions called for the in the executive order by the deadline of august 30. i note the va has hired just 47 clinicians in the two months previous to that hearing. i understand va must ensure they are highing high quality clinicians but they must pick up the pace of hiring if they plan to meet that goal by june of this year. when hiring these clinicians the va must recognize individuals respond different to different treatments and not

all veterans respond well to traditional they are piss. the issue of overmedication of veterans has been raised seeking mental health treatment. i share that concern as do many americans. i also know the many veterans respond positively to alternative medicine. as the name indicates such treatments which include ackpuckure, meditation, chiropractic care and yoga can be provided in conjunction with traditional care or stand alone. i worry that enter has not penetrated all levels of the va health care sment. va must do a better job to make sure these therapies are available to all interested veterans. in terms of the claims backlog, the fact that nearly 70% of

claims are pending longer than 125 days is completely unacceptable. as is the fact that it took on average 287 days to complete a compensation rating claim in 2012. the inability to provide compensation benefits in a timely manner tarnishes va's reputation among the very population it sunches. i never want a veteran's negative experience with a claims system to prevent him or her from seeking mental healthcare or to help in battling homelessness. i see your testimony reit rates the goal of the bank backlog by 2015. va has set ambitious goals and has been working hard to transform the system. i think we can all agree that the va took too long to start transforming itself from a

paper based to electronic system. clearly that effort should have begun a decade ago or longer and not just four years ago. yet, despite these facts, one must certainly understand how it is difficult for the average person to believe va is making progress when we continue to long wait ceptably imes faced by veterans and their survivors. veterans and their survivors need to hear about how va plans to accomplish their goals and i look forward to working with you to establish benchmark that is allow us to see the progress or lack of progress va is making in this vitally important area. va must be able to construct' repair or lease the

infrastructure necessary to provide the high quality veterans deserve. the president's request has been out of touch with realities on the ground. adequate funding must be a critical part of the discussion on providing quality healthcare. the budget request includes another 13 major leases but does not include full cost of thorsing these leases. this is an issue i would like to address later today. lastly, let me repeat, the importance of information technology cannot be understated as va seeks to deliver the care and benefits that our veterans deserve in a more efficient and effective way. i think the bottom line there is there must be much better corporation between the d.o.d. and the va.

let me conclude my remarks by thanking the secretary and his staff for being with us today. the issues we are going over is of enormous importance to veterans and the american people and i look forward to a very productive hearing. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and secretary shinseki welcome. thank you for that very thorough opening statement. as the chairman indicated, we'll be discussing the president's budget request for the department of veteran's affairs for 20 14. it's important we provide adequate funding for the va so that all veterans receive the benefits and care they earn and deserve. yet along with that funding, we must conduct vigorous oversight to make sure programs are working properly and lead to better out comes for veterans, their families and their

survivors. yet in looking over the budget request, the lack of consistent predictions and a lack of transparency lead me to question if va stewardship of taxpayer money is leading to better out comes. first the va has been inconsistent with its workload projections. these changing projections mask whether they have the backlog situation under control and second the unclear accounting practices make it difficult for to us conduct the necessary oversight into these programs. regarding claims processing, we all know that the backlog and delays have gotten worse over the past four years even though the va has hired more staff and spent millions on i.t. today we will again hear va assure us despite these trend this situation will be

completely under control by 2015. but in my view, this budget provide one more reason to seriously question those assurances. for starters the budget reflects that in 2013 and 2014 va will receive 2.6 claims and decide 2 pnt 5 million. but in the plan for eliminating the backlog that was sent to congress less than three months ago. va projecting out put of 2.8 million during those years. that means they've already lower out put expectations by 12%. as for receipts, they estimated they would take in 2.7 million claims this year and next year combined. but va acknowledged it could receive as many as 4740,000 more claims. the va will have even lower

receipts in those years than the backlog plan estimated. the budget also reflected that incoming claims will don't exceed out put during this year and next year which means that the number of pending clasmse will continue to grow. in fact va now projects it will have an inventory of 960,000 claims at the end of 2014, about 100,000 more than are pending today. compare that with va's backlog plan which predicted that the decisions without out pace claims reit next year and as a result the level of claims would drop to less than 800,000. finally it projects that no more than 40% of claims will be pending long enough this year and in 2014 to be considered pa backlog even though 70% of claims are currently boc

logged. on the other hand va's strategic plan showed a backlog of 68% this year and 57% next year just throw months ago. even if va has updated these estimates based on more recent data, it's difficult to understand how these projections could change so dramatically in less than 12 weeks. this makes it extremely difficult to believe va has the backlog situation under control. asia said earlier, another area for me is the ack by gutety of the i.t. projects that are becoming the backbone at va offices. currently va has several i.t. projects vite toll providing benefits and services to our veterans. the president's request the

$360 over ested a br last year. first o.i.t. requested $352 million for the i.p.o. for development activities of the i.e.h.r. and v.l.e.r. how much of this money will be spent on new strategy of quick wins versus the operating capabilities at two sights is a question. second according to the budget justifications the allocation for vbms development is roughly $33 million which would be a 71 million decrease from f.y.o.-12. however we are being told there is another $50 mm in this

budget. finally in my question from last year's bummingt hearing i asked about the cost of new patient scheduling system. va's response stated that they planned to have a new patient scheduling system. plan to have a life cycle cost estimate completed by january 2013. as of today this has yet to be submitted to my office. since the 2014 budget request has a $30 million allocation for the development of a new scheduling package, i wonder if the life cycle cost analysis has now been completed. this unclear nature of the i.t. budget stand in the way of congress's ability to conduct effective oversight in these programs, to make sure they are working properly and more importantly meeting their mile stones. unfortunately these inconsistent projections is becoming the standard operating

procedure at va which is even more trouble ling when it's our nation's veterans that stand to lose the most. mr. chairman, i thank you and look forward to spending some time with our panel today. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i welcome general shinseki and his staff as we all do. i just want to recount to my colleagues that i spent a very very long time last week talking with general shinseki bout how one takes a 220,000 person agency and gets it to be responsive on all kinds of different issues, many of which have been mentioned today and some more which i'll mention. and the general actually done a lot of work on management over the course of his life and

training. broke described how he the 220,000 down into blocks and then blocks within blocks, all of them to be held accountable, all of them evaluating themselves and being evaluated. and the reason i say this is because i really don't know of y job which has such a human poignancy to it in its work and yet has complexity and bulk at the threlveva has. i think you are a sup purk general of that va. i just wanted to say that. when we talk about claims and the rest of it, you are really working at it and i believe that. does that give veterans enough comfort? no. but everything in life is a process and the process is

either pushed from above or it's not. and as you and i discussed, general, a number of years ago, all of a sudden the va medically went from a not very good place to a really good place. and we both at the same time said kent kaiser. kent had been sitting out in that row for years. i knew his position. i had no idea until he left the theasket he had and which lasts today. i don't want johnny isaacson who is my dear friend to be mad at me if i say something nice about the president. ut i am really struck, mr. the specificity

and directness of the budget increases which the president with the entire rest of the world claiming every nick kell that he doesn't have in his government, what he has done to make your mission more amenable to your leadership. and not in all fields and not with all problems. but he has given a vote of confidence and more importantly than that he's spoken strongly to the veterans. i usually don't say things like that at hearings but i just wanted to in this case. a 10.2% increase is huge. we throw those numbers around around soon forget them. but this will not be forgotten. nevertheless i'm concerned about the persistent problems that were addressed by the two

speakers prior to me. the needs growing and the backlog, i'm not sure whether it's 600,000 or at one point i heard 800,000. it doesn't make any difference, it's so many. and yes, you are attacking that mental health, 1600, have you 1200 people over the country and people at hospitals are screaming and yelling because you are taking some of their best people and well done. but the importance of that as chairman danders indicated is so incredibly important. ntal healthcare is so much and so recently powerfully on the mind of all of us. i think americans in general, american families within families and even senators as policy makers are capable of

