necessarily productive. you end up seeing things that could be precancerous but will not turn out to be cancerous. you cause all kinds of problems in cost when you do that. resolution scanning is not necessarily what we need when it comes to cancer. host: we will and it there but thank you for joining us. it's the m.i.t. technology review, this month's edition, the temperature technologies. that will be our show for today. president obama is scheduled to meet with the veteran affairs secretary eric k. shinseki this morning at 10:00 a.m. and the white house has announced the president will deliver a statement to the press and we are covering that will bring you those remarks on c-span as soon as the house goes into recess later this morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., may 21, 2014, i hereby appoint the honorable david w. jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of

representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will learnt -- alternate redskin nation between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to ive minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: next monday is memorial day. one of the most solemn who dates in america. we remember those who gave their lives in ultimate sacrifice to their country, those wounded, those who are veterans, and those still serving our country in dangerous occupations around the world that defend our freedom. now, this is a day that should be solemnly celebrated.

and it will be in many places. it could be better solemnly celebrated if the united states congress would have had more oversight and get a little more funding to the v.a. so we don't have veterans dying on waiting lists. we have to get to the bottom of that scandal and adequately find pfund that agency and give them permanent funding. but beyond that there's another group in america who have a very special memorial day celebration every year. and that's the united states oil industry. they are, of course, very patriotic. they don't pay much in taxes in the u.s. they over $100 billion stashed overseas because they don't want to pay u.s. taxes even though they pay a higher rate many places overseas, but they -- they are very patriotic so every year they have a special celebration were they run up the price. now, the oil companies and

their handmaidens on the republican side of the aisle tell us about a shortage. it's about a shortage. all we need is to drill in sensitive areas offshore. all we need to build the x.l. pipe lin and the prices will come down. that's amazing because except of course it's a huge lie. today the united states of america will export more than 450,000 barrels of gasoline while they are running the price up on and americans saying don't you know there's a shortage? funny thing i haven't seen red flags or yellow flags they used to have saying they got no gas. they got gas but at a large price. so this is the annual celebration. now, exxonmobil last year, they were hurting, they only made $32.6 billion. their last c.e.o. when he retired they gave him a $500 million bonus. they are hurting. he went out and bought oil fields with it in africa.

that's cute. but there's a shortage. that's why you're paying over four bucks a gallon in many places, particularly in my district and western united states. over bucks a gallon. because of this extraordinary shortage. here we are. it's memorial day. wouldn't it be nice if we reined in the oil companies. wouldn't it be nice if we stopped subsidizing them with tax breaks. not on the republican side of the aisle, they think that's patriotic to subsidize the oil companies' tax break because they need them because there is a shortage. no there isn't. but they still need and want those tax breaks and they want to price gouge people at the pump. so i, for one, will celebrate memorial day appropriately, remembering those who served our country. but for one member of congress i'd like to do something about what's going on with oil and gas prices. i'd like to take away their subsidies. like to get speculators on wall street out of the oil and gas,

since they are driving up the price. even according to exxonmobil, .75 cents a gallon, that's going to wall street speculators. something that didn't used to be allowed. in a bill that i voted against which deregulated that commodities market which was supposed to be reregulated under dodd-frank but the republicans are opposing any and every effort to deregulate the commodities market and there are a few on my side of the aisle who are in the pockets of the oil industry, too. we could do better, we could do better for our vetance american consumers. let's -- veterans and american consumers. let's do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, r. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize mark a. nortonberg, chancellor of the university of pittsburgh. which includes regional

campuses in the pennsylvania fth congressional district and -- in titusville. he will step down at 19 years as chancellor but will remain at the university that he has served for over 37 years. during the chancellor's tenure, the university experienced tremendous growth. annual applications for dmission climbed from 7,825 to 27,626. overall, enrollments have steadily increased. average s.a.t. scores for incoming students are now 185 points higher. and the university continues to expand and to modernize. today the university of pittsburgh is ranked nationally and competing for the best students in the region, the country, and the world. chancellor nortonberg joined the faculty of pitt school of law in 1977.

eventually serving as dean and interim provost of the university. in 1995 he was elected interim chancellor by the university's board of trustees, and in 1996 he was elected chancellor. through his vision and leadership, the university of pittsburgh now has an outstanding foundation for success which will last for years to come. tomorrow chancellor nortonberg will receive bradford's highest honor, the medal of distinction, which recognizes individuals who demonstrated outstanding, long-term, service to the university. it's my honor to join dr. alexander and the entire university of pittsburgh team in offering my congratulations on receiving this important distinction. mr. speaker, we thank chancellor nortonberg for his commitment to education excellence. for his drive and passion to build the university of pittsburgh into a row nouned institution of higher learning. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. this week i and many others were in lafayette park joining the family of my constituent, to commemorate a very sad anniversary. a young days amir, man born in the united states, grew up in my hometown of flint, michigan, parents emigrated to the united states long before amir was born, late 1970's, from iran, amir has been sitting in a prison in tehran for 1,000 days. he traveled to iran for the first time in august of 2011

because, like many other young men, young women, wanted to explore his own roots. he had served in the united states marine corps, came home, and before enrolling in school, wanted to go visit the family he had never met. in fact, wanted to meet his grandmother whom he had never seen before. he was there for about two weeks before he was arrested and for months he was -- nobody knew where he was. and then soon it was revealed that he had been arrested, tried, and convicted of espionage. because he was an american who had served in the marine corps, he was convicted of espionage. that death sentence, it was initially executed on him, was

setaside. and that death sentence was suspended apparently there had been a new trial and he's now, according to a "new york times" report, serving a 10-year sentence. this is a young man who simply ent to visit his family. traveled with permission in a trant fashion and is now cute caught up in the geopolitical struggle as iran apparently seeks to rejoin the international community. 1,000 days in prison. holidays have passed. we experience every one of these days, the changing of the seasons. for all of us we take these moments, these passages for granted. for amir every day is the same. every day he's in a cell for many, many months in a three by three cell unable to even sit down for all but 10 minutes of

every day. f iran truly seeks to rejoin the international community, and of course there are the p-5 plus one negotiations taking place right now, if iran seeks to join the global community, and if this congress is to take any agreement that might be truck seriously, iran must now free amir. if they expect to be taken seriously, they cannot hold political prisoners. now, for most of us we don't think there's much that we can do about this, but i think every american citizen, every member of congress, especially those who have joined me in a bipartisan fashion in calling upon iran to release amir, to do something. we all can. for those of you that use twitter, #freeamir, believe me

it sends a message. it sends amessage across the globe. to the iranian people, the iranian government. it sends a message to the friends and family of amir that our country stands with him. during those thousand days, his father has fallen ill. he has brain cancer. it is 250eu78 for -- it is time even if for just humanitarian purposes, it is time, long past time, for iran to do what's right and release amir so he can come home and be with his family. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker.

