>> today, and newsmakers woodhouse veterans committee chairmen -- newsmakers with the veterans committee chairmen jeff miller. >> joining us this week on "newsmakers," congressman jeff miller of florida. he joins us from pensacola in his district. joining us to question him here in the c-span studio, with a journalist rick maze of "the military times," and jeff from "usa today." >> the number one issue for veterans is and has been for sometimes the backlog of claims. you have had a lot of questions about this and answers from the va about what to do with the 1 million claims that are pending. there are personally -- i know many veterans personally who are

waiting for their claims to be addressed. what should be done? how much confidence do you have in the va? >> i think we need to start with what the va is doing now. they need to get credit for the million claims that they injured rick -- adjudicates on an annual basis. secretaries and secchi -- secretary shinseki has vowed to wipe out the backlog, making sure that every claim has a 95% accuracy rate. i think that he is way overestimating the ability of the department. it is very unfortunate that the veterans find themselves in this situation. there are regional offices doing relatively good jobs, but some are falling woefully behind, like baltimore, los angeles, an

oakland, where they had to shut down regional offices so that they could reach train the employees or their. we are now listening to the secretary double down saying that they will hit that 2015 marked. >> you are using a poker analogy, double down. dublin down on his career? is this make or break for him? >> i am not saying that i am bubbling down, i am saying that the secretary is doubling down, that he is basically not heeding the call of the veterans' service organizations for republicans and democrats who say that that is an overly ambitious goal. that is an easy way if you want to wipe the slate clean, and

even if it is pushed off and adjudicated negatively, they call it done. but the veteran does not, because he turns around and appeals the climb again. >> given this complex series of changes to make the deadline, is it time for her to step aside? >> if you put all the veteran management services as the total solution to the issue, i am not thoroughly convinced that it is just the soft programs they're putting in place.

this is what they are saying will solve everything and i think that there is a culture within the va that needs to be broken. we have employees who are not doing their job. that continue to keep their jobs. they continue to move around within the system. unemployment, what it is within the country within the veterans community, i know that there are people that would gladly step up and take the opportunity to work for veterans and get the job done. i still have very little confidence in the undersecretary to do her job, but as i told the secretary it is his responsibility to manage personnel i think there is a failure in -- personnel. i think there is a failure in the system that does not serve veterans well. >> a tremendous amount of pressure is placed in the administration with the

secretary at the forefront. there are bso's that represent millions of veterans, disabled veterans of america and so on, that seem to still be supportive. they think that they're willing to support him. >> washington says one thing, but when you go to talk to the local bso's, you will find individuals that do not agree. they will say that there has been plenty of time. i have not called for the secretary's resignation because i think he is trying to do the right thing, but i will say that

he is not being given a full and transparent picture of what is going on in the field, nor is congress being given that very same transparent picture. we asked and asked the central office of veterans affairs for information on issues as it relates to a backlog of claims and health-care issues out there. we get stonewalled. unfortunately i think that there is this notion that they will outweigh the secretary or under- secretary, if necessary, and of their protection is in place unfortunately it will protect not only good employees but that employees as well. >> what is the answer to that? what do you do if you have a culture? how do you break it? >> i would like to see the secretary not just meeting with leadership, but rank-and-file. there are 300,000 employees from the department of veterans

affairs and the vast majority are doing a good job, but there is a problem somewhere. there is a disconnect. we want to help. we want to be a partner with what is going on. working with the ranking member on the committee, we have offered all the money that they have asked for, all the technology, all the hardware, the people, yet they still fall further and further behind. what concerns me is that we are about to have a surge coming back and afghanistan. how are they going to handle these great number of claims. >> a lot of the veterans share that small amount of confidence. do you worry about that confidence from the veterans? >> if i said that, my confidence losses with the undersecretary,