seeing those kinds of things. there is no quick fix for healthcare, mental healthcare, claims, anything else. there is the need for a persistent drive, a driving agenda when the secretary and his team comes to work every day determined as you are, sir, to make a difference as best as you can. m disturbed by the fact that the very promising va joining with d.o.d. on iment t. and other things which was quite vibrant seven or eight years ago has now been called off. and i want to ask why and at what price do we pay or what can be done. i would say to my friends on this committee that we are very lucky to serve here. i've been on here every year

that i've ever been on the senate which some may think is one or two but actually is 28 years. and it's a proud, proud service. and in west virginia we have so many veterans. everybody does. the work is powerful in its policy and powerful in it's poignancy. i commend you for the work you've done but i still have questions to ask. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you and thank you for calling this hearing on this budget request. mr. secretary, it's good to see you again. one of the things that i appreciate and i know the other members certainly would also is your willingness to stop by our offices and talk to us about the issues that are of concern to us. i also want to indicate as a former department head i

understand complexities of putting together a budget that meets the priorities of the president of the united states. and i also understand the challenges in trying to touch all of the bases. there are many challenges facing the va. the chairman ranking member went through those. i won't take up time this afternoon and go through them item by item myself. there are a couple of things that i did want to mention. u the first one is one that i appreciate a great deal. as you know, for some period of time a number of us have been working on a va cemetery in the ohm ha area. i do want to thank you for including that in the f.y.-14 budget request. there is about 112,000 veshes veterans and their families who don't have a va cemetery within

70 miles that will be positively impacted. i didn't want the start of this hearing going without me saying how much i appreciate that. in addition, i also wanted to mention on a more concerning ote though is the issue of facilities. as i mentioned, i've gone through these budget efforts where you are trying to put together the necessary funds and get it passed through o.m.b., etc., and one of the things that always tends to slip is the capital improvements. it's just the reality of what we deal with. you have real human beings with real human needs that you need to find funding for. but i think about the facility in only ma ha but i don't want this to be just about that facility because there are

problems all over the country where we are dealing with 1950 rare buildings. in the ohm ohm va they i am sure there are stories that could be told about that kind of thing all across the country. as we go through that hearing this afternoon, i would like to spend time on facility needs around the country, how you think we are doing in addressing that because i do believe it is an important issue, and i recognize it is an issue that i would suspect slips as the budget gets put together. with that, i want to thank you for being here, i look forward to your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to thank each and everyone for being here today. i have had a chance to work with

each one of you close the, and i appreciate that. thank you for being here and the work you do. you have been saddled with a tough job, and you have received some criticism, and some of it has been pretty unfair. you have done a great job considering the conditions you are faced with. i appreciate your leadership, and your service to the country. now i will be the first to tell you i did not agree with everything you have done, and there is plenty to improve on, but we have made great strides under your leadership, working with some complex issues. the cost of war, the men and women coming back from iraq and now afghanistan and the injuries, both seen and unseen, it that you and your staff have to deal with and everybody on the ground has to deal with. i have been on this committee for six years and have had

numerous meetings in montana and i have found one person that does person thatv.a. health care. the rest of them love it. thank you for your work. budget,$152.7 billion that invests significantly in our veterans, and we need to make sure we spend it as effectively as possible. that is an hour and your job, and we need to proceed in a way that honors our military folks and their service, and one that makes it most sense for taxpayers as to go forward. this is an important discussion, whether we're talking about vet centers or of that cemeteries or homelessness or education, there are plenty of issues to talk about, and how we make this budget work is important. i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you.

you, mr. chairman, and so not to disappoint the senator from west virginia, i not only acknowledge that the budget is a 10% increase, but $7 billion more than the senate approved a month ago. so he has taught us. i also point out that unlike a lot of preparations units, with the department of energy or ledger -- energy, we are talking about mandatory spending. when they come back from overseas, we have a commitment that will drive how much we spend and we should never shortchange it. we have to make sure we run the department as efficient as it can be and find our savings there. i commend the president and the senate and are thankful to the soldiers who fought for us overseas. for my interest, might point is two things -- suicide and the benefit claims backlog.

those are big problems that i know you are facing. i and knowledge the compliments that everyone has given you, but those are the priorities we need to focus on if we need to get thosea. who respond to coming back. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and likewise, i do not have a lengthy statement. is it good to have you here. we appreciate your service, not only to the v.a., but so many ways to run your career and the team you have assembled. as you hear the mood of the comments so far, i do know that you know it is important that the public understands this is not a partisan issue, this is something that i think both sides are very much committed to helping cue here in the senate and also spending a lot of time and that house with congressmen

there. they also are totally dedicated to trying to see if we can figure out how we can solve these very difficult problems to the suicide issue, the benefits, but also the ongoing, as was said from the senator from west virginia, which can be proud of the system we have. we're doing a lot of things right. hospitals inv.a. arkansas that are excellent. that has taken a hard work. we appreciate the efforts there, and i think we have to address these other things, but we have some things we can celebrate. thank you. >> thank you. really do not have an opening statement. i want to thank you for doing the hearing.

take you, general shinseki, for all the work you have done, moving forward with the relationship with the travel community up in alaska and the efforts there. we hope to see some good progress. second, you have put resources in this budget, which i will be anxious to hear about, about disability claims. we had a hearing and your staff survived the last ande appreciate that, but there is a lot of effort there to make sure that goes forward. last is the effort you are doing regarding homeless vets. this is one of your top three priorities. in alaska, homelessness issues are severe because of climatic conditions and other things. thank you for being here. i look forward to your budget and am anxious to hear your testimony. >> it is now my pleasure to secretary eric

shinseki. thank you, general, for drawing us to give us your perspective budgetpresident's 2014 and the advance preparations request for the department of veterans affairs. we look forward to hearing your testimony. is accompanied by undersecretiaries. also have the executive in charge of the office of management and the chief financial officer, and also the acting assistant secretary for information and technology. your remarks will be submitted to the record. please begin it, and thanks for being with us today. >> distinguish to members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to present the president's budget and 2015

advanced operations requests president'sv.a. we value your part of and support in providing resources needed to assure quality care and services for veterans. acknowledgingu in other partners here today, our veterans service organizations whose insights and support make a much better at our mission of caring for veterans, families, and survivors. thank you for accepting my statement for the written. 2014 budget and 2015 advance preparations requests demonstrate the president's commitment to our nation paused veterans, and i thank the members for your resolute commitment as well to veterans and seek your support on these requests. the latest generation of veterans is enrolling at v.a. at a higher rate than previous generations. 62% of those deployed in support of operations in afghanistan and iraq had used at least one of

the a benefit for service. v.a.'s record limits are expected to grow. our plans and resources must be robust to care for them all. the president's 2014 budget for billion, $66.5 billion in discretionary funding, and $86.1 billion in mandatory funding, an increase of $2.7 billion in discretionary funding, 4.2% above the 2013 level. this is a strong budget, which enables us to continue building momentum for delivering three long-term goals we set for ourselves roughly four years ago -- increased veterans access to virginia benefits and services, eliminate the disability claims backlog in 2015, and and veterans

homelessness in 2015. these were bold and ambitious goals then and remain bold and ambitious today. veterans deserve a v.a. that advocates for them and then finds a way to put resources against its words, against those promises. access -- of the roughly 22 million living veterans today, more than 11 million receive at least one benefit of service from v.a. we have achieved this by opening new facilities, renovating others, increasing andestments in telehealth, using every means available, including the social media to connect for veterans to v.a. increasing access is a success. the backlog -- too many veterans wait too long to receive benefits. this is unacceptable and no one

wants to turn this situation around more than this secretary, the undersecretaries, or the folks who come to work every day. 52% of home, are veterans themselves. we are resolved to eliminate the claims backlog in 2015 when claims will be processed in less than what headed 25 days at a 98% accuracy level. our efforts mandate investments in people, processes, and technologies, not just technology, people, processes, and technology. in terms of people, more than 2100 claims processors have completed training to improve the quality and productivity of decisions. or are being trained, and new employees now complete more claims than their predecessors. use of disability benefits questionnaires come online forms for submitting a medical evidence that has dropped processing times of medical