today's congressional business is to deal with the definance authorization legislation. this is a critical bill, a real opportunity to balance our needs for a strong defense and care for our men and women in uniform with the hard budget realities and unsustainable trend lines that we are seeing across the budget categories. but because we are ducking the hard tradeoffs in this budget, tradeoffs that at least the administration to its credit and the pentagon laid before congress with their budget recommendations, we are going to have to resort to an amendment process on the floor to it make longer term savings, and to use part of that money to address key priorities that are shortchanged. i have an amendment that would help support our air national guard. the guard and ready reserves

are a cost-effective way to provide support for our military establishment. they have proven their worth time and time again. overseas, like in iraq, afghanistan, and here at home as they help us deal with natural disaster. they also operate a fleet of 130 f-15 fighter jets in installations across america. but more than half these planes rely on an outmoded, limited radar technology from the 1970's. that means that for many of our pilots, their radar is older than they are. it went out of production in 1986. it limits their capacity and it breaks down more frequently. it's less reliable. that's why my amendment will actually save money over the next 10 years.

soon we'll be gloat voting on whether or not we'll do the right -- we'll be voting on whether or not we'll do the right thing to support this vital work of the air national guard. during the debate last night the opponents couldn't argue against the wisdom of making the air guard more effective by upgrading this outmoded radar technology that's unreliable and limit limits their capacity. in fact, they admitted that the little bit that the budget will do to upgrade some of them actually was helpful. . they had no good reason to continue to shortchange the guard. instead, during the debate, they tried to make this modest proposal into a larger debate about the one half to 2/3 of a trillion dollars we will be spending over the next 10 years for our whole nuclear weapons program. now, that's a debate i will welcome on the floor of the house.

in fact, i have legislation that would save $100 billion over the next 10 years and would start us on a much different path to rein in the bloated, expensive, unnecessary and redundant nuclear deterrence that is many times more than we can afford or that we need. how many times do we have to completely destroy a country from how many different platforms in order to meet our objective of deterrence? we are spending more in inflation adjusted terms than we spent at the height of the cold war with the soviet union. not only is the program more than we need, the costs are out of control. i am pleased that later today we will debate an amendment that the rules committee made in order to allow my amendment to make last year's congressional budget office report on the reliability of

the weapons costs an annual event. that's important because the first report that was issued in december showed that there's $150 billion underestimation from the administration's current program projections, and that's before the committee added more money and changed the timelines. by all means, let's have that debate on the floor of the house on how much of these weapons we've never used in 69 years and that are too expensive and actually in and of themselves are dangerous. but let's have it although sooner rather than later so we can set our priorities. in the meantime, let's not confuse the tiny reallocation under my amendment with a larger question that is 1,000 times greater. what it does show is that the money is there to help the air

guard do their job right. it would be a shame if we let them down and did not approve he blumenauer amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> right now the allegations of misconduct at the v.a. hospital. this is from this morning's "washington journal." " continue. host: we are joined at our desk by hawaii congresswoman colleen hanabusa, member of the house armed services committee, stay with a large number of veterans. some reports are out this morning of the president is said to meet in about an hour and a half with v.a. secretary eric

shinseki in a closed-door meeting at the white house. i want to sell with your thoughts on the controversy surrounding the v.a., and specifically, do you think eric shinseki needs to go? was asked that, he responded by saying he serves, of course, the president, and he feels that he has a job to be done, and he is, of course -- i think he is very angry with what occurred. that is a decision that they are going to have to make, and we do not have enough information at this time to say whether he should go, he should not go. that is between him and the president at this point in time. as you all know, general shinseki is from hawaii. has, in my expenses done with them, hey -- dealing with him, he has been receptive to concerns and he has addressed them. i like to see how this investigation continues.

that is not in any way to say what happened in phoenix is in any way acceptable. that is -- i just cannot even comprehend out something like that could have happened. i immediately, when i heard about it, asked for an assessment of what is going on in hawaii and sent the letter to the general and said what is the report on how i question mark we reached out to our veteran -- report on hawaii? we reached out to our veterans groups to see if they were experiencing anything similar. the veterans, because i have been in the field speaking to a lot of them, they do have complaints and concerns about the kind of services they have been provided, but we have not heard anything that nears what happened in phoenix. host: you sent that letter to the v.a. april 25, i believe. have you gotten a response yet? guest: we have not gotten a response yet, and in addition we asked the various veteran organizations in hawaii as to

what their responses are. host: hawaii is a state with a large number of veterans, 11% of veteransation, 116,947 as of september, 2013. more of hawaii's veterans have served since 2001 than any other state, coming out to more than one in four. you say you have not found out from veterans groups in hawaii about similar situations, but what you tell them about how you would like to see this problem addressed? know, the main idea was to get with their complaints are, so we have been working with them. and, you know, the issues are -- hawaii is unique in the sense that we are an island. there are issues of access. in order to get anywhere for major services, many of them have to fly to, for example, an island of oahu for certain kinds of services, and even remote

islands in the sense that they do not have the access to medical services. i have to go to the island of maui or go to the island of a while. we have those kinds of challenges, and there are always issues about whether or not people are hearing their complaints, and whether, for example, ptsd -- one of the interesting facts that i learned is that ptsd is something that has not reached veterans of the korean war, for example. it is because, i think that is a term coined in the later wars versus something like the korean war, so they were telling me that you know, they were called shellshocked. that is how they explained what they were doing. shellshocked. one of the most telling issues, and telling in the sense that you really have to sit back and think about what is it that we as a country are doing when we are sending people off to war?

