>> i appreciate the senator's observation. senator barasso. >> mr. chairman, i realize you have the power to make certain rulings in this committee, and i obviously disagree that this be put off until another day. amendments other that deal with the jurisdiction f the banking committee, reappropriating funds from the department of defense is not necessary -- not necessarily the jurisdiction of this committee. i appreciate the kind comments from the committee. many members of the committee have said they want to take real steps to help ukraine. i am offering congress a chance to help ukraine and our allies. the message we are sending now is we are more willing to protect russia's energy monopoly. the irony is not going to be lost on the people of the ukraine or the allies or the leaders in the kremlin.

it is clear by not voting we are rewarding russia with more power at the international monetary fund while denying ukraine the opportunity to be more energy independent from russian energy sources. if members are willing to provide american taxpayer dollars from ukraine to pay russian gas bills, then we should en-- i would say by passing my amendment, the united states has the ability to be the strategic supplier to our nato allies and ukraine. it is worth noting that my amendment on l.n.g. exports has strong bipartisan support in the committee. i expect our bipartisan pass an amendment that helps ukraine decrease the -- helps ukraine. i look forward to traveling to

ukraine tomorrow and speaking to them bl buying natural gas from america to help decrease >> the chair rules the amendment out of order as a topic outside of the jurisdiction. i would be happy to go through those, but i think in the interest of time, we will put that into the record. , theut objections amendment is ruled out of order. does anyone else wish to participate in the amendments? >> i want to offer my amendment number one. nine ands section

offsets to the department of defense. in order to help offset the cost, as well as to help with the enhanced security funding. -- i realizeint there are differences of opinion. i don't believe this is essential for the bill. it is controversial. it will divide us. we are not providing a unified front in a situation where i think we should. amendmentupport the from senator paul. i think it is important we send a strong signal. what i'm concerned that this provision does keep us from preventing a unified front.

very briefly i wanted to speak to senator paul's amendment three you are not going to have the type of input or the type of economic plan that can will -- working in ukraine. -- that can work in ukraine. they are coming up with a plan. the u.s. needs to participate in that. forms -- the imf to fullythe cost offset, that has been one of the controversial issues. i hope we would recognize that for the u.s. to fully engage on this package which is in our national security interest -- i want to underscore a point that senator murphy made. pulled ine has been

two directions. whether they are part of russia or europe. they want to be with europe. we shouldn't force them economically to have to make a choice to be dependent on russia . imf is part of the solution. the u.s. has to be part of the modernized imf reforms. .hese changes are needed >> senator murphy. >> this isn't theoretical, it is practical. developing nations are increasingly hesitant to join with imf efforts to provide relief with the proper strings attached in places like ukraine. so long as the west end on the sidelines. this has practical consequences lead thebility to help imf into situations where they are bested but to do so. if we continue to sit on the sidelines and the committee continues to be unwilling to have the u.s. join other

nations, there will be justification for those developing nations to provide roadblocks to the type of assistance that ultimately as to u.s. security interests in the case of the ukraine. are no other members, let me say that i respect the senator's views. i disagree on the imf, particularly in this package. playing the central anchoring role in developing an international assistance package to it -- stabilize ukraine's economy. and reassure global financial markets. -- seekon we straight to strengthen the imf's efforts -- it would increase available emergency funding by 16%, sending an important signal to

other potential doors. is also crucial to ensure that the u.s. maintains its preeminent leadership and influence within the imf and increase the effectiveness of the imf and protecting global financial stability. including the 20 reforms. this bill will ensure the fund has the necessary resources to support structural reforms in the ukraine. ad the wherewithal to prevent financial crisis in the ukraine that could spill over to global markets and threaten u.s. economic security. the events in the ukraine are the perfect example for why the world needs a strong andrnational financial -- the imf to serve as its first responder. all parties are looking to the imf as the lead actor developing a financial stabilization package in the ukraine.

this preventing an economic crisis that would only exacerbate current tensions. and kurt are -- and further damage u.s. geopolitical priorities. for all of us who are concerned about stability and security, all of us were talking about the next crisis, i heard voices complaining about the administration not responded to time.raine' at a different and the west was not responding sufficiently. you have to be in a position to do that. the position is through the imf. even our loan during tea is nowhere near what you will need to publish -- accomplished through the imf. we need to get this done for the ukraine. we need to get it done for the next global crisis. for us to be in a preeminent leadership position with

influence over what the imf does. we do that by meeting our obligation. so.s very important to do i opposed the amendment. i respect his views. a full we have had oh -- debate. >> i don't believe the u.s. will be standing on the sidelines. i don't believe the imf will not be able to act. i want to refute those charges. this is simply not necessary for this package. but i would request a rollcall vote. say to the gentleman that i spoke to christine. she sees this as an essential element of being able to move forward not only in this crisis but in others. with will likely,. -- which will likely,.

we will call the roll. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> murphy? no. >> no. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. rich? >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> he didn't send a proxy. >> aye. >> no. i am sure he is a yes. meaning no. [laughter]

the clerk will continue the role. paul?her -- mr. paul? >> yes by proxy. >> no. >> he is not coming. the clerk will report. [indiscernible] >> excuse me?

[indiscernible] >> i know washington counts in unique ways. the amendment is not agree to. anybody else wishing to offer an amendment? >> we have it in amendment from me. what the amendment would do is add number 82 section six a. to section 6ht (a). and to also address violence against women and girls. i want to thank senators johnson, boxer, durbin for cosponsoring. and senator cardin has been asked to be added as a cosponsor. -- me point out the region reason i thought this would be important to add is because of we look at how ukraine fares

when it comes to their treatment of women, they rank very low in politicalomen's anticipation. 119 out of 136. only 10% of women in parliament in ukraine are women. 45% of women in the ukraine beent that they have subject to violence at some point in their lifetime. i think this is an issue it is important for us to continue for this to focus on. i hope the committee will support this amendment. perks -- >> i were thank the senator for her amendment. >> i share the sentiments. -- there anyone who wants to speak to the amendment? it and the minute

is agreed to. >> you have an amendment that is a very simple amendment. a have prepared every year report regarding chinese military activity. this does the same thing for russia. admittedly, a similar report was included in the defense authorization bill, but for one year only. given the activities of russia recently, it appears to me we have to have this as an ongoing report. it adds a few other things to what was in the annual report that was asked for in the defense authorization bill such as an update on the nuclear modernization programs, weapons proliferation, and others. it should be relatively noncontroversial. it attempts to support ukraine and at least take a hard look at

the russians if not actually do some appropriate discipline. this falls in the latter category. i generally am supportive of the thrust of what the senator wants to do. the amendment asks the dod to onpared a report to congress the future military power of the russian federation. that is fine. but the amendment also requires a full accounting of our military to military engagement took this with russia. it asks for a detailed summary of the topics discussed. that would likely curtail the potential for productive meetings between the u.s. and russian defense officials. it would likely and any chances of u.s. russian military