exams and improved accuracy. there are now three lanes for processing claims come and express lane for those that will predictably take less time, a special operations lane for unusual cases or those requiring special handling, and a core lane where roughly 60% of the planes will go, and that is the remainder. technology is critical in ending the backlog. our paperless processing system will be faster, improve access, drive automation, and reduced variants. 30 regional offices use the system now. homelessness, the last of the goals, is to end veterans homelessness in 2015. sixth 2009, we've reduced the estimated amount of homeless veterans by more than 17%. the latest estimate from 2012, 62,600. there's more work to be done,

but we have mobilized a national program that reaches and -- into communities across the country, and prevention of veterans homeless this is our main effort. the first phase to be completed by 2015, as the rest of veterans currently on the street, and at the same time we're building a prevention program to keep others from ended up there. mr. chairman, where committed to the responsible use of resources congress provides. thank you for this opportunity to appear here today, and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. by addressing an a serious one that every member here has spoken of, and you have acknowledged, and one that is of great concern to this country. my understanding is that the

v.a. is now processing more before,han they've ever but my understanding is also that according to the most recent monday morning workload report there were nearly 890,000 claims for entitlement to benefits pending, almost 70% of which have been pending longer than the department's goal of 125 days. this number does not take into account other pending work, including award adjustments and appeals. here's my question -- you have -- and i believe you have established that goal not long after you took her position -- you brought forth a very, very ambitious goal, and you said that you wanted to process all claims in 125 days and with 98% accuracy by 2015. is that correct? >> that is correct.

whatt me ask you this -- benchmarks have you set and must .a. meet to make sure v.a. achieves this? all of us would agree that the task that you have undertaken going from an unbelievable amount of paper, a system that was virtually wallpaper, to a paperless system is a huge transformation, and the concern here and others have raised it is what reason do we have to believe that you are in fact going to be able to successfully undertake that transformation and meet the goals that you have established? >> thank you for the question. i will call on the secretary to add some details. let me just describe the situation as it existed when we arrived. we had been in paper for

decades. which continued to get paper today. if you are going to manage a situation, it takes a certain kind of approach and res sourcing. we thought that for all long term benefit to veterans was to end the backlog, so we set the goal of ending the backlog in 2015. we did rough calculations, and the backlog when we arrived was not defined as 125 days, 90% accuracy. if we want to make a bold move and help the veterans, we have to move quickly, so we set ambitious goals. we did our best estimates. we have laid out a plan in this budget that is resourceful, that drives those numbers towards ending the backlog in 2015. i think all of you will remember after we established that goal of ending the backlog,, we also took on some unfinished business.

we had vietnam veterans, my who werer here, not happy that they have not had their issues addressed. in many cases i was told that we were just waiting for them to pass so we would not have to take care of them. i cannot think of a more demeaning circumstance for a veteran to feel that that is looked uponv.a. the situation. and heard the same kinds of things from gulf war veterans, 20 years after the gulf war, and the decisions regarding their health care issues. as all of us can acknowledge, ptsd has been around for as long as combat and had never been acknowledged as associated with combat, verifiable ptsd.

as we established ourselves at ending the backlog, we took on three pretty significant decisions for the viet nam generation, three new diseases for exposure to agent orange, nine new diseases for gulf war veterans, and for all combat verifiableith ptsd, access said that they can submit their claims. those numbers, added to the paper process we have, was going to grow the inventory and complicate the backlog, and we testified to that when those decisions were made. there were a number of hearings on this, and my prediction was we are going to go up, but at the same time we will put in place an automation system and that would correct all of that and in time we would bring the backlog back down. we're mid stride here. ueling thefloa

automation tool. it is and 30 of the 56 regional offices. we are seeing indications it is having good success, and we field the remaining offices as quickly as possible. we had good learning that came out of automating the new 9/11 g i bill automating process, and the learning indicated that there is a tremendous lift that comes once you have the system fielded. we followed that model of fielding incrementally an i.t. program that is robust to handle our claims processing. completeking to this year on 31 december. we're pulling that as far to the left as we can and fielding it as quickly as we can and doing

it so we did not run the risk of overreach. >> did you want to add anything? >> i would like add to the discussion that the secretary has said, i know we are asked routinely about milestones, so i wanted to give you a few milestones that we have experienced in the claims process, which was built by the same people building the other system. we have tripled our productivity through the spring season as a result of the automated rules engine that went into a long-term solution, a paperless i.t. system. bad we went to do more than two and 85,000 claims each month, reducing the days down to 4.5 days on average, where we are now today, in the body and billsof our 9/11 g.i. claims.

veteran will go on-line, which exists today, filed their claim, like the their taxes, apropos to say that today, it goes directly into vbms, and we completed that whole piece this year in january, without advertising it. we have 500 claims a week going into the system, directly into vbms, and allows us to worki them. have 3% electronic. we have 14% of our paper that has been converted to electronic since generate. i have claims now, electronic claims, that we did not have at the beginning of this year, so we're moving along in the process. this week i will have another six offices on the new i.t.

system. >> thank you. v.a. backretary, the log reduction plans shows in order to eliminate it by 2015, v.a. will need to decide 1.2 million claims this year, 1.6 year, and 1.9 million claims in 2015. v.a. is rejecting it will decide 335,000 fewer claims in 2013 and 2014. reached 2 million claims in 2015? that would be a 92% increase in productivity over the 2012 level. senator, i do not know your numbers, but i would be happy to take your numbers and come back

to you. >> i am pulling them right out of the budget reduction plan, which was submitted in january. i got it on january 25. the math would work out to eliminate the backlog by 2015, the eight would need to decide 1.2 million claims this year, 1.6 million claims next year, and 1.9 million claims in 2015. projections under the budget submission from the president, that says that over the next two years you will decide 335,000 less claims than what the backlog reduction plan said. i am trying to figure out if 2015 is you are certain on that, that means you have to process over 2 million claims in 2015. is that how your matt looks at it? >> senator, i would love to sit and talk with you.

those numbers are different from me from the ones we sent across. i am happy to do that with you. >> in the budget submission, you say you will decide the hundred 35,000 fewer claims in 2013 and 2014, right? >> it is slightly different than the plan you received in january. it was based on assumptions that were made last fall, and there have been differences in what we have seen in terms of actuals that have been submitted. we have seen -- not a significant -- we have seen a drop in the number of claims submitted to us of light, so we have adjusted the budget based on those issues. >> currently nearly 70% of the claims are back lot, waiting for more a decision for more than 125 days. the plan he submitted last than three months ago projected backlog would be reduced to 68%

in 2013 and last in 2014. you now expect no more than 40% of the planned to be backlogged during either of these t.d. and zero years. in revising these projections, what metrics did you look at and what -- what did they showed you? >> i look at the actual submissions of receipts of claims that we have received from the veterans of the last five months, and each month they have been lower than our expected volume. >> so the math works out to where you would have been only a 40% backlog situation in five months? , no, senator, it does not, and i did not think he would throw me out of here if i said that what happened. that is not where we are. we are about 69% of our claims that are older than 125 days. we're working every day to drive that members out. we are focusing on the people,

process, and technology solutions, and as we can, pushing up productivity by our folks. are higher inters productivity. >> last year you testified -- secretary, you testified during 2013 the backlog would be reduced from 60% to 40%, and that would demonstrate we are on the right path. at the time, did you envision the backlog would stay above 65% for the first half of the fiscal year or it would be 70% in april? guidancee some apg that we communicate to our federal government partners. they are usual as operational in nature. when we see a change or difference, as the secretary has pointed out in terms of the