i was speaking to some widows of 00's who served in world war ii, and they were telling me that her husband suffered -- from it, and never told anybody. me my husband used to wake up in the middle of the night screaming, and it was all from the time that they served. so, you can see over the years how we have not taken care of our veterans, and how we have two make this right. of course, my conversations with them are always give us the information, tell us how you think we can better address these concerns and problems. host: we are talking with congresswoman colleen hanabusa, democrat from hawaii. if you have comments or questions, you can call in

you can also send an e-mail, journal@ ollow the conversation and ask on twitter. also follow us on twitter. as folks are calling him, the house is considering the national defense authorization act this week. your priorities for that act? we have put in, a variety of amendments, and for the most part, many our amendments, did pass, and one of the parts of the actor we looked at -- remember, i represent hawaii, and it is the center of the pacific. it is a series of hearings that we had on the pivot to asia pacific, which we have all heard a lot about with the president. the pivot, i want to make very clear is not just a military. . it is really one that talks

about -- pivot. it is one that talks about security, economics. many provisions of that incorporated in the act itself. that we stayensure ready in the pacific and have our presence there. however, ifrtunate, there were amendments proposed, i think 319, and not very many of them were made in order, but notwithstanding, we understand that the amendment to permit the made insures were not order, so we are still going through what was made in order and what was not made in order. i think it is unfortunate that the sexual assault provision amendment by congressman spear was not made in order, and, for myself, i have always had a strong sense about immigration

and what we did not do correctly with the filipino veterans from world war ii, who are still waiting to have the promises that they were made fulfilled, and that was not made in order as well. i was hoping that would be part something thatas both chairmen kean and speaker arener said they supporting, but notwithstanding nda, but iin the believe speaker boehner said he would consider an up or down vote on it. those are the things that i think are unfortunate, but as you know, it passed out of our committee unanimously. 529- host: this was over a million dollar bill, the same bill proposed by the pentagon,

but very different coming from the house side. did you support the pentagon budget? change it, and that is why there has been indications from the president that he might consider vetoing the bill, but that is something that he says after each, but he has not done it yet. the actual amount is 496 for dod, but there are additional energy components that raise it. the other interesting thing that people might not be aware of is the overseas contingency operations, iraq and afghanistan, those are also not included in this, and that is a placeholder of $79 billion. that is not part of what we are talking about. i felt that the amount would put us in a position that we would ofinitely have issues whether the military would be ready, and i think you are also hearing that now, that people

are very concerned, including secretary hegel, who has made issues that this will not do what we want to there is something -- want. there was also something i call a wish list -- the opportunity, growth, security initiative -- something like that. i wish the military would speak in regular language instead of and acronyms. it is ogsi. you can see that it is not quite what everybody wants. host: we are talking military funding and veterans issues with congresswoman colleen hanabusa we -- colleen hanabusa from hawaii. safetyt with mike from harbor, florida, on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i will be brief. i want to make a point, the iraq war was supported by democrats

and republicans, while bush did lie, so did all of the democrats. i voted for obama and i changed because i disagreed with all of his positions, this being one of them. the lady said she was surprised at the deaths of the veterans, and how can you be shocked when our veterans are treated the way they are. aren't 50% of homeless people veterans? you find all of the money for wars and to give away to people to incentivize them to not work, throw money in the education system, and we just keep falling further down in our test results, but you cannot find money that -- for people that have gone and made the greatest sacrifice. you tout the flag, the colors, and the rhetoric, and the yellow ribbon around the tree, but you

do not do anything for these people. host: mike, let's give the congresswoman a chance to respond. guest: but the budgeting process or the appropriation process, as you probably are aware that the veterans' issues are not subject to discretionary spending. so they are considered mandatory spending for the most part. so when you have the sequester, veterans' funding was not part of that. it was like social security and medicare in a different category. since i've been in the congress, which has been since

the 112th, i believe that even with the cuts that the veterans' portions have been increased. and one of the areas that congress was concentrating a lot on was in the area of the mental health provision. so i do not recall veterans being cut like all the other areas being cut because they were outside of the sequester. i believe that the area that they said was affected by sequester was not the benefits that went to the veterans but it may have been something in the administrative area like it secretary's v.a. office. host: you don't think it would be a management side? guest: i think the funding -- we'll never have enough money. to say it's a funding issue is not correct. we can always have more money, but what i'm saying, that's the v.a. portion was not something that was subject to, for example, like sequester.

i think clearly there is an issue of management and what level that we manifest at and issues that we have to discuss on the veterans' portion would be -- because the medical services have been provided through veterans, through veterans' services. and i know some people have said, well, maybe it is time to relook at that. i still would like to believe that the -- that the government, through the veterans administration, is able to provide the level of care that our veterans deserve. and i am a full supporter of the fact that they should be fully funded and they should have the level of care that they're referring to. host: victor is a supporter of secretary shinseki. he said on twitter --

host: tom, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to talk to the congresswoman. basically i'm a vietnam vet, i go to the v.a. i've been there about eight years. i have a nurse practitioners who has 748 patients she looks after. that's part of the problem. i've seen the doctor twice. one of the doctors overmedicated me. there's a problem in the bureaucracy of monitoring your medication. i've overmedicated myself twice because no one told me when to stop taking my medication. i needed a colonoscopy. it took me about 90 days to get one. i went to another private facility. i don't think there's any great problem. i know we have a brand new fancy lobby, but if we had more

doctors and we had more people to process i think it would be really the right thing to do. looking at all of the -- it's a bureaucracy, and unless the people know what they're doing, they have a process, that is the cure. we don't need more money. we need a better process. as someone who will really have a hands on situation, people only do what you inspect and you look after. if you set up some type of system where people have to report, they have to give information, they don't have to make a life's work out of it. just as a veteran, it scares me. host: congresswoman. guest: well, i think tom and thank you for your service, tom. what tom is saying is sort of what i was saying earlier. it's probably a management issue. we have to look at how the

services being -- service is being provided and maybe it's a systemic type of provision that the veterans administration will have to start to evaluate. but clearly, you know, a nurse practitioners with 748 patients , i don't know, you know, how she or he manages that type of a caseload but having said that i think this goes back to the fundamental issue of how is it that it is being provided and where is -- where is the breakdown as far as the vets are concerned? host: again, we're talking to democratic congresswoman from hawaii, coleen hanabusa, on the armed services committee. formerly a member of the hawaii state senate where she served as majority leader. here to answer your questions and comments as we talk about veterans' issues and military fundy. tony is calling from south carolina on our line for

independence. tony, good morning. caller: good morning. she spent -- thank you for c-span. host: thank you. caller: i was wondering if there's a list that i could sign up with illegal aliens that go next door to the hospital in the town i live in and i have to travel 200 miles to go to a hospital to get care nd there are times where i could sit in the emergency next door where i have to travel and find someone to take me there. host: are you a veteran, tony? caller: yes, i am a vietnam veteran. i would like to know, is there a list i could sign up for illegal aliens that i could get the services they get? guest: i think what tony is referring to what i was alluding to earlier which is his - i don't know about illegal alien provision of services that he's referring to, however, i think it's the