cooperation. considergentleman taking that section out? in which case i would be prepared to accept his amendment. >> i would. that is aan, i think broad interpretation. having said that, i can take that out. motion that wea -- that the men then this menendez -- the amendment to strike the language i just referred to be accepted. is there a second? all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. ayes haveave it -- it. are you willing to except a voice vote? .ll those in favor say aye

the amendment is adopted. is there any other amendment? is notough mr. rubio here, he is here in spirit. he has jury duty and has asked rubiooffer on his behalf number one. it adds language to paragraph 15. that language strengthens the language of regarding the with russia's participation in the g-8. most language in the bill puts sideboards or restrictions if you would on russia's participation in the g-8. anddds language that --

that particular language is strong -- talking about not invading your neighbors. adds additional language -- addedrms -- that would be after discouraging them from entering and violating territorial integrity of the neighbors. >> is there anyone who wishes to speak to this amendment question mark -- this amendment? you have other amendments? >> no. >> i am inclined to be more excepting if there are limits. >> irony game you might and -- i already gave you might answer. any member who wishes to speak to the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye.

the amendment is agreed to. we thank him for his civic participation in jury duty. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are sending mixed messages to russia on whether or not we are encouraging them by sending them loan money via ukraine. are sending them a message that their behavior is unacceptable. i offer this amendment to make it clear we would like to send a message. this paul amendment three. a $50 million fund , the u.s. russia investment fund. are clever washington mathematicians who have concluded that cutting spending

is increasing spending. i don't agree with that. this would send a good signal if not a great deal of money. a signal to russia that we are unhappy with the behavior and putting our money where our mouth is. any other member who wishes to speak to this amendment? >> if we could have a roll call, i would appreciate it. thank you. while i appreciate senator paul's thinking and tapping the have funds, recent events underscored the need for more assistance to democracy, rule of law, and civil society organizations in russia, not less. the amendment is technically not

possible. the fund is not free for reprogramming. capital independent fund incorporated in delaware, with specific restrictions on its expenditures. i think that what we need to do is hope of democracy and rule of law in russia. not take away resources. i would have to oppose the senator's amendment. >> i know the house looked at this, saying cbo would actually score this is spending. not as a reduction. they were counting on the money coming back to the treasury. for what it is worth, i appreciate the intent of reducing spending, but but it

has been indicated it will be scored in the opposite direction. it takes money -- i would like that out -- point that out. >> does the senator asked for -- the clerk will call the roll. by proxy. proxy -- no >> no. >> no by proxy. >> durban. >> murphy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> mr. johnson? >> aye. no proxy available. no vote. >> no proxy available.

no vote. >> mr. paul? >> aye. >> the clerk will report. >> nose or 11. yays are 4.1. >> one final comment. defenseerence to the appropriations under this bill, these are rescinded from unobligated balances from other procurement. it is a fund that is under executing. is out of a $6.4 billion appropriation that procures various types of equipment. $57 millionng about in budget authority. out of a program that

the army, due to the recent termination of a certain program, has ultimately decided to retire all of what they call the warrior helicopters. that program is proposed for cancellation in the budget requests to read -- budget requests. the bottom line is it has been vetted with the appropriators. we are talking about underperforming and/or program ends -- programs the department has canceled. we feel that it is fitting and appropriate to share with both the state department and d.o.t.. -- dod. >> we were happy to work with you in our subcommittee. i was told by the comptroller's office that they have no objection to these offsets.

>> i appreciate senator durbin and his role as the chair to give us that insight. i hope that eliminates any questions. the vote is on final passage of the bill. the senator. >> i will vote against this. i have to tell you i am disappointed. i wanted to do the things we all want to do with the ukraine. i'm disappointed we have included matters regarding the imf that i think should be debated separately. that i and others have strong feelings on. as a result of that, i will cast a no vote. i'm hoping after it comes back from the house and that is out of there, i can vote positively. all those in favor.

court -- aye by proxy.-- durbin? >> aye. >> murphy5 ? >> aye. byi by proxy -- aye proxy. mr. johnsonnson? -- ? aye by priooxy. >> no by proxy. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. 14 -- the legislation is

favorably reported to the senate. i ask unanimous consent that staff the allowed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

x afghan security forces will deteriorate if the u.s. fully withdraws at the end of 2014. according to general joseph dunford, the top commander in afghanistan. you can see his entire testimony before the senate armed services committee online at www.c-span.org. here's a little of what he had to say. >> is very disturbing to me to hear the president say that the longer karzai weights, the lower the number of troops will be. i don't get that connection. karzai's intransigence of-- dictate the number troops and missions that we would want as part of the residual force?

i cannot talk to that. >> i'm sure you can't. so are we able to get out all the equipment that we need to get out of afghanistan on schedule? >> i'm absolutely confident we will be a to do that, senator and >> even if the russians cut off one of the avenues? efforts we have resilience in the system and i'm not concerned at all about a northernthe russian distribution network. >> are you confident with the level left kind of say 10,000 that the nato forces afghan military will have capabilities such as air evacuation, close air support, and especially intelligence capabilities? >> to the things you mentioned are actually gaps that will exist in 25th teen.

>> in 2015. the special capability will not be developed and they will still have gaps in their ministerial capacity. those are the main areas we will be focused on in 2015. >> so in your view, if we left afghanistan with no residual force, we could see a replay of the iraq scenario? ofif we leave at the end 2014, the afghan security forces will begin to deteriorate. the security environment will begin to deteriorate. the only debate is the pace of that deterioration. >> i thank you, general. i just want to say again, you're in a long line of really outstanding leaders, and all of us are very proud of the service that you have rendered and continued to render to our country. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our .ompanion network, c-span3

the senate banking committee holds a confirmation hearing for nominees to the federal reserve, the national credit union board and the department of housing and urban affairs. that is at 10 a.m. eastern. at one: 30, secretary of state john kerry is scheduled to testify about his department's budget before the house foreign affairs committee. you can participate on facebook and twitter at #c-span chat. >> while this invasion continues, we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with the soviet union. that's why the united states has imposed stiff economic penalties on the soviet union. i will not issue any permits for soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters of the united states. i have cut soviet access to high technology equipment and to

agricultural products. i have limited other commerce with the soviet union and i have asked our allies and friends to join with us in restraining their own trade with the soviets and not to replace our own embargoed items. i have notified the olympic committee that with soviet invading forces in afghanistan, neither the american people nor i will support support sending n olympic team to moscow. [applause] highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago, and brought to you today is a public service by your television provider. >> up next, washington journal spotlight on magazine series focuses on a recent article in wired magazine would suggest that tech companies like google, facebook, and microsoft had to