workload we saw increased duty agent orange, the increased claims associated increasedptsd, we noted that we would probably not be able to meet that 40% guidance, but the thought was you leave your stretch goal out there so you keep trying to work hard to get to it. is the question -- strategic plan you sent to congress aspirational? as aenator, i grew up strategic planner, and i know every plan i filled out for the air force was a plan, and plans are always in contact, they change and they adjust for reality and actuals. we have and will continue to improve upon the plant -- was it developed the aspirational or to be an accurate blueprint of accuratev.a. perceive the

timeline would move/ >> in all planning, there is an aspect of desperation at the it is withand then assumptions and the availability of resources, then is adjusted for what we think is achievable. plan like this one, as are much dynamics involved, we make assumptions as to the flow of veterans out of uniform to the v.a. will follow a pattern that we have provided by the department of defense. changes, we will have to look and see if we can accommodate that change, and if not, then we will have to say we have a requirement for resources. >> thank you very much, and i

look forward to sitting down with you to look at the matrix that brought about such a change in three months, and let me just say, mr. secretary, i'd was not addressing the increased number of claims coming in the door, i was addressing the number of claims that are actually processed and determined, and that does not seem to be getting better. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to ask two questions. homelessness on the one hand, suicides on the other. how do you pick the strategy, the worst tragedy? up to 22 suicide today -- suicides a day. roleare making an enormous

in mental health, the experts and the support staff. it will take time to get that into the system and train to. how do you look at the general ptsd,ation, starting with and as it gets into the mental health and terrifies themselves and raise red flags -- how do you take somebody who is on a suicide watch list or something of that sort -- how do you go to work with that person? how do you try to break through? is noator, the issue here one should have to wait for mental health care, and we have veterans' health administration by nearly 57%, an increase from 2009, to the 2014 budget. we believe this is where we have

to put our emphasis. regarding the suicide number you were, 22, four years ago not receiving suicide information, veterans suicide information, from the states, so we wrote, and the states have been responsive. now we have that information flowing into the cdc, of which we have this late december, 22. four years ago we did an estimate. they paid a number at about 18. while this looks like a growth in the last four years, it is really a better number based on data we have received. 18 was a fair call, but we have better information with 22, and we can set about doing things that we could only speculate at four years ago. increase in the number of

mental health budget that allows us to do things like increase staffing so we find that we need additional resources. the doctor will provide an update of where we are with regard to hiring an additional metal health, and i will come back and close out on suicides. but before he does that, can i ask my second question? >> certainly. >> it is easier, i suppose. i remember a number of years ago the excitement that was felt generally when dod and the veterans administration were planning to work together. i went to a number of joint facilities, and everything was full of optimism. and now all of a sudden evidently, unless i am wrong, there has been a pullback from that, electronic records, all kinds of veterans flow from this corporation, there has been a pullback by that by dod.

and curious about that. >> we are both still committed to a seamless transition of service members into v.a. that has not changed. we're also committed to the electronic health records that we share in common, and in the language we've come to use over the past four years of crippling the concept, it is a single joint common integrated electronic help record, opened in architecture, non proprietary in design, and all those terms, the code to keep us focused on what we want, in an electronic health records, when the we share together and one that will be as good five years from now as it is on the day we first invest and purchase it, as opposed to being phased -- face over and over again with an electronics help record.

we have to refinance years down the road. this is the concept of we have committed ourselves to, and i my sense isnd that we have not backed away from that, although secretary hegel, who has just arrived, is in the midst of getting into this issue, and i agree that he ought to have time to do that. >> you do not know of any back way? >> i do not know many. >> i am happy to hear that. asking twoe for questions. my time has run out. i got to play by the rules. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, in the fiscal year from 2014 budget request, i note there is funding for just

one across the entire country major medical a facility. that is $150 million for eight mental health facility in seattle. not questioning at all whether that is needed or not, but in contrast, the minor construction $750 million, substantially more. that is an increase of 17.8% from the 2013 level. have an estimate of the amount of minor construction funding that is needed to keep the aging facilities patched together until they finally make their up theto party -- priority list, which if we do only one a year, that is gone to be a long way. how much money is going into trying to keep aging facilities

operating? is it all that money? the broadanswer question of out of our construction budget. it includes 2.3 $9 billion for major. under construction, non recurring maintenance, which has a lot to do with facility condition, and major medical leases. miner construction, as you indicated, has increased by 17%, compared to 2013. hot this is money that gets into the hands of hospital directors quickly and in packs more facilities for the kinds of things you are concerned about and services directly to veterans. pieces, ourl request there is an increase of 2013, and hear those leases are intended to

provide health care delivery closer to where veterans live, and that is all this business of outpatient clinics and so forth. major construction, the request is for $342 million, and as you indicated, there is one major project here on the list. but it is a stable program, and we have a plan for in-phase funding the execution of a number of large projects. non-recurring maintenance, $709.8 million -- remains stable in comparison to two dozen current income and we're dealing with safety, facility conditions, and other needs to make sure that at the facilities we do have are safe, secure, and accessible to veterans. this is a balance across our

i would offer is a stable overall program with majorsis on minor, medical leases and assuring that the nonrecurring maintenance is maintained at a stable amount. >> you can see where i'm headed. my concern is you have a host of old buildings out there. certainly would not be what you would want if you were born to build a facility to become obvious that, because there are probably -- they are probably 50, 60, 70 years old, and i am wondering if we put money into these old facilities, and to me it seems like a waste. anyhe v.a. studied possibility of trying to jump- tort this program, to try

get more new construction versus putting money into all buildings, or are we just up where we are at t? >> i do not describe us as being stuck. if there is another dollar to be had, there is a place to put it in construction, bad as i say, it is a stable approach to a large footprint. part of our responsibility is to decide what part of that footprint we no longer need, and all last several years reduced the amount of vacant space consolidated and reduced the amount of underutilized space, and both categories, a 26% reduction. we do that as well. there are other pieces of our property that we can dispose of, and we do, through either demolition or look for other

means to find other uses for what we no longer need. we used to have an enhanced use these authorization that expired , and ourer of 2011 efforts to have that authorization renewed an extended has succeeded in providing for an enhanced use lease arrangement for homeless requirements only. so we do have that. right now we have a number of projects where we have created housing for veterans, and we have others that are in design, and other work is underway, 5500 units overall. we do manage those older pieces of property. we have need for some of it, not all the stomach and we need a way to efficiently dispose of

it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have more questions than we have time come off but we will start with the care givers bill a 2010, to establish coronation pilots so that veterans could get care from providers for mental health in cases where the v.a. did not have capacity. the provision gave the authority to contract out mental health services for veterans in rural are at are providers premium. can you give me any progress on this, and i say that is because montana has four needed the middle house senators serving the west, south of not central, and the east, and the north, too. none of those are contacted with. just wondering where we are at. and mr. you, senator

secretary. the advent of the bill has been overtaken by the sec of order from the president. we are in the process now of developing 15 contract pilots across the country with community-based federally pilot the clinics to concepts of a contract and the way they do it. if this is successful, we will be doing this across the country. i was not aware -- and like to me -- of the fact that the montana clinics were not contract -- >> i do not believe they are. they are not protected with the v.a. so these 15 pilots, by executive order, where are they?

are they up and running so you can assess them, and if not, when? >> all of them are delivering care, a number of them are doing it by contract, and some had difficulties at getting contracts executed, so they are doing it on a fee basis, but the contracts are in process and we expect within a month or two everybody will be operating. >> when will you expect an assessment of their affected this proof, late summer. >> super. >> i wanted to about health care providers in general, mental health care providers, specifically. we have issues that go along with the partnerships, but we , mentalues with folks health care professionals and health-care professionals in general, being staffed up to snuff. we have had conversations off

the grid with you. what kind of strategies does to retain ause mental health work force in rural areas, and if it applies to regular folks, too, could you address them both? , thank you. you.ank for clinical psychologists, a psychiatric social workers, there's practitioners, and mental health, we have great flexibility in terms of the salary, and our salaries are competitive anywhere around the country. >> who has that flexibility? >> the flexibility lies with the individual facilities. there are certain circumstances where they would have to come in, but is unusual, and they have great ranges of salaries they can work with.