difference between the fact that the v.a. provision of services at v.a. establishments versus staying within one's area or one's neighborhood and i think that's what he's referring to in being able to access the hospital services or emergency room services where he may -- he may reside. and this is one of the issues i think will be a result of this further discussion which would be, is the provision of services, especially when the v.a. services are not available readily and easily within a community, what then should be the method of the provision? and like in hawaii, for example, you know, like i said early on, we have veterans having to fly for medical services and the question is, is that something that should be continuing or is it -- or should there be a geographic

kind of decision being made if you have to go more than x miles, for example, that you should be able to avail yourself of services within the community yourself? and those are the things that i would hope that as the inspector general starts to look at issues regarding provision and delivery of services that they make a decision on. host: a few comments from twitter. quagmire writes in -- require that the president and his family use the v.a. for their medical needs. then, see how long it takes to get fixed. and carol writes, we will never have enough money because it's squandered. v.a. doctors see few patients because they have no incentive to see many. can you comment on that last part of carol's tweet? guest: you know, i'm not sure about how v.a. provides its services. i do know, for example, that of ers who avail themselves

certain of the doctors' services, it's more of a matter f getting there from the discussions i had. and it is a system of appointments being set up and having to keep those appointments or you're not going to receive the services. so it goes back -- carol's situation what she's saying how that service is delivered. i think those are the fundamental issues we must look at. and congress should take a lead on it as well. host: let's go to dennis waiting in myrtle beach, south carolina, on our line for republicans. dennis, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: good. go ahead. caller: i am a u.s. marine disabled vietnam veteran, 100% disabled. and i've been in the system now for about 10 years. until the last five years i was raving about the system here in south carolina, myrtle beach. now it has completely changed.

the administrators are running the entire thing. the doctors and nurses are great. it's the people that run it. a patient advocate -- i won't mention his name -- he has the authority to make or not make appointments for veterans, but a nurse does not have that authority. they're not qualified, according to the patient advocate. now, therein lies the problem. get rid of these administrators and let the doctors and nurses do it and it will be great. i promise you that. guest: again, what dennis is saying, goes back to what i consider to be the fundamental issue is how that service is delivered. i'm glad to hear that dennis feels that the doctors and nurses that he has had experience with are great, as he says, and i would like to share with dennis, my husband is a vietnam vet.

so it is -- the veterans' issues are ones that i watch very carefully, especially those who served in vietnam, because i think one of the things that we did as a country was though that war was so unpopular is we did not give the veterans the due respect that they deserved. we just treated them very poorly. it was an unpopular war but it wasn't the fault of the veterans who served their country and went to vietnam. host: two more comments from twitter. irish eyes writes in -- seeing the problems with the v.a. system is one of the things that makes people fearful of government-run health care systems in the future. and roger writes in -- who would want to join the military now knowing what we know? this is a national security priority problem. the president does not see it. along with your work in the house, you're also in the middle of a campaign for the u.s. senate running in a

primary against senator brian, also a democrat from hawaii. that's the primary, august 9. why are you challenging the senator in that race? guest: well, as people may know and i believe for those vets who are listening in, you know, this is the seat for senator daniel k. inouye, and daniel k. inouye was one of our i think an exemplary american. i don't know -- he has both received the medal of honor as well as the presidential medal of freedom, served in the united states senate for 50 years. senator chats was appointed by the governor of the state. i received one of the greatest honors, i think, elected officials that a member from hawaii could receive was the death bed wish of the senator wanting me to succeed him.

this is the election that the people of hawaii have the first opportunity to say who should fill the remaining term of senator inouye and that's exactly what this election is about. it is to fill the senator's emaining term. i ended my career in the state legislator as the first woman to head either hawaii in the hawaii state -- either house in the hawaii state legislature. i was there for four years and worked with senator inouye and senator akaka, totaling 77 years in the united states senate. and i have the support of senator akaka as well. and i believe this is the time for people in hawaii to make a choice. and i'm providing them with choice. host: is there anything in the senator's voting record, any votes he's taken since coming to capitol hill that you would

point to as a reason to fire him and to hire you for the job? guest: well, i think it's not so much -- because he's a democrat. we vote on what comes before us to vote. i believe that the really difference between us is our records, how we look upon issues and how we i guess prioritize what we feel is important for hawaii. host: what are a couple of the key things there that will separate you two in this election? guest: i believe that one of the major issues that separates us in terms of -- one is our experience. we both got elected at the same time. our records and what we've done and our performance in the legislative context -- and remember the congress of the united states is the ultimate legislature in the world. and i believe that what we've both done or what people can measure us doing will show that. i don't believe that we differ so much on issues such as

social security or education or other issues like that. however, where we may have a slight difference is in the commitment to what we believe the role of the military will be in hawaii's future. and i happen to believe that hawaii is critical to the asia pacific so that is one of my major points that i have always advocated for and been a part of. host: want to ask you, the senator has a new poll out i believe this week showing him with a 15-point lead in this contest over you in the primary. a poll from his campaign. how do you see -- guest: that's not a poll from his campaign. it is a poll from an independent organization that -- not independent but i guess an organization that supports him and it's very interesting ecause in hawaii, one of the blogs -- newspapers, not a supporter of mine, actually

printed the whole poll. and it was a very interesting poll. looked like a push poll that was done. the only independent poll that we've had is really by the star advertiser and hawaii news now which is the affiliate of nbc and cbs in hawaii. and i was up eight points on that poll. so, you know, like i said, that's not his poll. ost: public policy polling done backing -- guest: they're backing senator brian schatz. you can look at an independent poll -- more importantly than that, it is the people. i will tell you this is an important election in hawaii. you can ver i'm home tell the people are looking

forward to this election. caller: good morning, guys. i'm another vietnam vet calling in. i just want to make two quick comments. we're very fortunate here in evansville, we have a new v.a. clinic and it's a good-sized clinic now. i've been treated exceptionally well. i have to -- our marion v.a. is our base hospital. the folks treated me very well. compared to other places in the country, we're very fortunate. i've been very fortunate being treated by the v.a. my really main comment when you mentioned about the v.a. not having money, a quick example of this, back in july of this past year, i had a heart attack like at 6:00 in the morning. my son took me to the emergency room. i was in the hospital for a week, and what really the thing that really just -- i could not believe the stupidity on the v.a. dealing with the v.a. in kansas city, missouri, i guess that's where their "wizard of