fight for their lives against their own government. this is a half-hour. >> are spotlight continues here on the washington journal. taking a look at the february cover story for wired magazine, how the u.s. almost killed the internet and white still could. stephen leavy is joining us from new york to talk about his piece. let's begin with where you began in the story, the day that these tech companies were contacted by the washington post about the revelations made by edward snowden. what was their reaction? on june 6 ofout last year. it purported that these companies had cooperated with the nsa in giving it access to the data about their customers. everything from google searches

to facebook photos to anything that people shared, and to read articles, you would think there was a direct umbilical between the nsa to these companies. that wasn't really the case, but as it turned out, the companies were cooperating in a secret program that forced the companies really to give information to the nsa. by that point, the companies were trying to correct the record when they were somewhat gag on what they were actually doing. there was this whole morass of doubt about what the companies were doing and people couldn't trust them for anything by that point. >> were these companies really surprised, and how did they not know what was going on? they had never heard the codename of the program that they had been cooperating with. it was called prism and it was in this internal slideshow from

the nsa. it turned out to be the name of that database they had all this information residing in after it got to the nsa. they were also surprised it was being reported. there was a massive amount of data. that mystery persisted for a few months, until they learned there was another major source, a bigger source of information from the servers, the company storehouses of information about you and me and everyone else through the nsa, which the nsa was also intercepting traffic circulated among the different databases -- data centers of the company where they store -- store information. google has multiple data centers and do not talk to each other. the nsa was basically tapping into that and getting the information there and collect in

it. host: were the tech companies giving the information or was the u.s. government taking it? guest: both. there is one slide that talks about the downstream method, which means asking -- actually compelling the companies to give information that they asked about certain targets or e-mail addresses or whatever in the companies would have to provide the information or track and real-time what the customers were doing, and then the upstream method where behind the company's backs essentially they were grabbing the information. host: when it comes to the companies giving it, being required to do so, if the ceos did not know, and you report the stories went around asking, are we doing this? if we -- if they did not know, then who was giving the information to the government? guest: that is an interesting thing i learned, in certain

cases and in a big company like this, you try to insulate the ceo from what is really going on. there are compliance officers generally a company like facebook or google, someone who maybe has experience in dealing with the government that negotiates the terms of what they hand over. it is a little fuzzier whenever the press comes in. sometimes the company might say that is too broad. other times they might try to fight it. of course, the court that gave the order does not give them much play, and if they do not cooperate, they are in contempt of the court and subject to fines and penalties. host: did yahoo! try to fight this in 2008, and what was the outcome? guest: when the order for first came through in 2008, they fought it.

they said this is unconstitutional and had to fight it in secret because when you get an order from a secret court you have to fight it in secret. it was not until last year that these priests came out in public. they lost the object in and lost the appeal and still might be of mine somewhere but generally thought that it has been deemed constitutional. >> what part of the law did they cite that it is constitutionally? guest: sort of in keeping with the patriot act, and a lot of other actions dealing with earlier surveillance act. we instituted amendments through the survey let's act and really broadened the power of the

government. what some congresspeople say is it broadened its way beyond what they thought they were doing, at least in the nsa interpretation. interpreting it in the widest possible manner, and some people in congress like senator ron wyden said we never thought this was going to happen. a cosponsor of the patriot act said it exceeded what he thought would happen. host: what was the message when yahoo! lost the battle? guest: the message to the other companies was we have to cooperate. they pushed back and said he wanted tell our customers the kind of information we are handing over and how much. they can only do this in limited ways that did not give a whole picture for what is going on. after president obama announced reforms, modest reforms of the surveillance ask, this january, there is a little more play in what the companies can say.

even so, we do not have a complete picture of the nate church of the information they are handing over and how wide the scope is. in a way, it is less relevant now that we know from the back and, the nsa is getting massive amounts of information, and what the companies want to do in those cases is encrypt the information so the government cannot easily access it and read it. >> what does the government say about encryption, and explain how it works. >> encryption is a method by which information is scrambled. even by intercept it, i cannot necessarily read it. the nsa is an organization whose mission is to decrypt, unscramble these kinds of codes. they are very good at doing it. even so, not so good that state-of-the-art encryption can be easily baffled.

that is why countries like -- companies like google, hollings are encrypting or manning to encrypt the information as it moves among data centers and internet. host: we learn from edward snowden recently that encryption works. guest: it does work but is not flawless. in order to do it right, you have to be relatively sophisticated. not so easy for everyday people to use it. i interviewed eric schmidt, the executive chair of google. and co-author of a book he wrote. they did a big, international listening to her --and said they were just to bash the prize that in companies that have a lot to lose from having communications intercepted do not use the tools

available to them to scramble communications because it is too complicated. host: a tweet from a viewer -- do these companies make money from the government or mining this data and handing it over? guest: so, the first part of the question from the government, just for their own use gets to the absence of what is -- gets to the essence of what is required for the companies to use this. their model of serving the customer is based on how the information about the customer and being able to target information that the users want or deliver the information that they want a son who they are, that is really important to the company's.

these companies want to cut a deal with us. host: they sell this information to other companies who want to research? guest: they do not sell it, they use it for themselves, to make our lives better. then they give us better search results. facebook says, because they know more about us because they can provide more relevant information when we go on facebook and look at the newsfeed that scrolls by there. they do not sell to the government. they do get reimbursed for supplying it to the government but do not make content from it. that is a small amount of money. >> you write this i'm a google, facebook microsoft and the other tech titans have had to fight for their lives against the u.s. government and an excuse of look inside the year from hell and why the internet will never be

the same. why hasn't been a year from hell? -- has it been a year from hell? guest: these companies are under constant scrutiny because they ask so much about because of the benefit they provide to us and these companies sell advertisements against the information and do not give it to the advertisers that use the information to service advertisements there so it is part of the business model as well. they have spent years trying to get us comfortable with deals and have done a pretty good job because we use these companies a lot, even though you know we are sharing information and other circumstances we might not be comfortable with. then all of a sudden something new comes into the equation. not only being used by the

companies i'm above the government is getting a hold of the information. little brother collaborating with the brother. that throws all of the trades askew and could make us very uncomfortable with that and would threaten the core models. host: getting viewers involved in this conversation. you can call in. you write in the story about how president obama initially responded to the snowden leaks. what did he say, and what impact of that have on the company's? guest: the leak about the prism program, which involves companies handing over under order information to the government, he tried to reassure americans by saying, do not worry, it is only for foreign intelligence. so if you are an american citizen, that is not what we are collect and there.