not the secretary. i do believe that he is an honorable man. some of my colleagues are going becoming restless. there have been several letters offered recently. there are other issues that will come to light. there are -- it is unfortunate. this is not our father, our grandfather's va. they do provide excellent medical care when the veteran gets into the system, but the big problem that still exists and continues to grow is in fact that disability claims backlog that just a few years ago the average steelworker, there are three times those workers out there and those numbers are

really negligible when you talk about the accuracy being better. the fact remains that there are thousands and thousands of claims of veterans who are owed disability benefits that they urge from their country. they should not have to wait any longer in order to have those claims adjudicated. >> claims? >> that and growing. >> what purpose would it say it would it serve for the secretary to hold those meetings? what would be the benefit? at what point do you think about privatizing and starting over? >> there is a fought within the congress, the house and the senate, where people could be

trained in the insurance industry, then come in and contract to buy the department of veterans affairs to be able to look at these claims and get through the backlog. by and large, again, for the employees that are out there, they do the work they are supposed to do. the continued black market we see on the department of veterans affairs remains within the disability claims process. what i do not want to have happen is folks sit back and wait patiently, as they already have, some for three, four, five years, for 2015 and all of a sudden they find out it will not work this time. we have heard excuses. the same excuses were used back

in 1995. we pulled out information from a budget hearing where the secretary basically said -- look, we have a backlog that we understand continues to grow but these are complex claims in the system. we hear the exact same excuses being used by the va. i think that the american public is tired of that and they want to see solutions. >> what would those meetings accomplish? would they really go beyond the purpose of morale, with a secretary having some one-on-one time with district offices? >> again, when the secretary is standing behind someone on a plane, you'd think that they will not make sure that they will do the job appropriately? not talking about meetings necessarily, but by staying inside the ivory tower -- it down there in you have so many people, -- paper files stacked to the ceiling, at a time when

the people have computing capabilities on their hit to take a lunar module to the moon. -- their hip to take a lunar module to the moon. everything in the va is still on paper. >> mr. chairman, i want to make one thing clear, this one element that you seemed to indicate before, that you may have been backing away from the undersecretary. is that what you're saying?

>> i recognize that she does not work for me. she works under the direct supervision of the secretary, of the department of veterans affairs. of course, she works for the taxpayers. there are a lot of taxpayers out there who are not confident the chicken do the job she has been asked to do. there are vso's out there that want to give her more time, but there are also service organizations out there who are tired of waiting as well. >> do you feel that you should leave for job? >> absolutely. i have not let up on that claim that all. she has said she is staying put. the secretary is saying that she is staying put. i respect the secretary for his decision. but that does not mean i am going to let up on their oversight responsibility, which again, the second largest agency in the federal government is the heart of veterans affairs with an annual budget of about $129

billion per year. that is our responsibility to have those items over that particular agency. >> you are very knowledgeable about veterans after years in your position. i want to ask you about joblessness. the sampling size can be small, but if you look at the first quarter of unemployment, from 2012 to 2013, the rate of joblessness for those folks has virtually remain unchanged. about one in 10. there are a number of veterans there that are unemployed and have increased the significant amount. can you help us to understand why employers are not hiring people? >> there has been a solid boat

from the congress and the administration to make sure that employers understand what good employees veterans can make. those coming out of the service now, many of them are young workers willing to go into the field and do jobs, maybe, that a lot of the people would not want to do. they are trained. they have the responsibility, the decision making tools and capabilities that a lot of employers are working for. that is why many corporations have said -- look, if a veteran comes up, we will find a place to put them to work. one of the biggest things we have been having trouble with as we work with governors across the united states is the certification process. there is no reason that a veteran that was a combat medic should have to go through a one- year training froth at in order to become an e n t -- a one-year training process in order to become an gmt -- emt. so, i salute the first lady and