oz" building. my bill was $42,000. i had private insurance. they negotiated the hospital bill. the doctor bill, the v.a. had to pay was like $2,500. and the v.a., their excuse was because i didn't get preauthorized, number one, was i didn't know you had to get preauthorized at 6:00 in the morning when nobody was there because we don't have an emergency room in our v.a. and the fact i had private insurance when i was working, you know, save the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money and the v.a. said, well, because you had private insurance we're going to stick you with the remaining of the bill. and the hospital i'm dealing with now, i'm still dealing with this bill later. there is a good example of -- i have to be blunt, to be plain stupidity where it could have saved the taxpayers a lot of a lot of money. the v.a. doctor said, why would you want to blow $42,000 away when a veteran has private insurance to negotiate and take a $42,000 bill, negotiate, drop

it down to $2,500, all the v.a. had to pay, and so now i'm stuck with a $2,500 and st. mary's hospital here in evansville tried to negotiate with the v.a. but they keep shutting me down. host: come woman. guest: i think this -- host: congresswoman. guest: i think this is exactly what we're talking about. what's happening with this gentleman is crazy. how can you ask someone to get pre-authorization when you're having a heart attack at 6:30 in the morning? i mean, that is absolutely crazy. and luckily for him he's had private insurance because of the fact he worked and was able to secure that. so in my opinion, there is no excuse for a situation such as this, but it comes down to the same question again about provision of services, what do you do in situations of emergency such as this and what -- who's important here?

clearly the veteran and provision of the services should be paramount and that's what people should be looking at. not the bureaucracy and whether or not you could check off number one, oh, did they get pre-authorization? that's absurd. host: linda is waiting in lorena, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two points i'd like to make. i'm a veteran, 100% service-connected disabled. i've been going to the v.a. for -- since the 1970's. and what a lot of people don't know as far as medical mistakes go is the overwhelming percentage of doctors there are residence and they're supposed o be overseen by doctors, full doctors. most of the doctors that oversee them are dedicated wholly almost to research and seeing patients is something they have to do but not something that they really like

doing. the other thing is the funding was cut with them during the bush era for medical personnel. so they were behind the times in terms of approximating able to hire personnel, in terms of making appointments and things. this is especially true in the dental clinics. you wait months to get appointments in the dental clinics, even while they're working on you. the second point i wanted to make is the vendor -- the private vendors that bush invited in to the v.a. and turned it into a mini mall. we had a perfectly good food service place downstairs in every v.a., and now they got all these private veppedors in that are gone by 2:00 or 3:00 each day -- vendors in that are gone by 2:00 or 3:00 each day. it's not there for the convenience of the veterans. it's the convenience of the people that work there. same thing for their canteen store. i had to make a lot of noise to

get them to carry regular pajamas or couldn't find ace bandages at the place. instead you'd find electric guitars, you find household appliances, you find teddies for women to wear at home, not in the hospital, certainly. and all kinds of things like that, toys for kids. host: congresswoman. linda brings up several issues there. guest: and what's interesting with both linda and the prior caller is that -- i didn't hear from linda any kind of a, i guess, criticism of the actual doctors that were servicing. the prior caller had great things to say about his evansville provision of service. however, linda's point is very well taken. dental clinics, something she raised, something we continually hear. i heard in hawaii as well,

which is the ability to get dental care. but in hawaii we have a problem of provision of dental care, for example, just in terms of the rural nature and the neighbor islands because we have an island situation. that's the constant that i heard about is dental clinics are not adequately staffed for people. i don't know about her criticism of the private vendors or what's available and i think the p.x. store i think what she means in the hospital complex, those i don't know about. i assume that's something that the v.a.'s going to have to look at. i'm sure it was something that was decided at that point in time it was probably a lot more economical. host: don asks on twitter -- everyone wants medical care but there are not enough doctors, especially those willing to work on a salary at v.a.

universal health care? guest: that's an interesting point because the -- a lot of the question is exactly that. how is health care changing? and you know, for example, the kaiser system which is one model that has been looked at and maybe the model that some believe is actually the basis of the affordable care act. there in that model, physicians are on salaries and the question is i guess the level of the pay. one of the issues that people have contended with when it came to looking at the provision of any kind of health care, universal or otherwise, is the fact we don't have enough primary care physicians and that, of course, is whether we call them general practitioners or internists. that doesn't seem those going to medical school are interested in becoming.

so, yes, i understand that is a situation, but that is going to be one that is i think going to take a while for people to rethink the provision of medical care and how it's going to be. i agree that a lot of it has to do with the salary, but a lot of that salary is going to have to deal with how much that compensation is. and when a physician makes the decision as to how much money he or she will make, the decision is going to be, what is it -- what is it worth to you not have to deal, for example, for malpractice insurance? what does it mean when you don't have to deal with an overhead or provision? just an operational end of being in a, quote, business? and those are the tradeoffs that people are going to have. i just talked to some entering -- students at the university of hawaii medical school, for example. john a. bruin medical center.

that's the discussion we had, interestingly, what is it that people want in terms of who are going into the medical field and who've dedicated from high school all the way to college to get to the medical school and to get into a profession, what is the return that they want? but he raises a very important question, one that is fundamental to the whole issue of provision of medical care. host: some of the issues you've been talking about, an email to "washington journal" -- it's come to my attention through listening to clinicians that work to the -- at the v.a. have consisted of checklist forms that clinicians have to check off which take away from time with patients. another way to assuring good care is appropriate clinical supervision. guest: i agree. i agree. we see that all the time. that's the fundamental problem that government has. government likes data and how do they -- they want to be able to say -- they served x

thousands of people and the results are x, y and z certain percentages of whatever. and in order to be able to present, quote, decisionmakers with any kind of data that they feel is necessary, we unfortunately go to data collection as a primary focus. we've seen that in education, the criticism, for example, of no child left behind, we were so often testing and gathering data that we were losing sight of the fundamental issue which is the provision of education. i agree with her. host: just a minute or two left with congresswoman colleen hanabusa, democrat of hawaii. let's go to -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> i just met with secretary nabors who i ob had work with secretary shinseki and we focused on two ishes use -- the misconduct at veterans affairs facilities and the broader mission of caring

for our veterans and their families. as commander in chief, i had the honor of standing with our men and women in uniformat every step of their service. from the moment they take their oath, to when our troops prepare to deploy, to afghanistan where they put their lives on the line for our security to their bed side as our wounded warriors fight to recover from terrible injuries. the most searing moments of our my presidency have been going to walter reed or bethesda or bagram and meeting troops who have left part of themselves on the battlefield and their spirit and their determination to recover and often to serve again is always an inspiration. so these men and women and their families are the best that our country has to offer. they've done their duty and