this did no favor to the companies. over half the business is overseas. that is where most of the growth is. that did not do them any favor, because now foreign customers are very wary of the companies. they say if i use google or facebook or the other companies or a company stores my information in the cloud, is it all going to the nsa? all going to the united states government? host: greg in georgia. independent collar. caller: my question is the way the government is taking information from the high-tech companies. facebook is sending mail to get

information. and taking money out of the companies. thank you. guest: i think it is difficult going back to snail mail now. the fact is we are all pretty hooked on the new technology here. i do not think you can turn back time to say i am going back to the mail system and the nsa or the fbi into ever surveillance targets will be going back to steaming envelopes. a nice idea, but i think we are way past that. host: a new report out that says the internet rebel -- will revolutionize the economy. by 2025 users will be more informed and help the economy. next in aurora, colorado. -- ann.

caller: i wanted to make a correction about a statement made that these companies do not sell the data they are mining. when twitter went public it was made known that 20-30% off office is the actual sale of data they collect on people who are tweeting, what they are tweeting and when, etc.. the internet to me is one massive advertising tool. they collect categories, all of the private information and use it or sell it. host: i will have stephen leavy respond to you. guest: i may be brought in describing that, but we were talking about facebook and google, they will not sell personal information. they will use that information. there are a sub industry that

does nothing but sell information that is gathered there. all sorts of advertising -- advertising networks and other things that plant bugs on your computer, essentially, as you surf the internet and look for information. i think we need laws to limit that. as for the twitter thing, it is my understanding that they aggregate a lot of the information, but most of that is public information. when people tweet, they do not treat privately but in general. twitter does sell firehoses of information that otherwise could be gotten, but not otherwise an easy form. host: back to the government role in this. the president nominated to head up the cap -- to head this up was on capitol hill testifying about their surveillance program.

the headline is he backs data collection, saying they support the idea of maybe a third-party holding onto maybe double of the data. how do you think tech companies would respond to the idea? guest: i think he was talking about a different program we have not talked about before that basically collects all of the data about who we make phone calls to and how long those called last, and that includes americans. part of the reason why the companies were so upset when the first revelation came out is that was a day after he learned about the massive surveillance program on americans, and a lot of people assume this was the technological equivalent.

they were getting the same data about mail, which prison does not do. as it turns out, the nsa had experimented in a similar program a couple of years before. in terms of that, i think tech companies would be very uncomfortable with that. they do not want to be in a position of holding information that is seen as storing it for the government for the government later x oration of targets. host: verify then. guest: prism deals with information about you or that you generate or he -- who you communicate on the systems with google, facebook, yahoo! come apple and a number of the rest of them. in that case, the government makes a request to a company like this book or yahoo! and the company then provides that

information on the customers or e-mail address that is involved in that target. i have been trying very hard to see how broad the things are. that is the one thing you can really not get a handle on. you say there is a request. you say can i have a request on joe sixpack and this e-mail address and everyone who lives in houston or malaysia or something like that. they say it cannot be that broad. it is tough to say. we are a little more information out of the companies will tell you more. it is not a giant amount compared to how much information the government caught from the upstream methods. host: let's address the second part of the title in the story, the u.s. government almost killed the internet and still could.

here is a quote from the facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg. explain. guest: so four years -- for years some companies have been unhappy to dominant power on the internet is the united states. most of the big companies like the ones we have been discussing here and the ones that build the infrastructure for the internet are american, and certainly western, develop nations. they say we want a piece of that and feel maybe we should not connect so easily with the rest of the internet. for most of us, the powers have opened nature, that anyone can plug into it. you do not need permission to

begin a business on the internet, and it is global. these urgings on behalf of of these are out there but the nsa revelations gave them new power. now countries like rizzo, police -- brazil, malaysia and germany talking about walling off citizens from everyone else and hurdles to integrate the information with the rest of the world. that really could impact the internet as we know it and make it less useful. the big companies would have to invest a lot to make the systems work. a small startup company -- start up company may never get off the ground because i could not reach the global audience that every internet company wants to reach. host: here is another comment -- guest: that is right, now some businesses and other countries are selling their wares on the bases we do not cooperate with the nsa.

one venture capitalist told me that was the pitch of a cloud storage company to him from europe when they were talking about why they were going to be a successful business and maybe an american company like dropbox or google cloud business or amazon. guest: next call. caller: i had an event occur two weeks before the nsa scandal occurred on the news. i was working on my computer. i am a writer and writing a historical novel about h and each of -- ancient egypt. i have multiple sites up on my

google. all of a sudden the word resume -- prism appeared one-inch high on my screen and had no idea what that was about and my system went down immediately, and two weeks later i heard about the nsa and understood what it was, but i do not know what happened to me. was this a trainee who got it wrong or a computer that malfunctioned? i do not know. guest: a pretty interesting story. i cannot give you an answer. almost like the x-files. since the companies did not know the code name you would not think it came from them. in theory, unlikely they would

be looking at your computer, but to be honest, i do not know what happened. host: how does the program worked versus what is called muscular? guest: that is the codename for the program i described earlier where the government tapped into the traffic circulating among the databases, specifically apple and google. companies like microsoft and facebook also assume the same thing was happening to them. that was the upstream program i described where as prism was the downstream program where they compelled companies to give the information. host: american heroes has -- -- says -- guest: that is a terrific question.

one part of the story we have not discussed yet is i called the nsa for comment. i said do you want to talk to me? i had written a book in the 1990's. i covered the crypto wars where there was a big fight about the encryption technology. for a long time the government fought it and fermented companies from exporting it. eventually they gave in. i tried very hard to go to the nsa and talk to them. in this case they surprised me. they said come down and talk to us. i spent a long meeting with some of the top officials of the nsa, including the director at the time, keith alexander. in talking about that, it was really interesting to see how they saw the thing, how they

responded to it. they feel they are misunderstood. people think like the caller before that the nsa is watching everything they do. one of the top officials who has since became has since said what can i do to convince people we are not looking at your mail or grandma's mail? in deed because of the secrecy, people do not know how expensive this is. they are upset about the degree to which we are being surveilled in the sense that information is being collected about us. they said just collecting the information is not the same as collecting the information or using it this will help them in the subways of new york.

they were able to find someone who is going to do an act of terrorism in the subways of new york and that help them stop it. people examine the claims and say that could have been other ways to got -- to get to it. in a sense, they have not come up with a lot of examples. n the future. host: i have talked to other people who said it is not what they have stopped so far, but what they are going to stop in the future. host: we are talking to steven leafy. he wrote the february cover story "how the u.s. almost killed the internet, and why it still could." he's the author of seven book. his most recent is "in the plex" -- how we shapes our

think, our work, and our lives." caller: let me ask you a question, steve. does the patriot act or the s.e.c., do they have anything in their provisions that give them the right to access your internet or phone records? host: -- guest: well there is this secret court that allows the government to get access to your records. the subpoena powers are not as stringent, or in some cases, in terms of foreign citizens nonexistent in terms of what they can get. so i think the short answer is yes, but it's not like you know, for a u.s. citizen they could easily just punch something in.