>> do you need other recruitment tools? >> i think that's the thing that limits us a little bit is the fact that our debt forgiveness stops at $60,000, particularly for medical students and residents. that may be a drop in the bucket, so to speak, and i would like to see if we can raise the limit which we could forgive debt. >> i would love to have recommendations, since you're in the business. i have no idea what nurse practitioners with mental health background would come out of college with or -- as far as that, but i would like to get recommendations at where the cap should be. >> we will talk. >> i would just like to put a fine point on that statement. $60,000 is $60,000, not a drop in the bucket, but increasing it will give us flexibility we do not have.

folks are these coming out of college with 200 grand in debt. it would be good -- and we would do research on that. the last thing i will have, what kind of impact does this have -- talking about flexibility on salary -- on existing staff? i did not want to be the devil's advocate, but if you have somebody on staff that is making 75,000 bucks a year and offer somebody new 100,000 bucks, what kind of impact does that have on route? is there some way you can address existing folks? >> the short interest is yes and yes. we are cognizant of the fact that particularly with sector interests that could be a problem, and we have ways we can address that with staff.

>> thank you very much. >> that you. i want to follow up a second on what the senator was talking about on leases. in the budget, the construction account, $6.4 million for the relocation of of a facility, 7900 square feet, to a newark facility to it in the northeastern part of that area, a huge area that has served a lot of veterans. they are now forced to go to the hospital in decatur, georgia, which puts more pressure on the facility. they get to the president and to you, because i know your request has something to do with that. it is a lot more efficient on a cost that anything else we could do, especially with the current facility. thank you very much. i notice you had a washington moment last week's when "the examiner" got a hold of one of

your emails. i know how feels when somebody does that, and e-mail you sent to someone talking about a bunch of big brains quick to do with timing and tune -- in terms of claims approval. it was dated march 30, a couple weeks after are hearing where you had indicated we were kind of on track on claims, and in the email goes out looking for the best brains can get to help a crisis. can you clarify that for me? >> can i start and let the secretary -- i would just say from the perspective of innovation, this has been something we have been doing for three years, going out and getting the best minds to come in and help us. castingand outside v.a., a broad net, and the first year

we got 40 initiatives which we have taken aboard, and we investigated all of them. the next year we did the same thing, and i would say this sort of fits our always looking for a better way to look for what we're doing to address the needs of veterans, getting it to them that fast way we can. the secretary was part of that, and in 2015 when we hit the target were set for ourselves, we will still be looking for good ideas. senator, the secretary said it very well. we keep doing process improvements. it is now part of the culture, and we have people whose job it is due process improvement, so it is nothing more than let's keep thinking about it, more ideas on the table, but keep charging hard with a plan that will get us there. we're not just looking at compensation plans, but we have

other business lines, everything we do, and how can we do better to increasingly serve our veterans and family members and survivors? it was a course of action to keep going and you probably saw every other e-mail in my box, we ever did see to do a much better job for veterans. >> my hope was that what i hope the answer was the question, but i pose this to you -- and i am speaking for myself -- we do not necessarily fall into a big brain category -- that might be helpful for us to come down and see what the problems are, to get our eyes on them, because sometimes we will ask questions as to why something is taking so long to do, or why it is not happening, and you give us the best pitcher you can give us at the time, and the next time we

have the same questions. it occurred to me that it would be great to invite us and say this is where we are having trouble, have you guys have any ideas? you guys are always being the critics in the peanut gallery, and if we get down on the ground floor and see where you really are. outreach is important. >> thanks, senator. great offer on your part. >> one last thing, my question for me -- the veterans benefit management system request is for $155 million in this year's budget, is that right? >> that is correct. >> 32.8 million is for development assistance. where would the other money be used for? personnel, payroll, what?

>> thank you for the question. the balance is to pay for sustainment costs, so the system we have been bringing on line for the last two years, you have to pay the bills before paying a licensing on a, as was the operation's cost. >> you are talking about the side license? license and system maintenance. >> that is an ongoing cost? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much for being here. let me first start -- i guess you have said its in you're prepared comment, but let me restate it in regards to the yourility claims, restate

goal and when you think you will have as much as you feel comfortable to have under control in sense of the backlog. i know you have a target. can you restate that for me and tell me what their confidence level -- i will keepu say track of. >> i would like to provide a more specific answer to you, senator, but again, this is based on our experience with the 9/11 g i bill, which was started building in 2009, and by the spring of 2010 we had version 1 the the secretary described left, when it all kicked in. we're still in the process of fielding it. we're soon-to-be 36 out of 56.

we're moving as fast as we can. we started in september and are barely six months into it. we're looking at a fielding much earlier than december of this year, which is the plan. i think once we are fielded, fully field, we are going to begin to see production impacts. we are also are alsodod providing us with electrons provided -- beginning in january cut 2014. much faith you have that dod will actually perform what you need them to do? i know it has been a struggle in the past. do you believe they will meet the goal you have for the information flow so it becomes more seamless and electronic, that dod will do what they say? >> they have committed to date and time specific. we have the date and time here.

>> and they have committed to give me immediately -- living,l knew that are there aren't complete electronically. >> they would first give it to me in paper but are committed to building a system, but they are right now today giving me something we have never had in vba before, which is they are going to end fighting the medical records, reaching out to try care, and pulling in their contract medical records and their to the business on their end up pulling back together, certifying it is complete, and handing me a fully complete medical records. >> that will be a complete record, and when will they get to electronic -- >> december of this year. >> and that is from cases that they ford, and then you have a backlog, which is the longer challenge. am i reading that write books

so, now they are doing all the combining of the work, which you have the card and all the other folks in the mix, that will come to you immediately. december electronic efforts of anyone leaving after december 31 will come to you electronically, and then they will commit to move those others in which way? how will all the backlog information -- >> essentially, the back of information i'm handling -- >> your target to get that into full implementation of electronic is -- >> i am doing it right now. i have 116,000 right now in the electronic folder. i am committed to any new plan that comes in the door, immediately turns around and this can buy one of our vendors, into an electronic clang and worked through vbms electronically. if you are a veteran who is not

going to come back to us, i will not expand the resources to turn you into an electronic claim. >> first off, i know you have or centered-care program. -- you let a $50 million million dollars.arsmillion is their resources and there to try to utilize the new model within the v.a.? >> thank you. there very much enamored of new model. it is similar to what we want to do in terms of patient-centered care, but it is doing things we frankly have not thought about. we have sent 14 teams up there

so far for the judicial experience, and we plan on continuing that effort. i will meet with kathleen scott lead -- gottlieb -- for somed $52 million of the new programs which you're doing now, as well as within the last of moral component. is that enough, or do you have a sense of that on this point? i want to thank you for reaching out for the people in this country, especially the alaskan, native american, and trying to do something different with the health care systems that are there already. give me a sense. >> this moment we are getting standing up the agreements, and beginning to activate them. i think that is a good start point. let me ask the doctor and see if he has any more details.

>> no word details, but we think this is enough. the 10 pilots developed to get business pools fix for this environment, and we think this $52 million will be sufficient. >> i will end there, but i have other questions for the record. that last question was and did you and i have talked about that maximizes delivered to veterans in tough locations, rural locations, so i thank you for that effort. >> senator blumenthal? chairman, andmr. i apologize for being late, but i have been following some of the testimony and want to thank you all for your service, and, mr. secretary, particularly for your active-duty service to our nation and now in the department of veterans affairs, and to the president for increasing resources available to our veterans in a very difficult time to escalate. let me begin with senator

egich's question relating to electronic health record. i understood that you describe what was going to happen happen. the not sure i heard what target date was. he asked for a target date for completing the program. about claimsing here. >> the electronic record system. the electronic help record system is still going forward. >> we are committed to it.

we await the department of defense signaling to us that we have an agreement here. i believe we are on track. secretary chuck hagel has asked for the opportunity to get into and review his church and process. that is what he is doing. >> you have no assurance right d as to when or whether it will go forward? >> i do not have a when other working hard.th >> you have indicated that you agree to go forward. >> we have chosen this stuff -- vista as the core.

there are two locations that we specified. then to fall on the fall operating capability in 2017. that is the plan. that is what both departments have agreed to. >> the department have agreed to that plan and have both committed to vista? is reviewing the decision on the core. secretary chuck hagel and his acquisition folks are reviewing it. >> forgive me for revealing my limited i.t. knowledge.