they ask nothing more than that this country does ours, that we uphold our sacred trust to all who have served. so when i hear allegations of misconduct, any misconduct, whether it's allegations of v.a. staff covering up long wait times or cooking the books, i will not stand for it. . not as commander in chief but also not as an american. none of us should. so, if these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and i will not tolerate it, period. here's what i discussed with secretary shinseki this morning. first, anybody found to have manipulated or falsified records at v.a. facilities has to be held accountable. the inspector general at the

v.a. has launched investigations into the phoenix v.a. and other facilities. some individuals have already been put on administrative leave. i know that people are angry and want swift reckoning. i sympathize with that. but we have to let the investigators do their job and get to the bottom of what happened. our veterans deserve to know the facts. their families deserve to know the facts. once we know the facts, i assure you if there's misconduct it will be punished. second, i want to know the full scope of this problem. that's why i ordered secretary shinseki to investigate. today he updated me on his review which is looking not just at the phoenix facility but also v.a. facilities across the nation. and i expect preliminary results from that review next week. third, i've directed rob neighbors to conduct a broader

review of the veterans' health administration, the part of the v.a. that delivers health care to our veterans. and rob's going to phoenix today. keep in mind, though, even if we had not heard reports out of this phoenix facility or other facilities, we all know that it often takes too long for veterans to get the care that they need. that's not a new development. it's been a problem for decades. and it's been compounded by more than a decade of war. that's why when i came into office i said we would systematically work to fix these problems and we have been working really hard to address them. my attitude is, for folks who have been fighting on the battlefield, they should not have to fight a bureaucracy at home to get the care that they have earned. so the presumption has always been we've got to do better.

rob's review will be a comprehensive look at the veterans' health administration's approach currently to access to care. i want to know what's working, i want to know what is not working, and i want specific recommendations on how v.a. can up their game. i expect that full report from rob next month. number four, i said that i expect everyone involved to work with congress, which has an born oversight role to play. i welcome congress as a partner in our efforts, not just to address the current controversies but to make sure we are doing right by our veterans across the board. i have served on the veterans' affairs committee when i was in the senate, and it was one of the proudest piece of business that i did in the legislature. i know the folks over there care deeply about our veterans. it is important that our veterans don't become another political football. especially when so many of them are receiving care right now. this is an area where democrats

and republicans should always be working together. which brings me to my final point. even as we get to the bottom of what happened at phoenix and other facilities, all of us, whether here in washington or all across the country, have to stay focused on the larger mission, which is upholding our sacred trust to all of our veterans. bringing the v.a. system into the 21st century, which is not an easy task. we have made progress over the last five years. we have made historic investments in our veterans. we boosted v.a. funding to record levels. and we created consistency through advanced appropriations so that veterans organizations knew their money would be there regardless of political rangeling in washington. we made v.a. benefits available to more than two million veterans who did not have it before, delivering disability pay to more vietnam vets

exposed to agent orange, making it easier for veterans with posttraumatic stress and mental health issues and traumatic brain injury to get treatment. and improving care for women's veterans. because of these steps and the influx of new veterans requiring services added in many cases to wait times, we launched an all-out war on the disability claims backlog. and in just the past year alone we have slashed that backlog by half. of course we are not going to let up because it's still too high. we are going to keep at it until we eliminate the backlog once and for all. meanwhile, we are also reducing homelessness among our veterans. we are helping veterans and their families, more than a million so far, pursue their education under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. 678 we are stepping up our efforts to help our newest veterans get the skills and training to find jobs when they come home. along with michelle and joe and

jill biden joining forces we have helped thousands of veterans find a job. more veterans are finding work and veterans' unemployment, although still way too high, is coming down. the point is caring for our veterans is not an issue that popped up in recent weeks. some of the problems with respect to how veterans are able to access the benefits that they have earned, that's not a new issue. that's an issue i was working on when i was running for the united states senate. taking care of our veterans and their families has been one of the causes of my presidency, and it is something that all of us have to be involved with and had to be paying attention . we ended the war in iraq, and as our war in afghanistan ends and as our newest veterans are coming home, the demands on the v.a. are going to grow. so we are going to have to

redouble our efforts to get it right as a nation. and we have to be honest that there are and will continue to be areas where we've got to do a lot better. so today i want every veteran to know we are going to fix whatever is wrong and so long as i have the privilege of serving as commander in chief i'm going to keep on fighting to deliver the care and the benefits and the opportunities that your families deserve. now and for decades to come. i t is a commitment to which feel a sacred duty to maintain. so with that i'm going to take two questions, i'm going to take jim first. >> thank you, mr. president. as you say, this is a cause of your presidency, you ran on this issue, you mentioned. why was it allowed to get to 24 stage -- to this stage where you actually had potentially 40

veterans who died while waiting for treatment? that's an extreme circumstance. >> we have to find out first of all what exactly happened. i don't want to get ahead of the i.g. report or the other investigations that are being done. i think it is important to recognize that the wait times generally what the i.g. indicated so far at least is the wait times were for folks who may have had chronic conditions, were seeking their next appointment, but may have already received service. it was not necessarily a situation where they were calling for emergency services. and the i.g. indicated that he did not see a link between the wait and them actually dying. that does not excuse the fact that the wait times in general are too long in some facilities. so what we have to do is find out what exactly happened.

we have to find out how can we realistically cut some of these weight times. -- wait times. there has been a large influx of new veterans coming in. we have a population of veterans that is also aging as part of the baby boom population. and we've got to make sure that the scheduling system, the access to the system that all those things are in sync. there are parts of the v.a. health care system that have performed well. and what we have seen is, for example, satisfaction rates in many facilities and with respect to many providers has been high. but what we are seeing is that in terms of how folks get scheduled, how they get in the system, there are still too many problems. i'm going to get a complete property. it is not, as a consequence, people not caring about the problem, but there are 85 million a-- appointments

scheduled among veterans during the course of a year. that's a lot of appointments. and that means that we've got to have a system that is built in order to be able to take those folks in in a smooth fashion, that they know what to expect, that they -- it's liable and it means the v.a. has to set standards it meets f it can't do it right now it has to set realistic goals how they mprove the system overall. the responsibility for things always rests ultimately with me as the president and commander n chief. rick shinseki has been a great soldier. he himself is a disabled veteran. and nobody cares more about our veterans than rick shinseki. i think me how do