there is a procedure they have to go through, and then they can punch it in. >> steven leafy, i'm not sure if i just gave you a promotion, but senior staff writer at "wired." guest: actually it is supposedly hire. host: ok, well i gave you a demotion. thisr: you know, as far as is concerned, i understand this all started with 9/11 and under bush's presidency. it appears that president obama has taken this in to destroyed mode. -- into steroid mode. and i also believe if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry. more and more i hear about this, i am worried.

the secret courts with the i.r.s. we have going on. the issue we have with the c.i.a. looking into congress mbers, et cetera, et cetera, it just bothers mefment is this something that obama rammed up during his time frame? and finally, my last question is, how does this guest feel about eric snowden. i personally feel he was a trader. if he had issues on this, he should have gone to his superiors and addressed this. i would like to know what the guest thinks about this, and i will take my answer off line. thank you for your time. host: mr. leafy. guest: in terms of president obama, certainly he did not bring back these programs. they really came to fruition under the bush administration. that surprised a lot of people who supported it. a lot of hits supporters felt that was something they were going to get with his administration.

it is something they didn't get with his administration. it was interesting to see. something happens to people when they are dden responsibility. when they are defending against a terrorist act, and they don't want to hold against the court of public opinion, and a terrorist act occurs and says you didn't do all you could there. that affects it. one person i talked to was a person who works in the white house who used to work with google. who would have been the person who would have tried to fend off these requests from the government. now she works for the government, and she was, basically saying that. we were trying to forget the next boston bombing here. so this is why we're doing this. so i think it sort of explains the complexities of why obama supporters are disappointed, and they still feel even in his january speech that he didn't go far enough in reigning in the

n.s.a. as they would like. in terms of what i think of snowden there, i feel it is kind of complicated. on the one hand, i see the point in saying, boy, you really can't let everyone go in and grab huge bolts of classified data. on the other hand, i think we owe him a lot in terms of generate thg debate here. pretty much everyone, and even the n.s.a. admitted it might be a good thing for us to have this debate, to know the extent to which we are getting this information ostensibly to protect us, so we can decide for ourselves s. this tradeoff worth it? . think we owe snowden a lot to be honest, i'm not sure if the president should pardon him. the n.s.a. itself kind of

floated that idea when they went on "60 minutes." but i do feel he did a service to some degree by letting us know what was going on. as for the whistle blower thing, when i talked to the n.s.a., they made that point. why didn't he come to us as a whistle blower? there are examples of previous whistle blowers who have had a pretty rough time. one of the n.s.a. officials said, listen, if we really were wrongdoing, if we were abusing the information there, the people who work here wouldn't stand for that. they would go to the inspector general's office and there would be a line as long as disneyland blowing the whistle on us. and what's happened with the previous whistle blow ares, they would be in for eye ride i wouldn't want to have.

host: can the u.s. government fix this problem? guest: in a sense, the government's hands are tied. one government official told me, if the u.s. went to these consumer thinks trizz that are having to roll off their internet and said don't do this, that would increase their suspicions, maybe more likely to do it. they may say it is up to the countries to convince these consumer thinks trizz that they would be damaging the internet itself and hurting their citizens in terms of giving them access to the internet if they went through with this. i also want to pick up on an earlier point. well, if we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't be worried. actually, there is another aspect of the n.s.a. activities at are worry some -- worrisome. the n.s.a. takes advantage of

in the system. if you know anything about computer systems, it is, if there is a vullnerability, it will be exploited. so every time the n.s.a. discovers a weakness, they make a decision whether they are going to exploit that system or whether they are going to inform the company hey, there's a problem. they even discussed one example with me. they say, we found this weakness and it was huge. and we could have gone to town with it. after some discussion, we decided to go to the company and tell them it was flawed. i thought it was interesting that they had to have that discussion. it shows what goes on there. host: the magazine" how the u.s. almost killed the internet." @ can follow steven leafy

stevenleafy.wired. >> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius testified about her department's budget request. you can see that on c-span.org.

here's a little of what she said. >> we've seen eight delays bringing the total to 35. the question is, what other delays do you expect? are you going to delay the mandate that individuals have to buy government-approved health care or pay a tax? >> no, sir. >> are you going to delay open enrollment beyond march 31? >> no, sir. >> is it correct you don't have the authority to extepped that deadline? the centers for medicare and medicaid have made. do you agree with that? >> i haven't seen their statement, sir, but there is no delay beyond march 31. >> my question is, the law very

clearly makes the case that tax credits are available only to individuals who enrolled in the exchanges. yet two weeks ago in regulation you deemed that individuals who haven't enrolled are eligible for tax credits. my question is, what specific provision in the affordable care act grants you that authority? >> sir, i can depet you the specific cite, but the authority really comes from a law that states if a person is eligible and he affordable care act in the exchange process they are eligible for a tax credit. we have made it clear if through no fault of their own, they were unable to enroll that eligibility extends to a delayed enrollment period, and they will have a special enrollment. >> madam secretary, the law is very plain. only people enrolled are

eligible for 0 tax credits, as the committee that handles the tax credits, we know this ection well. >> there is no provision there. >> sir, i can get this for you. if the person is eligible -- >> i guarantee you, madam secretary, you won't find this, because it is not there. my point is, you have delayed this law because it is not workable for businesses. why aren't they getting the same treatment? >> well, sir, we haven't delayed across s implementation

the board. >> not across the board, but for small businesses, medium businesses. >> 90% of business owners the law does not apply to them. there are 2% -- >> it should stop here. >> a couple live events to tell you about on our companion network, c-span 3. the senate banking committee holded a nomination for the senate banking, housing & urban affairs committees. hat's at 10:30 a.m. eastern. secretary john kerry is scheduled to testify. ou can participate the hashtag cspanchat.

>> the original plan was to tear down the capitol. there was a save the old capitol campaign. when the call came out that the architect had planned to emolish it, but the citizens campaigned to save the old capitol had prevailed, and the two buildings are going to co-exist in one capitol complex. how exactly the historic capitol will be restored was the debate. it wasn't whether we save it or not, it was what time period do we restore it to? all three branches of government were in this one building. the goal of the department of state was to turn it into a museum and use if as a teaching tool for florida school children. so being able to come to this one site and see the supreme court, the governor's office, and the house and senate changes

and understand the three pran muches of government and how they -- the three branches of government and how they work together. >> this week book tv looks at , e regulatory life of florida tallahassee. >> the veterans affairs secretary testified for the administration's budget request of $1674 billion. this is a little more than two hours.