>> we today have two different electronic help records -- health records. what we have committed to solving that problem by coming up with a single joint integrated electronic help record. all of those are a code word to get this on the same sheet of music. >> i apologize again for belaboring the point is obvious point in the room. the details of not been resolved. >> we awaited a decision on this selection. we have offered consideration that this government alone. we have put it into the open architecture. anyone else can use the code that goes with vista and will not have to pay for it. >> thank you.

ismployment among veterans one of my major and paramount concerns. i wonder if you could tell us about new initiatives. >> we have taken the leadership of the white house and this as well. forces have been a magnificent initiative -- out to the private sector for corporations to commit the hiring of veterans as part of their campaign to help us.

there's 700,000 new jobs for military spouses before the end of the 2013. that goal succeeded in late 2012. requests to increase 250,000. the commitment is there. departments of we hire veterans. veterans as 100,000 part of our work force. 30's are met. our goal is 400. we have also held hiring fares for veterans interested in employment. we held the three of them. it is the something we have expertise in. we have learned with each of these how to bring together veterans looking for work and the employers with the jobs. wholso encourage a veteran

own small businesses to stand up. a veteran business owner is more likely to hire veterans. the more successful small- business owners we have, which is where the hiring really goes on comedy more term we have. we continue to increase this with the allocations. >> if i could get for you at one point the latest numbers unemployment are wrong veterans. >> we can do that. the numbers are generally improving. we have month-to-month

variations. ratetime the unemployment for veterans overall has been below the national average for unemployment. for younger veterans this is still a challenge for us. we all have to do more to take this on. >> thank you. thank you for your service to our country. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. we will have a roundtable discussion. there is entrepreneurs and businesses.

when we last visited, which i think was in january, it highlighted the shortage of especially what i .m most familiar with in kansas we have been successful with the help in opening this. we have a tremendous shortage of a nurse practitioners and physician assistants. most of them no longer have a physician. my understanding is that has not changed since we visited in january. i want to highlight the problem once again. i also raised the topic of mental health professionals. the plan was to hire 1600 mental health staff including managed -- marriage and family therapists.

, and maybe youg have included this in your testimony, if that is significant number have been hired. in kansas are discouraging to me. an -- a typical way of managing this. to august off 2011 one fired atre no a kansas facility. posted zero has positions in kansas for either one of those professionals. as a whole they had two mft and

two lpcs on staff. these two groups represent 40% of the mental health professionals in the united states but only 1% of the work force. i would be interested in your suggestions of how we can provide mental health service to more veterans. >> thank you. >> thank you. relatively -- w relatively new positions. less than two years ago we certified them and got them into .he mix of people we are behind the power curve of what got behind these people. i do not know specifically the numbers about kansas. we make an excellent point. very good alternative

to the difficulty we have. i will be in communication with the about kan. specifically and what we might be able to do. >> i look forward to your response. it reminds me of the effort. i was the sponsor of legislation in the house years ago to incorporate chiropractic care. can you bring me up to date on chiropractic services? >> i would like to take that for the record. we do apply them at virtually every one of our medical centers. and a substantial amount of referral business outside. >> it remains a priority for me. a cut in any significant way that health care services are delivered. it may be the same pattern. the va was very slow. it was well and incorporating

the mandate requirement that the va requires for chiropractic care. let me raise one more topic. lasted this question again january. i've not received a reply. it is not in the fiscal year 2014 budget. there has been considerable planing for a joint medical facility at the air force base. .ot in the budget i asked for a status update last bbaary about mcconnell and -- the va in wichita. he know the information i would be pleased to know what progress is being made. >> thank you. there is a proposal that has

been developed for major construction project that would be a joint venture. it is $154 million. it was in the midst of those prague decks -- products that were raided. they did not score in high enough. is that scoring? >> it is done by the department of veterans affairs. >> what does that mean for the future of this budget? the expectation would be that this project will be cemented again and will be scored again. i would like to follow up with the and see if i can find out perhaps where the need for greater information or deficiencies that we ought to be addressing. happens on the capital investment plan?

the ones that are funded it worked off. then there is a review. others moved up in subsequent cycles. >> thank you. i join my colleagues in thanking you and the rest of the panel for your service. i do apologize for missing some of the hearing. i did have a chance to talk with you earlier. we noted that nearly 50% to have comprehensive womens' clinics and you have asked for more they for an increase in

budget for gender specific medical care. is it your attention and gold at 100 term of our facilities will have these kinds of comprehensive care for women veterans? >> i'm going to call for the specifics. i would say women are maybe 6% of our mineral population. of thepresent 15% population. they represent a b-s term. we know there is growth going to occur. we're going to do everything we can to put in place decisions that when they arrive we are not playing catch up. women'sre to look at veterans' funding since 2009,

between 2009 and 2014. we have increase that by 130 4%. we will continue to put emphasis on this as one of our key areas. >> thank you. the specific question asked about the clinics, there are three ways that we try to provide the primary basic care that women veterans might need. in our large medical centers we have comprehensive clinics that bring together primary care providers and and chronologists, gynecologists, mental health professionals, all in the same areas. we may not even have all of that expertise. we have primary-care clinics that are devoted exclusively to women's issues and veterans. those practitioners are trained

to recognize the primary needs of women veterans. and the small areas or may only have one or two providers, we train them in the needs of women. i think there will be some increase in the number of comprehensive clinics. at the most of the medical center's probably have already done that. here toan obligation provide a kind of atmosphere where women feel safe and feel as if the providers understand their specific ones that are different. has worked hard to try to accomplish that. >> i think that is really important. i commend you for the stakes you're taking to recognize that this is a different population.

do you do outreach efforts to make sure they are aware of the services in the kind of service since -- services that are available to women at? >> we do. outreachn extensive program including help line up public-service announcements and advertisements. trying to make women understand their veterans. in many instances they do not necessarily view themselves as being veterans. they do not necessarily see the va as a friendly place. we work hard to bring the message to them. >> i know one of your major priorities is to address the need of the veterans. this is a challenge. are there particular programs are things that you are doing that worked?

i understand that is not a monolithic group of folks. withy particular success problematic successes that can be ramped up? committed to ending the rescue phase. what that means is when you hear the word homeless you think of people on the street. that is visible. it is a visible population. there is a larger invisible population of homeless veterans at risk. being ament away from foreclosure. what we are committed to ending the rescue phase, which is get out and find our veterans and unsure where moving them to

that we have do partnered with many of the communities across the country, provided funding for support of services to veterans families. we are doing work on the prevention pieces. the gi bill is the most generous education program we have. any youngster who does not complete swilling is at risk. last year we had 70,000 veterans who had defaulted on their home loans at risk of foreclosure. our analysts became involved, worked with them to lower payments and extend with financial institutions. from foreclosure. home would --

homeless issue is mental health. in substance abuse. our help administration come a very large and aggressive programs that deal with substance abuse. we want to get this in early and get the treatment. our experiences is that they generally get better. this is a broad effort. >> that makes a lot of sense. perhaps to give us data on how these programs are working in the number of people you talk to or work with. >> thank you. >> you can send me the information or the committee information. >> we have gone through the first round. i would like to ask you a few more questions.