rick shinseki has performed overall? i would say that on homelessness, on 9/11 g.i. bill, on working with us to reduce the backlog across the board he has put his heart and soul into this thing and taken it very seriously. i said to rick and said it to him today, i want to see what the results of these reports are, and there is going to be accountability. and i'm going to expect even before the reports are done that we are seeing significant improvement in terms of how the admissions process takes place in all of our v.a. health care facilities. so i know he cares about it deeply. and he has been a great public servant and a great warrior on behalf of the united states of america. we are going to work with him to solve the problem. but i am going to make sure that there is accountability

throughout the system after i get the full report. steve from reuters. >> thank you, sir. has secretary shinseki offered to resign? if hasegawa he's not to blame who is? were you caught by surprise by these allegations? >> rick shinseki i think serves this country because he cares deeply about veterans and he cares deeply about the mission. and i know that rick's attitude is if he does not think he can do a good job on this, and if he thinks he's let our veterans down, then i'm sure that he is not going to be interested in continuing to serve. at this stage rick is committed to solving the problem. and working with us to do it. and i am going to do everything in my power using the resources of the white house to help that process of getting to the bottom of what happened and fixing it.

but i'm also going to be waiting to see what the results of all this review process yields. i don't yet know how systemic this is. i don't yet know are there a lot of other facilities that have been cooked in the books? or is this just an episodic problem? essentially wait times have been a problem for decades in all kinds of circumstances with respect to the v.a. getting benefits, getting health care, etc. some facilities do better than others. a couple years ago the veterans' affairs set a goal of 14 days for wait times. what's not yet clear to me is whether enough tools were given to make sure those goals were actually met.

i won't know until the full report is put forward as to whether there was enough management follow-up to ensure that those folks on the frontlines who are doing scheduling had the capacity to meet those goals, if they were being evaluated for meeting goals that were unrealistic and couldn't meet because either there weren't enough doctors or the systems weren't in place or what have you. we need to find out who is responsible for setting up those guidelines. there are going to be a lot of questions that we have to answer. in the meantime, what i said to rick today, is let's not wait for the report retrospectively to reach out immediately to veterans who are currently waiting for appointments to make sure that they are getting better service. that's something that we can initiate right now. we don't have to wait to find out if there was misconduct to dig in and make sure that we are upping our game in all of

ur various facilities. i do think it is important not just with respect to rick shinseki but with respect to the v.a. generally, to say that every single day there are people working in the v.a. who do outstanding work and put everything they've got into making sure that our veterans get the care, benefits, and services that they need. and so i do want to close by sending a message out there that there are millions of veterans who are getting really good service from the v.a. who are getting really good treatment from the v.a. i know because i get letters from veterans sometimes asking me to write letters of commendation or praise to a doctor or a nurse or a facility that couldn't have given them better treatment.

so this is a big system with a lot of really good people in it who care about our veterans deeply. we have seen the improvements on a whole range of issues like homelessness, like starting to clear the backlog up, like making sure folks who previously weren't even eligible for disability because it was a mental health issue or because it was an agent orange issue are finally able to get those services. i don't want us to lose sight of the fact there are a lot of folks in the v.a. doing a really good job and working really hard at it. that does not, on the other hand, excuse the possibility that, number one, we weren't just -- we were not doing a good enough job in terms of providing access to folks who for chronic ntment conditions. number two, it never excuses the possibility that somebody was trying to manipulate the

data in order to look better or make their facility look better. it is critical to make sure that we have good information in order to make good decisions. i want people on the frontline if there's a problem to tell me or tell rick shinseki or tell whoever's their superior this is a problem. don't cover up a problem. do not pretend the problem doesn't exist. if you can't get wait times down to 14 days right now, i want you to let folks up the chain know so we can solve the problem. do we need more doctors? do we need a new system in order to make sure that scheduling and coordination is more effective and more smooth? is there more follow-up? nd that's the thing that right now most disturbs me about the report. e possibility that folks intentionally withheld information that would have

helped us fix a problem. there's not a problem out there that's not fixable. it can't always be fixed as quickly as everybody would like, but typically we can chip away at these problems. the we have seen this with the backlog. we have seen it with veterans' homelessness. we have seen it with the post 9/11 g.i. bill. initially there were problems with t they got fixed, and now it's operating fairly smoothly. problems can be fixed, but folks have to let the people that did the reporting to know that there is a problem in rder for us to fix it. listen, if somebody's mismanaged or engaged in misconduct, not only do i not want them getting bonuses, i want them punished. that's what we are going to hopefully find out from the i.g. report as well as the audits taking place. all right.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama here wrapping up remarks after a meeting this morning with veterans' affairs secretary eric shinseki who has been under fire recently because of allegations of mismanagement, the nation's v.a. hospitals. the president expressing his faith in secretary shinseki to fix the problems. also saying that he will not tolerate, quote-unquote, the mistreatment of veterans alleged at v.a. facilities. and that those guilty of misconduct at v.a. hospitals will be punished. a recent media investigation concluded 40 patients at v.a. facilities may have died while waiting for treatment. with president obama at the meeting this morning was white house deputy chief of staff, rob nabors, who has been assigned by the president to oversee a review of the v.a. health care system. last week before the veterans' affairs committee, secretary shinseki says he expects to have a report from the inspector general investigating the allegations within about three weeks. you can see his testimony before the senate's veterans'

affairs committee that took place last week. you can see his testimony online at c spap-r span.org. members of congress have been tweeting about this issue. congressman desantis of florida, republican, mismanagement at v.a. hospitals is a national disgrace. those who put their lives on the line in defense of our freedom deserve better. also this from congressman tim huelskamp of kansas. the president says he will not tolerate misconduct, but has for seven years. we do expect more reaction to the president's statement this morning as the chamber is set to debate a bill giving the veterans' affairs secretary the authority to fire senior executives based on their performance. the house set to take up that bill this afternoon. we'll have live coverage of legislative business in the house beginning at noon eastern here on c-span. until the house returns, a discussion now with a member of congress on immigration and whether the house will craft legislation to address the shishe -- issue from this morning's "washington journal." journal" continues. >> we are joined by louis

gohmert. i want to start with the question we have been asking our viewers. said there isr not that big of a difference tea party and conservative republicans. would you agree with that? guest: i would not completely agree with there being no difference between what the tea party believes in and what mainstream republicans say. -- tea partye is people actually want republicans to do what they promised when they were running to get elected. the mainstream republicans have said the same thing, just like the speaker said. we have been against obamacare, but i could go back and document teps thathe miss breathed in new life and open the door for obamacare.