>> i would like to thank you for being here. thank you for tackling some enormous problems in this enormously difficult period facing our veterans. if there is anything i have learned in the year and three months i have been chairman of this committee is that the cost of war is much, much greater than i think most americans perceive. we are dealing now with hundreds of thousands of men and women who have come home from iraq and afghanistan, are dealing with traumatic brain injury and ppsd. and those are tough illnesses to deal with. the numbers are extraordinary. that's an issue we will focus on

today. just the magnitude of that problem. hundreds of men and women -- thousands of men and women dealing with ppsd is a huge problem. we have seen 2,300 families, 2,300 individuals suffer wounds in war that make it impossible for them to have kids. how do we respond to that? we have seen a situation that there is a feeling that too many patients are being over medicated. what kind of alternatives are out there? i think the v.a. is doing some cutting edge work in trying to respond to pain and other problems through complimentary alternative medicine. how do we address that? we are dealing with an issue that several years ago the

united states congress passed passed a very, very important -- how do islation we address that? going back to the issue of mental health. we are all distressed and sadened by the number of suicides that we face. inside the military, inside the v.a., inside the united states of america, our general population. how do we deal with that? we are dealing with an issue that the v.a. in the last several years has transformed their claims system going from paper to digital. we think we are making some progress. how do we make sure we continue that process so that every veteran in this country gets their claim adjudicated in a timely manner.

we need to ensure that the proper number of -- continue to be built and maintained. so we have a whole whole lot of issues facing us. these are tough times for the veterans community, coming out of two wars dealing with all the veterans from world war ii, korea, vietnam. we are not going to turn our banks on those veterans. i want to thank the v. a. it is very easy to beat up on the v.a. because they are big, they are bureaucrat, and they are public, so that every problem they have, which is many, we run 151 medical centers, i'm sure there is a problem in every one every day, and often they get on the front pages, and we forget that mr. veterans are accessing them in a

roud manner. our job is to keep the v.a. moving forward. that's what this bill is about. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the rest of you also for being here today. chairman sanders made a very obvious statement. you-all are very easy to pick on. you probably have the hardest job in washington, d.c. and the biggest responsibility in the years to come. we are grateful for your service and grateful for what you do. as i understand, your response calls for an increase in budget and discretionary spending. our responsibilities in washington are to appropriate and to legislate, but we also have a responsibility in our committee, and that's oversight. some issues came up this morning. i think i want to address in my opening statement so that the secretary could address them later on today. as we heard from the wounded warrior project, one area that

needs oversight is the care giver program. this program includes inconsistent decisions for eligibility, no quality assurance. the timeliness of decisions and no formal process to appeal the decision or eligibility for care giver assistance. i know many, including chairman sanders, who believe this program should be expanded to include all veterans. we need to ensure there is proper implementation. we should do this for any program and provide the oversight necessary to do this right. the since 2013 the veterans health administration has been plagued with serious problems. these issues range from the event of a single patient to an outbreak in g.i. consult. you-all know what i have experienced in the atlanta v.a. with regard to mental scommealt suicide. the inspector general has

released over 40 health care inspections. that's roughly three per month. so much and sacrificed already, yet our veterans are facing long delays in getting appointments. i know you are making progress. i know by 2015 we have goals that are terrific, but we need to make sure we deal not just with statistics but with the actual affect on people's lives and their families. 1.2 million veterans still wait today for a determination. that's a huge number p on the issue of suicide i want to thank robert immensely for three things. one is willingness to come to ofanta and to face 2.5 hours emotional, and i'm sure painful, and to a certain extent the tragedy we had in the atlanta

v.a. with three suicides and one drug overdose. i want to thank you for the replacement of the hospital. the new director, miss wiggins did an outstanding job. unfortunately we had another incident. she took immediate responsibility for that incident, and accepted responsibility where responsibility was needed to be accepted. that is a great emphasis on the issue of suicide. which we must get our arms around. it is one area where i think oversight will be critical for us to move the paradigm and get access to -- soft tissue injuries are the toughest to deal with. t.b.i. and tpsd and suicide is the necessary byproduct of the drug overdose and misuse of drugs in terms of treating people and not having the right health follow-up on those patients. i'm going to personally dedicate into of our time to delve

the issues of suicide, and see if we can find common thread or practices ement best so we don't lose so many soldiers by taking their own life. right now we are losing an afternoon of 28 a day, we don't soldiers by taking their own life. right now we are losing an afternoon of 28 a day, and many. far too it is not just combat from iran and iraq. 3-4 veterans in atlanta were from the vietnam war. it is a per swace vasive issue in the united states. we need to find every best practice possible and implement them. i am as a one-man band, vigilante of one, have field hearings and do the oversight around the country necessary to bring the best practices to light and try to do what robert pezel is doing right now, and trying to break the paradigm which i am grateful for you to do. i yield back the balance of my ime.

>> thank you. i appreciate your leadership. thank you, secretary, and all of you who are serving our veterans so ablely. reiterate the chairman's comments about the cost of war. i think senator isaac sop pointing out some of the terrible affliction, and suicide in the military is due to unemployment rates, it is due to mental health problems, it is due to drug addiction, all those costs of war that we should think about in this body more than we do. another thing i wanted to and the thewrap training program that the veterans administration has made to our citizens.

we should do all we can to make sure people have an opportunity. obviously you can't come in front of us without discussions about the disability claims back log and disability ratings. we need the unevenness of the ratings from you know a bum knee in san diego being rated differently in terms of dollars than a bum knee in columbus or cleveland. fixing both the back log and the disability ratings together makes sense. and the last issue i'd like to mention is our main concern with the department's out-sourcing of more and more work. i believe the quality of out-sourced work is often sub par.

places like the v.a. how asiduous they have been about hiring veterans. i know the v.a. officer and -- we shouldn't be out-sourcing these jobs. the civil servants that decide to pursue a career assisting veterans. services provided by those motivated by profit. we have seen that in example after example after example. it doesn't save taxpayer dollars. did may help politicians, but it doesn't save taxpayer dollars. be saw this in places like the dayton v.a. people say now the clothes come back not as clean as they were. the v.a. continues to out-source more and more activities, we're going to reach a point where the v.a. is a health insurance provider and not a health care provider. that doesn't serve the public.

again, i thank you for your ervice all of you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. to the team, let me say welcome. glad to have you here. thank you. you stopped by a couple weeks ago, and i appreciate that. i want chairman, thank you. to the team, let me say welcome. glad to have you here. thank you. you stopped by a couple weeks ago, and i appreciate that. i want to thank you publicly for making that effort. in the past years, as we all know, congress has made the v.a. priority. i believe appropriately so. the budget has provided personnel increases, and that's unheard of. but i think it indicates this committee's commitment to our veterans and the commitment of the congress to our veterans.

quite honestly, i doubt this year will be any difference. having said that, i think that's on the good news piece of the equation, there are still challenges that we face. i don't think anyone in this to make day is going the case that we're doing a great job in terms of the ability to give disability ratings and give people an answer. that's really what we're trying to do, give people information. i keep hoping that we are making progress. i hope your testimony will deal with that issue. the claims backlog is difficult to all of us. it is a very, very bipartisan concern. the other thing i hope they will be dealing with are capital improvements. i scratch my head on this.