the doctor biden for doing what they're doing to bring attention to this particular issue. i think that all of america does not want to see the unemployment rate for returning veterans to be higher than the national average. >> there are maybe some folks to have issues with certification, but there are a good many that cannot. over the next three years, for years they are expecting 1 million to come out of the service with the drawdown. can you help to understand where the disconnect is? some are concerned that there may be a bias with so much about pst, for example, that they may be shunned for potential mental health problems. any sense of what the reason may

be for this? >> i would certainly hope not. posttraumatic stress is a real condition that is treatable for many individuals. for some it takes an extremely long period of time and there are disability ratings that come along with that as well. the va is trying to move it forward as it relates to mental health, but i will tell you that the real answer is that until the economy really starts to move, move on a monthly basis and not just on a staggered scale, where we have jobs, that veterans will continue to fight unemployment numbers higher than anyone would expect them to be. unfortunately we have accepted this 7% number to be the new norm and i do not think it is susceptible to anyone but i think you can probably add into the pit since where some are afraid that you may be deployed

if you are a reservists or guardsman, that is not what the american public what because the citizen soldiers out there doing jobs for us should be rewarded. not only when they come home, but have the job sitting there for them, and have gainful employment so that they can also provide for their families as well. >> 30% of returning iraq and afghanistan veterans are believed to have pg&e, the same number that appeared in a report from the va recently, 30% of the people treated in mental health words and then released with suicidal tendencies, there is no follow-up and the va does not track cramdown. what do you think about those kinds of lapses in the administration? there are problems with health consistency.

>> the two issues i have focused on primarily as the chairman of veterans affairs have been the mental-health and the backlog issues. i think that the va truly wants to do the right thing, but unfortunately they are woefully understaffed when it comes to providers in mental health care. i have suggested that va go outside of their own system and go into the try care system to give veterans the opportunity that they cannot get with health care provided in a timely fashion within the va. allow them to go outside into the private sector coming to a system that already understands military personnel, give them a chance to double the providers for mental health overnight. the va will tell you that the public can get an appointment within 14 days of the question. unfortunately our information is that it takes a whole lot longer for a veteran to get into the system and of course we are

seeing 22 veterans per day in this country commit suicide. by anyone's estimation, those numbers are way too high. unfortunately it is not going to get any smaller. we expect that number to grow. i would hope that the va would be prepared for those growing numbers. the president last summer said that he would hire 1900 more mental health providers. after there were an existing 1500 in the field. i tried to get numbers from the department of veterans affairs as to where they are, to say that they had made great progress, but i have not seen the numbers to back up those claims. >> i am wondering about the problems the you are considering with health care benefits, what about their plans to have big executive bonuses for some of the senior people?

how do you feel about that? >> it is unfortunate that they have chosen to reward people that have not done their job. usually people get rewarded by being able to keep their job and if you do not do your job well and some of the people who have received bonuses had had deaths occurred their facilities, disease's spread within their facilities, i saw some attempt in the last congress to put a cap on the analysis and unfortunately it did not go anywhere. i have not a bill i am ready to file and i am telling the department of veterans affairs that there will be no bonuses out there. when you see retention bonuses being given to doctors and folks in the health-care field when they are leaving, when they are actually retiring, again, maybe a small amount of money and millions of dollars in a multimillion-dollar budget going

through the department of veterans affairs, when you have people die in your facility, you still have tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and something is wrong. supervision is not what it needs to be when it relates to bonuses being given to these individuals. i support the department in the veterans' benefits area. i would like to see it in other areas. no bonuses. >> one last thing on the employment issue. a great deal is being made by the white house to get promises from corporations to hire more veterans. you do not hear a lot about a concern over this, which is that many advocates were worried that once veterans did their job, they do not care how well they do in that position. how long they stay in that job, the nutrition rate, whether they are able to thrive for be

promoted and so on, some companies have tried to take into account this possibility and develop programs to assist the entrance, but does your committee have any interest in trying to understand beyond the hiring how well these veterans could be doing once they have a job? >> i am sure that there is some statistical value to doing that, but the most important thing is to get them a job. in 2011 we held one of the first round table discussions with major corporations. we brought them in. a lot of these public companies to in fact have that record maters within the walls of their human resources departments and they focus specifically on trying to recruit and hire veterans. it would be a good charge to give to them, to help track