>> he would just ask a few more questions. he was concerned about chiropractic care. i am concerned were generally about complementary medicine. i think people would be surprised to note that the va has been a leader. the facilitys at in brooklyn and los angeles. is directors tell me that it widely used and appreciated by veterans. i want to work with you to expand this concept to be more aggressive. there are lots of folks out there concerns about medication, the ways we can deal with pain without a lot of trucks, etc.. whatou tell us briefly

ideas you have as to how we can expand complementary medicine? i am talking about at the incher creek acupuncture -- acupuncture, chiropractic care. >> 89% of our facilities actively have programs. >> that may be true. if somebody is a well-trained couldcturist, that person not be hired under that definition. that is my understanding. >> i will have to find out. i am not aware that is a case. >> the places i am familiar with that to acupuncture happen to have anesthesiologist that happened to acupuncture. we do a number of different

things, yoga, animal assisted therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapy, meditation. >> i am aware of that. you should be proud of that. while you support those initiatives, there is also an argument that it has not quite filter down with us much excitement and appreciation as it might. is that a fair statement? >> i think that is a fair statement. one of the crucial parts is something we are engaging, research to demonstrate the efficacy in certain circumstances of certain all to get medicine therapy. meditation would be an example. we're spending $5 million this year looking at meditation and its role in treating pt sd.

different the three kinds of medication and work. we need to do more of that to demonstrate to the public that these things are affected. >> you're also looking at guided industry in terms of sexual a fall -- assault. >> that is correct. >> you said earlier that we will proceed, we will go out of the rescue phase on homelessness. isld that be a reason there 2014?ction between the belief that adjustment is based on the fact that we will be making good progress toward

our 15 targets. the adjustments and the level of energy here. timeline of aed a reduction strategy. decisions regarding increasing budget requests and a decision on whether it is to extend the time line. >> increasing budget requests. there may have been some discussions. >> according to the fy2014

information sheet, these allocated for the records. there is the enhancement. is this additional funding for those that >> >> thank you for the question. this includes 254 development. the management accountability system creates milestones for projects to reduce risks associated with the development of large systems. how many milestones have been

missed? take that for the record. >> we will get back to you. >> i appreciate that. , theding to the budget department of veterans affairs allocate 155 million for the total implementation of the management system. the president's request includes 33 million for the decrease. i think you answer that. the committee that it is going to cost $122 million a year to sustain that program in fees? stated, did itt

include sustainment? it does. >> what is the estimated sustainment cost? >> for what year? an ongoing basis. at theou look elimination of the backlog and to think in terms of the input of an information moving from paper to electrons, the in terms in terms of how we make this, there is a multitude of systems out there. when you ask the question based on where you draw the boundaries, it either goes up or down. when we talk about the 155 it picks up to pay for the development on the engine, also portions of the payment fees.

up, had all of the pieces it covers not just the engine but includes all of this been terms of the benefits that we used to bring information in that the veteran uses for self- service. they're able to do that work. the unified desktop is able to get a complete view of the status as well as the output of the sum total. it is 207 $5 million. it is a large investment to make sure not only the engine is working but to pay from that change from paper to electrons. >> we have to pay for any more of the engine after 2014? >> the program plan today as we turn this on and look at what

the engines are and we get the same kick we are able to get from chapter 33, it is possible we will see more areas where we can automate. it is also subject to any change. >> we will continue this as we go forward. .> let me suggest the need to come up and meet some of us on this committee. we would like to know when this program will be paid for. a sometimeis: it's

before 2015. to the backlog. more importantly, we need to understand better what is our long-term annual commitment to this magnitude? i realize there are parameters that might change that. we need to better understand it if we provide fair but effective oversight to a program of this size. you have been awfully generous. ask adine for me to question. i'm going to forgo that today. >> he is deeply disappointed. >> he is always neglected in

these hearings. i assure him not to take them personally. >> thank you for being here and thank you for your staffing near. this hearing is now concluded. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> there were two explosions near the finish line at the boston marathon today. police are now reporting to dead and 23 injured. that is the report may change as the hours go by.

president obama has been notified of the explosions and has directed his administration to provide whatever assistance is necessary. "prank forr tweeted the victims of the boston marathon tragedy." members will take up for bills and about half an hour. they would prevent the government for hiring giving contracts to people with serious delinquent tax debt. now a more detailed look at the legislative agenda this week. about ano tell us more .mmigration bill thank you for being on the line.

talk to us about any sense of a timeline and what we may see revealed. >> there is a chance it could be unveiled as early as tuesday. there is already a lot of opposition to this bill. 11 million people came illegally. putting the language together. is sortieve the pathway of a deal breaker. they are focused on border security. many republicans do not believe that is the case. border security is a top focus. >> we're talking about gun control. it was big this last week. what is the game plan not tax

, theyt you had people were compromised. people tell us they're not entirely sure if it has in the staffing behind it. he believes it will be very slow. it is obviously very controversial. this is a tricky topic for those who represent folks in the south and midwest. >> we also want the present to unveil his 2014 budget. >> it represents a fair complex.

republicans tell us that they believed it is within the confines of reality. lot more there as well. to capitol hill and defend the 2014 budget requests. budget issues are not going away. >> what else are you watching that's >? capitalll be headed to hill to defend the situation. all eyes are on that transition. there was visual to counter terrorism. a lot of this tension with the intelligence on north korea. john kerry is there.

this is at 230 this afternoon. why is this a dead again? disclaims many veterans that are ingrid. saying he has not done enough to make sure the men and women are getting disability claims and money they need. they are behind the scenes. it is very important they will engage in a public dialogue. >> thank you so much for giving us a sense of what to watch this week in congress.

>> the house is back at 5:00 p.m. eastern to consider four bills. our live coverage when it comes in. until then, a conversation from this morning with roger wicker. host: senator roger wicker, republican of mississippi, is our guest, next year it will talk about guns, immigration, the budget, and north korea. if later, looking at overlapping government programs. first, this news update from c- span radio. >> it's 8:33 a.m. eastern. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell still has not gotten

over december posted fiscal cliff showdown and has signaled privately that he has no interest in sitting in the same room as majority leader harry reid to discuss a possible grand bargain on budget and tax issues. senate insiders tell "politico" the senator mitch mcconnell is fine with talking to president obama, but he does not want harry reid there when it happens. along with budget discussions, the senate will begin debate on gun control legislation this week. a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers picked up some key republican support over the weekend. republican senator susan collins of maine issued a statement yesterday saying that she would vote for a proposal authored by senator patrick to me and to senator joe manchin, requiring background checks for people buying guns at gun shows and online, but it exempts private gun sales. as guns around adopted in congress, the supreme court may decide as early as today to consider whether the second amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home. the case under consideration is a challenge to new york's law requiring proper cost to carry --eads >> we only have about 50 cents brigit 50% enforcement. one of the definitions of sovereignty is that the nation should be able to protect its border. that is something that conservatives like me have been saying for a long time. let's first enforce the border. according to summaries of the law -- i have not read it because it will not be introduced until tomorrow, i believe it -- one of the summaries is that the law does

not even trigger until we can certify that the border is secure. another aspect of it that i really like is a better system of e-verify. i get a lot of calls from businessmen who want to hire people and who don't mind hiring people here in the country legally even though they may have been born elsewhere. they say that e-verify is totally unreliable and sometimes is very slow and cumbersome. i understand this new proposal would require in states where you have to eberts certificate to get a drivers license, it would require an applicant for hiring to present that driver's license. not a passport. in either case, citizenship would have to be proven. -- if not a driver's license, a passport.