mr. secretary, no reflection on you, but we have in omaha, probably like in other places around the united states that's waiting for good news that we're moving up the list. every time i meet with you, we slip. i'm not saying there's a correlation, i'm just saying, gosh, it is frustrating to see. i'm hoping to hear your thoughts on that. i just think we'll have to be creative in this area. you look at the list, these are 1940's, 1950's facilities, and they are outdated. we have employees trying to do the best they can under the circumstances. but at the end of the day, some of the folks near bottom will be waiting a long time. i may not live long enough to ee this. i would like to see something

created to deal with that backlog. again, thank you for being here. i know you come here with hearts that are pure. you want to help the veterans just like we do. maybe we can have a good dialogue on how best to do that. >> i don't have my reading glasses here. you'll hear what i have to say. i think that the general visited with you several times. i know it is a high priority for you. we'll keep working on it : i think this committee is committed to help you get that backlog down. staffing, i talked with the undersecretary a day or two ago. it is critically important in

rural america. we are deefficient. i think you guys are on top of t. i want to say a special thanks to steve. your work on this issue is very, very important across the country, and i think you have done some great work. this is actually a critical issue for the military. we need to figure out how we can handle it. it is very extensive. but we need to do everything we can do, whether it is best practices or whether it is just plain old experts in the field to be able to deal -- we'll make help. give our veterans particularly those veterans in rural america, those veterans need help. we can work together to get that done. construction, i would just say i understand. i think you guys have done a great job on the vet centers,

and those things around the country. i think there is opportunity for advancement there. but i think you are tealing with operations and maintenance issues now in many of your buildings getting up to snuff, so that the potential for things like veterans home hit the list. i would look forward to working with you guys to figure out some way we can address some of these senior veterans that serve this country so well in the country and the private sector and eserve a place to live their later years in. again i would say, thank you, guys, for your input to us to fwiff to the veteran's administration. they are not perfect. there are things they have to do. but i think it is the leadership that we are able to advocate on the issues you think are

important. the appropriations, i think that's a big win for the v.a. and it would not have happened without the veterans administration being on the same page. thank you. >> see you did very well without -- senator. >> thank you. i would like to add my thanks to the members of the committee. all of us are very much in support of the measures you have articulated, and certainly access to v.a. benefits, cutting back on or eliminating the backlog to claims, ending homelessness, the mental health issues, the suicide rate. these are all issues that we have bipartisan support over for this demee. nd of course veterans face the

same problems that many other americans across the country face, and after that, the distance is water, not just land, as we -- i think it is important that on the issue -- i recently visited the vet house in a -- kalehe. on the issue of homelessness, the support that we give to programs such as the veterans engaged in transition i think really holds promise. zoo -- so this is an eight-bedroom home in a community in kalehe. what impressed me was this was a situation where the veterans were homeless, they were in transitional housing. they have places to go after they spend their 90 days in a stable environment. because a lot of the veterans do not have that stability in their

lives. so just to have a calm, supportive place for a period of time that enabled them to get on with their lives is what i saw in this vet house. this particular house was created by a nonprofit entity in partnership with money from the grants from the v.a. of 213,000, and they worked with the institute of human services, which is a nonprofit organization that was to provide a shelter for homeless. so they are in the community. the elks club, other individuals home ities, including depot, by the way, which the company has made a huge commitment, as i'm sure you know, to support interim beds and ut to supply all of that.

it was a terrific combination of people coming together, but it also wouldn't have happened without the money from the v.a. grant. so these are the kinds of programs i very much support. hands on. s, it is eight veterans, but you know, one that is worth doing. so i just wanted to let you no that every time i go home, i make sure we visit with veterans . thank you for your service. of course i look forward to work wg my colleagues to meak sure we provide the kind of support that will enable us to meet the challenges of our veterans. >> thank you very much, senator. >> we may have some votes soon, so we may have to juggle things ith people leaving and coming.

so i -- i will begin and request a short answer from the panelists. you probably wanted to say something, right? take your time. i'm sorry. >> very supportive comments made by all the members here today. members. committee, thank you for this opportunity once again to present the president's 2015 budget and 2016 advance appropriations request for this department. the department of veterans affairs. i am working my sixth budget, soy find that almost incredible to understand. it is the sixth budget cycle for me, and all of us here have ccomplished a lot. all of us appreciate your unwaivering support of our

nation's veterans. let me also acknowledge, as others have, the representatives of our veterans services organization. their insights and support make us better at caring for veterans, families, and survivors. mr. chairman, i'm going to take a few seconds to introduce the members of my panel. personxtreme left is the in-- next v.a. in charge of the office of management. she is also our acting chief financial officer. had to my right, the undersecretary for health. mr. petzel. i have a written statement that i ask be included on the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

he f.y. 2015 budget and fy appropriations request demonstrate once again president obama's steadfast commitment to our nation's veterans. the the leadership, the congress, and the committee has allowed us to answer president lincoln to care for those who have fought the battle for our families and others. i thank the committee for your support of these budget requests. the president's vision reflected these requests is about empowering veterans to rebuild the middle class in this country, much as they did after world war ii through cault hark, access to quality health care, through benefits, education and training, the original g.i. bill, and unemployment that enables achieving the american dream. he v.a. budget request seats

$169 billion. 68.4 billion is in discretionary funding. an increase of 3% above our 2014 active funding level for this year's budget. 95.6 also includes billion in mandatory fend funding. an increase much 4.7% above the fy-2015 request that i'm also submitting. it is another strong budget, and your support of it is critical. it enables v.a. to throw the significant progress our department has already made on the top three priorities we outlined three years ago and have been working at during this ntervening time.

second, eliminate the disability delames back log in 2015 as has bg been mentioned by other members. thirdly, the rescue of homeless veterans. since 2009, we addressed the three key priorities. among other requirements, these three priorities to best serve veterans. i would say in terms of benefits, here is what we have accomplished. more than two million veterans have been enrolled in v.a. health care. we have increased our community aced out-patient to 0820 community-based out-patient clinics today. nearly 90% of all options today ave a variable option.

we expect that will increase up to 2017. we have plans to do that. at which point we will be at the 96% mark. in terms of disability claims, the backlog has declined 30%. we are vans igsing from paper to digital processing. we are on track to end the back log by 2015. the number of veterans fell by 24% between 2010 and 2013, and we expect another reduction in this year's point and time count is finally tallied up. these are some of our key accomplishments. would report to the committee we are making good progress across the board and as i have in each of my appearances here assure you that we will continue to leverage every resource of the budget -- money, time, people to do what is right for and as i have for five

years now, i will use these resources effectively, accountability for the best care for veterans. thank you for this opportunity to appear here today and for your continued support of veterans. >> thank you. thank you very much. let me pick up on a point that you have raised and discussed. for the last several years there has been a loud concern about he back log. when you came into your position, you announced a very ambitious goal. that goal was to process more claims within 195 days with 98% accuracy in 2015. your goal was to go from a paper ystem to an electronic system.

give us explicit information on that process? >> yes. let me give you some information on that. first i would say no veteran should have to wait to have their claims adjudicated. we are committed to doing that and five as we can, years ago we had no standard for what was a back log. so we accomplished one. t 1525 days, every claim handled in 125 days or less, and all of our work done at 98% accuracy. hat has not changed. what you have seep is a .ommitment to do that

vbms, veterans benefits management system has taken us time to design and develop. we have made sure we had a good that we could hang capability on. we completed it in june of 2013. >> you believe you are on task to achieve the goal you set out? >> we are on task to do that. >> we have reduced the back log by 40% in a single year. our veterans are now waiting 117 days lesson average for a claim decision, and our quality in all hose decisions is up over 90%.