those individuals. there is no guarantee for anyone that they will get jobs, be promoted, or keep that particular job. but i think that most veterans today coming out of the service, even those who are older, 35, they want to work and companies and corporations may need to give them a good, solid bloc. >> can you tell what kind of market they will be going into? the drawdown in the size of the military? there are a lot of unemployed veterans and you have been concern yourself. do you see that in the short term? >> i said that just a little while ago. the important thing is that until the economy starts moving forward, i have a great deal of differences with what this a ministration is trying to do to jump-start the economy.

if you would take the boot off the back of the employer out there trying to generate jobs for the american public, you will see this economy began to war in -- roar in, if you have seen it in years past. >> that is all the time we have for congressman miller. thank you so much for joining from pensacola today. we're joined here at this round table by greg [indiscernible] and rick mays. big takeaways from what we learned today? >> it is clear that there is a real effort to watch and see what happened, that he is trying to monitor it and make sure that the secretary keeps up reducing the backlog, but it is a complicated problem that is sometimes hard to understand in

terms of the point alt. >> what kind of threats can he wheeled? what kind of promises can he make? >> it is a nice question. the proposed bills, the solution is not really legislation. there is no lack of ideas on what to do, it is not a matter of no one thinking of this. people have thought of absolutely everything and maybe they are trying to many things at once. but the fact is that veterans are tired and weary. three years, four years, you should not wait that long to have your initial claim decided. it is a simple fact. 20,000 people died before their benefits were decided in the last year. a terrible thing. part of that is age, but that should not be happening. >> what are you hearing from the chairman? >> i heard the same thing. he is holding their feet to the

fire. waiting for them to go for a solution. i do not think that he has more power than that. >> unemployment, the question of getting jobs and retaining jobs. >> that is the concern. a lot of it has to do with a fork in the transition of the job, helping them to be comfortable with folks coming back. issues that can be easily resolved, a memento in the corporation that allows them to thrive. it is unclear. i was hoping to get from them an interest in finding out how well they do once they get the job. hired is one thing if they get to work, but if they do not thrive for see opportunity for improvement, there have been stories of veterans leaving work within three or four months. that brings them back to ground zero.

>> in the military climate the people that get out of the service, they think they need a job in need to do something, and then they move on to something else and what we are seeing a lot from the current commitment are short-term jobs that will help people not be unemployed, but it might not be the right career choice for them. >> what they have for the secretary in terms of getting interactive, how hands-on is the secretary at this point and do you see that being part of the dynamic? >> he has been criticized about not been very forthcoming from the public. but we do not hear enough from the public. there has been a sense that he has been removed. that he does not get out and that he reaches out to the shareholders on this issue and has tried to communicate, and it is difficult to understand where that connection is and how fruitful it is. it is hard to understand exactly

what the chairman thinks would result from that. it was hard to understand what the chairman meant. certainly at think he is correct, there can be a kind of disconnect between such a huge bureaucracy between the central office and what is happening out there. >> but he is not a schoolmarm. he cannot stand at the back of the room while they're doing plot -- while they're doing claims to make sure that they do them right. they do not happen quickly, no matter who is in charge. >> change of tone? anything new? >> i think that he had the impression that there was a change of town, initially. when i asked him about it point blank, he stuck to his guns. it seemed like it would be almost destructive to change at a point like this with this complex plan under way.

established what the same conclusion, he seemed like he was very focused on the job of is being done. >> because the problem is so big, i think that he actually did back down a little bit. >> thank you so much, gentlemen, to both of you for being with us. thank you for being part of "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national >>ble satellite corp. 2013] we will have to live events on our companion network. first a migration and economic competitiveness hearing. and former mexican president wi