when you start enforcing the border, that's a good start. are a lot of questions. i know from having been out there as a representative for 13 years and now as a senator for five years, there's a lot of skepticism out there. i was not here in 1987 when president reagan, one of the great conservatives, agreed to what has now been called an amnesty. i know it is something people who really worried about illegal immigration are concerned about, is this going to be a repeat of what a well- intentioned president and well- intentioned congress did in 1987? so that's an overview of two issues. host: "politico" website says the senator began his public campaign yesterday to win over conservative support for overhauling the nation's immigration laws. he offered a finely calibrated pitch designed to alleviate conservatives' concerns about reform. he pushed back against claims

that a pathway to citizenship was tantamount to amnesty. he rebutted arguments that an agreement would impose dramatic new costs on taxpayers and defended the changes as necessary to keep the border secure. is he speaking? backur constituents speaking guest: i think so. supportere's a broad around the country to try to solve this, if we can. i remember the last time the effort was made in 2007, i was in the house. my predecessor was trying to take the lead on this issue and at least get the bill up to the senate floor. his phones exploded. he could not anything done for a week. i noticed senator andcornyn on one of the talk shows yesterday said that he had the scars to prove it. -- senator cornyn. i have always opposed and misty -- i have always opposed amnesty. we don't want to put those people ahead of other people in

line got here legally. rubio says this is not an amnesty. the american voters and policy makers will decide that. when he says is we are making it much harder and much longer for people who came here illegally. that would be better if they got in line in their native countries and went through. that's not forgiveness, which is not amnesty is. so he is doing his best to make a point. my hat is off to this young senator for energy and for leadership. i want to say this. he is demonstrating the kind of leadership that we look for and will look for some day in a president of the united states. i am very high on this young senator from a florida.

host: another issue in the news. gun control of the legislation. we see a major gun rights group is breaking with the powerful nra and coming out in favor of the bipartisan proposal on background checks by senator joe manchin of west virginia and senator pat toomey, republican of pennsylvania. the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms. how significant is this, senator? guest: i don't know. these people have a right to their viewpoint, but i'm a lifelong member of the national rifle association. when my son was born 26 years ago, my only goal gave him a subscription -- my uncle gave him a subscription of the youth magazine of the nra. the second amendment protects gun rights for decades and

decades. alongother group to come and claim to be the second- largest gun rights organization is fine. there's more of a schism than this article mentions. i looked at it this morning on the front page of the washington post, also. there's another group to the right of the nra. while the nra on thursday said it's probably a good idea to get this issue to the floor, talk about it, poke holes in it, but get the issue resolved for this year appear there's another saying absolutely no, don't even vote for the motion to proceed. i will say there are probably at least four national groups out there with different viewpoints. i have to say, decade in an decade out, year in and year out, the nra has been a stalwart defender of the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

host: if they came out for the background check, would that sway you? guest: they don't have veto rights over my point of view. i speak in terms of relying on their strategy is they have always been pretty good. as a matter of fact, they have come out against pat toomey and joe manchin pose a compromise school falls and unworkable -- as full of holes and that might need to a

national registry. i would not support it. host: our guest served in the u.s. house of representatives prior to serving in the senate. he has also served in the mississippi state senator and was once counsel to senator trent lott on the house rules committee, has experience with both sides of congress. guest: before that i went to page, virginia, with him in the 1960's. i've been in this town for a while. host: he retired from the u.s. air force reserve in 2004 with the rank of lieutenant colonel. he's on the armed services committee, the budget committee, among others. if he's ready to take your calls. ron in florida on our democrats line. caller: good morning. two things. we will start with gun-control. i am a gun owner. i was in the marines.

guest: appreciate your service. caller: thank you for yours. ithink the second and and should evolve like our guns have evolved, from a single shot to 100 shots. we should make it to keep up with the times if we want to have a strong second amendment like we had when it was born with our country, then we should go back to 1 shot. the thing i really want to talk to is taxes. when i go to work and i come home and pay my bills, like you say a country has to pay its bills, my bills seemed to keep going up because of common sense, everything goes up. when i go back to work, i have to ask my boss for arrays. if i went as long as the republicans have gone without asking the country for arrays -- a raise, we would be in the poorhouse.

we are in the poorhouse. host: are you willing to pay more on your taxes? caller: everybody should pay more on their taxes, to be even. host: let's get a response from the senator? guest: well, i don't agree that everybody should pay more taxes. i think ron is advocating for fairness. is no question about that. but let's make these points. in december, the automatic that were set to go on the top 1% of wage earners actually did kick in. we were able to get the president to sign a law making the estate tax law that president bush passed

permanent, making the tax makingfor 99% of wage earners permanent -- making the tax rates for the 99% of wage earners permanent. as we all know, the payroll tax exemption went away for people like you and me and everybody else. so there has been a tax increase from an automatic standpoint. it went into effect because there were not renewed. we have done taxes. frankly, if i had had my druthers, and if i were making all the decisions in this country, we would not have even had those. to talk about it even more taxes, on the economy, which is still in the doldrums, i think that would hurt economic growth and job opportunity.

that's what you're talking about when we talk about a budget. the president proposed $1.10 trillion extra in taxes in his budget. it was two months late, but it did come out last week and we had a hearing in the budget committee where i am a member. it proposes $1.10 trillion in additional taxes over a decade. i am opposed to that. the senate bill proposed $1.50 trillion in extra taxes or they say it's just $1 trillion the way they say it. the house bill, the ryan budget actually balances the budget within 10 years and it does so without a tax increase. it does so by limiting the growth that we cut spending. we can simply grow the economy

by about 3.5% each year for 10 years and we can balance the budget. president's budget, with its huge tax increase, never balances the budget, not 10 years and not ever. we did not get to ron's question about gun control, but i will be happy to take that. i think he mentioned you now can get off 100 rounds. back when the constitution was ratified and the bill of rights and sec amendment added, we did not have such a thing. -- second amendment. my question is this, are we just looking at symbols or will we actually do something that will work? in gun-control legislation, we need to ask ourselves, is someone who is mentally deranged going to worry about what the law says? is someone who is intent on a mass murder going to be

concerned about how many rounds the law provides for a law- abiding citizen to have? i think the answer is no. anything that is cosmetics like that is simply a matter of trying to do something that sounds good, that sounds sympathetic to the families that have had horrible tragedies. i would look at mental health issues and school safety. i have to go back to the nra and congratulate them for getting former congressman hutchinson of arkansas to get a task force together and come up with two recommendations. that is school safety officers. and allowing school personnel

will want to, to be trained to protect students. and better coordination between schools and local governments, and better coordination within the school system for school safety. school safety and dealing with mental illness is something that might actually have an effect on preventing the kind of tragedy that we had. something that is cosmetic and assumes that a criminal or mentally deranged person will obey the law, to me, is really not worth talking about. host: senator roger wicker, you mentioned the president's budget. let's listen to run the secretary as he testified before the house ways i and means house wayst this past [video clip] >> week> at the same time, the budget incorporates all elements in the administration's offer to speaker boehner last december. demonstrating the president's readiness to stay at the table

and make very difficult choices and find common ground. consistent with that, the budget includes things the president would not normally put forward, such as means testing medicare to income related premiums for and adopting accurate but lest and it measures costs of inflation on a chained cpi. host: senator, is this the deal the republicans can work with? guest: well, no. actually, i don't even think the president expects this to be anywhere near a deal. if there's a chance for grand bargain -- we had dinner with the president wednesday night. we all agree the chances are less than 5054 grand bargain. -- 50-50 for a grand bargain. mr. lowe's statement, that would get zero votes on the floor. it would be attacks from the

right because it never gets us anywhere near a balanced budget. it would be attacked by the right because the inflation adjuster. this is called the chained cpi. it has an ominous ring to it. i think we should call truth in cost-of-living adjustment. all it is is it says we have been measuring a little too generously the inflation- adjusted each year. when i go on social security, when i became an air force retiree, that's not the check i'm going to get forever. ofh year there is a little an inflation adjustment to help it keep up with inflation. that's all this chained cpi

would be. it is just netroots in saying let's get it as accurate as possible in keeping our retirees up with inflation. if we can do something like that and saw a 25% of the social security actuarial problem, then we ought to look at doing that. -- solve. ] i have to congratulate democrats and the so-called gang of six and some democrats on the budget committee like senator boren, for saying this is something we should look at. if the inflation-adjusted is fair, we can save a little money, then we ought to look at that. host: senator roger wicker. let's hear from independent caller mark in philadelphia. caller: i've been listening to your views on gun control and they sound pretty reasonable. the problem is the republicans are not getting their points across clearly to the american people, so the polls show there are a lot of support for things