>> within the v.a. there has been a concern that we over-medicate. cutting edge ne work in terms of using complimentary and alternative medicine to treat a variety of roblems. my understanding is you have watched what -- launched what is called an opiates safety initiative. can you tell us about that and what you see in the future in terms of complimentary and alternative medicine. >> yes, thank you for the question. wetch actually launched this cross the entire system. engagingr stations are in this program. it is that opiates and a process

by which the users and providers re met with and discussed. every medical center has a pain clinic. every medical center uses the step-wide pain project. they discovered an approach for using the least risky alternatives in managing pain. we require right now that every pain program offer at least one alternative medicine process and that they develop within this year another alternative edicine program. acupuncture and pain is probably the most common. >> are you finding veterans gravitating to those kinds of therapies? >> absolutely. people want to use the least risky way to manage pain. this is something they come with out of their experience in

combat. terrible bird for them. yes, they want to find ways. without using opiates to manage heir pain. >> as i understand the v.a. anticipates seeing approximately 100,000 new patients in the coming year. we are delighted all veterans are accessing v.a. health care. i am concerned whether the 3% increase in medical care that is in the budget will be sufficient to care for these new users, existing users, expand medical services and keep pace with all of the issues that we have. is that enough money? t sounds to me that it is not.

>> mr. chairman, we have been working for years to see how they make a decision about downsizing. i believe that decision has been made. we are working for a plan. this budget request is prior to hat plan being provided. we believe we have in this budget anticipated what our needs will be in 2015, but again, this will depend on what the downsizing plan entails. >> do we have anybody who hasn't voted yet? >> we think senator isaac son will be back soon. >> i was going to offer mr. chairman -- it looked like hi taken control. just joking.

on tary, let me focus capital improvements. the fy budget is for $561.8 million. as i understand, that is actually for four ongoing projects that are in some state of construction. the question i have is, does that represent a significant amount of money to get those projects done at the finish line? are they done at the end of that or do we see that again this year. do we see that again next

ear? were >> long beach, san diego, spinal court. these are all projects on the execution list on major construction programs for 2015. >> my question is, though, does $568.1 million complete those projects this year? >> yes, they do. >> it does? > yes. >> the concern i have, though, i guess, is probably going to be obvious this year. 56 checks the box on those four rojects. as you know, we have been working our way somewhere through the list. i don't want to leave off nebraska. there are a whole bunch of other states out there.

many of which are ahead of us. so what i'm looking at is all of these projects, there has been an estimate, probably a rough estimate, that 23 billion is necessary to address what's on he waiting list. and if omaha is that far down the list, i can only imagine the problems ahead of us. put a how we can best process in place to address what we're dealing with and what you're dealing with. it is a lot of money. it would be very hard to come up with. i don't think we want 20 some projects all going at once. that stretches everybody pretty thin. but how do we move these projects more and more aggressively? >> i would say, senator, we have

done our best to prioritize these projects. so at the top are the safety issues we have to address for the safety of employees and veterans. when we do that, of course, you can see an increase. and secondly, the priority would be to ensure that what we have today is quept at a good standard. therefore, for minor construction -- not just major, but minor construction, non-recurring maintenance, those funds in addition to the 561 million dollars you talked about, we have $495 million for minor construction. t $460 for non-recur maintenance. our commitment is as we work getting to omaha, what we have will be kept by safe functioning and standard that veterans will see as their

hospital delivering high quality care. >> i see the work. i was just out at the medical center recently. i see the work. they are talking to me about the minor construction that they are doing. i always see it as a bit of a mixed blessing. yes, i want that building to be safe and do the things for veterans. on the other hand no one is going to argue that that facility should have a long-term future. sol all these millions we're putting into these facilities across the country, i just hope we're not chasing good money with bad money, if you know what i'm saying. i'm sure it's a dilemma for you. there is a point at which the buildings have just served their useful life.

>> we do have facilities that are under-utilized. we do our best to take them down so they will have some level of maintenance to put in new facilities. i would also say, senator, esides our major, minor, and non-recurring maintenance, we also have a leasing program that is important to us. that doesn't come out of the construction budget, it comes out of the medical care account. it is important for us to determine where community commitments may be needed to provide services needed and we're not going through a long erm development process.

i'm going to add a sixth component. that would be our medicine capability. ot only do you see 151 medical centers, they are all linked through telehealth medicine. if we can provide in those communities a clinic where veterans can find access and kidney e don't have a expert there, we can give them ccess. i would like to see this as a wuke-in access and try to level the playing field here so that a

veteran, no matter where they live, will be able to enjoy the quality we provide. >> we'll continue this discussion. i'm going to head to the floor so i can cast my vote before hey close that vote. >> do i understand that you are the technology person? >> yes, i have that role. >> i'm about to demonstrate that i'm not. but i have a question i'd like an answer to. i have been reading about the v.b.s. i understand it is fully employed but not operational. is that right? >> it is fully deployed and was completed last june six months ahead of schedule. t is being used.

but it is not the only means of processing a claim today. this is the biggest cross-over for us. the great work for us is juggling two basketballs at the same time. they have to be able to do paperwork, because that's the legacy system, but every day and stisme later this year we'll be only digits. and they have to do digits at the same time. >> what i read is that $44.5 billion in the budget for the continued installation. is that correct? >> let me turn to mr. warren on that. >> the number is actually $137 million. >> here comes my question that will illustrate my ignorance, probably.

it says here you are using an agile approach and this will ake some time to complete. would you tell me what kind of patches you are talking about. or that they are referring to. >> thank you for that question, sir. agile is an approach for instead of putting all your requirements together and many years down the road you have capability online. as the secretary mentioned, every 90 days you put more capability, more functional hands of the employees in v.b.a. so they can keep processing forms. it is entering and processing every 90 days. in between the 90 days, if there are things you need to adjust or tweak, we add that capability in as well. so high cycle rate, making sure we are putting