consistentave been and we know that obamacare is a .ad thing for of america we want immigration. we need immigration. have got to secure the borders to make sure that people are coming in legally. all of the things that the tea party people believe are things that republicans in the main establishment have said we need to do. tea party folks actually have the gall to think we ought to do what we said we would do and i agree with them. host: you encourage members to rise up and to fight back against the establishment wing of the republican party. how has that effort gone in the first 13 primaries so far this year? primaries, wet of have seen establishment

moredates having to move towards the right, more towards the things that tea party people believe in. they are able to pick up some of those votes. candidatesea party have not been far from what the establishment candidates were saying. look at mitch mcconnell. an establishment republican. he has raised issues about the tea party. certainly about the senate of conservative fund. look at what he ran on. he ran on tea party issues. we should not be spending more than we bring in. obamacare bad for americans, especially for seniors. immigration, we need to secure the borders. he ran on all the things the tea party people believe. host: you bring up immigration.

that is one area of tension. boehner described what was happening behind closed doors, sing some members think this issue is too hard to deal with. is that how you describe what was happening? guest: they caught the speaker late in the evening and he was doing an impression of himself when he gets a little weepy, i think. the ball is in the president's court. an article that carolyn may wrote. as he said, we talked about this every week for the last 18 months and i think it is clear of the last several months that until the president gives us some confidence that we can trust him to implement and

integration -- implement an immigration reform bill, we can't trust him. he has people on his staff on the immigration issue, for , a report published a few years after the passage of the 1986 immigration reform and control act and the author of -- she is currently the obama administration's chief immigration advisor. she made very clear in 1990 that it was time to scrap all of the parts of the immigration reform act of 1986, except amnesty. forget the enforcement, let's just go with amnesty. everything that the president has done in the way of giving waivers to cronies, to friends, waived offrs, he has

actual laws that he did not believe in, but were actually law. he has given no reason to trust that he will secure the border and that is why i filed a resolution, july of last year, that goes through and points these things out and says until as border is secure, not confirmed by the department of homeland security, they will confirm anything. we cannot trust that. as confirmedecured by the border states, then we should not even be talking about the issue of immigration. this is such a big deal. there is a new york times article that talked about the thousands of children as young , i was talkingld to a woman. her group had been asked to come to the border.

they were on know -- overwhelmed with all of these unaccompanied children. there is talk about amnesty for children. parents are putting their kids with human traffickers and south ofhem from mexico, south america, guatemala, if we can get our kids to the united states, because of all of this type of amnesty for children, they will give amnesty and we can come in to take care of them. it is outrageous that we are luring children into human trafficking conditions because we are talking about amnesty for securingout actually the border. it is an outrage. do you think john boehner will take the route that you want him to take on immigration?

guest: as long as the people across america make it clear that they expect the border to be secured before anything else is done and that the 68% issue over 60% fora, hispanic adults, secure the border before you do anything else. i think we can expect the follow what the american people expect of republicans, otherwise we are not going to stay in the majority. host: louis gohmert we are speaking with -- we are speaking with louis gohmert. he is here to take your questions. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882.

if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. waiting for folks to call in, you had strong words for eric holder on that issue of children coming across the border, saying it violated his oath when it comes to the administration's position. how is your relationship with eric holder these days? b.f.f.'s.are we are best friends forever. he called me his buddy. he called me that in terms of "you don't want to go there, buddy. -- buddy." [video clip] >> we promise to provide you and your staff with -- >> i read what your department

promised. it is inadequate. totempt is not a big deal our attorney general, but it is important we have proper oversight. >> you don't want to go there, ok? >> i don't want to go there about the contempt? >> you should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. it was inappropriate and unjust. never think that that was not a big deal to me. evidence andng for normally we are known by our fruits. there is no indication it was a big deal because your department has not been forthcoming in producing documents that were the subject of the contempt. there have been other questions asked about the -- >> the documents that we were prepared to make available then, we are prepared to make available now. the gun lobbybout and a desire to have -- >> we have been trying to get to

the bottom of fast and furious where people died, at least a couple hundred mexicans died and we cannot get the information to get to the bottom of that. i do not need lectures from you about contempt. >> i don't need lectures from you either. deal withifficult to asking questions. as a former judge, i have never asked questions of someone held in contempt. have you had any contact with the attorney general since that exchange? no, i have not. i knew there was some reason that contempt did not seem to be a big deal to him. sure enough, abc news did an interview with him a year before that exchange in which he told , it is on video, it is in print. he told them since i do not have respect for the people that

voted for contempt, it does not mean anything to me. so, it was not a big deal to him, literally, before it was a a deal to hit -- big deal to him. i do not know he was lying earlier or to me, but one of those times he was not honest. will congressman gohmert take your questions. we start with dave on our line for independents. good morning, dave. caller: good morning. , i want to know why we have to give money to get a politicians attention. have we taken campaigning far enough, and shouldn't be that the votes matter, not who has the biggest wallet?

guest: you are exactly right. it is the votes that matter, and peoples opinion that matter, but why are you saying it is the money that matters? caller: you are around campaigning, schmoozing, you do not seem to talk to the voters that much, you are just running around raising money. guest: you do have to raise money when you run for office, cashedd, my wife and i out everything we had to run for congress, so you do have to cash out everything to run, but if you are in east texas, whether county, iy smallest am all over my district, talking to people all over east texas and that is important to me. when we are in recess up here -- of course, the country is safer

when we are in recess -- i am all over east texas, talking to aroundxans, and i get all over the country, and what i -- what i like is people are not afraid to walk up to you at 2:00 a.m. in walmart while you're getting honey to start asking you questions. host: we are talking with congressman louie gohmert, republican of texas, member of judiciary committee, former chief justice of the 12 court of appeals in texas before coming to progress. from twitter, we are talking about immigration earlier -- what specific steps will you take to enforce consequences for employers who illegally employing noncitizens, especially large corporations? see, that is a great

point. it is already in the law. it is a matter of enforcing the law that is there. it was part of the 1986 immigration reform act that the own staff member was saying after it passed that we should not be enforcing the law as it is, we should knock out the employer requirement so that employers can hire people that are illegally here. was that on twitter? because a great tweet it goes to the heart of it. if employers go to have the law -- if the employers have the law enforced, they will not be hiring people that are undocumented, so you would see the rate dropped dramatically. the verification system that has been in place that some employers have taken advantage to be adequate as

long as it is the around the country and everybody is following it. there are some of us that believe that is key to enforcing the law, but you have to have people on the border like woodrow wilson did. you do not have to have the thousands and thousands of troops that he put on the border after poncho via came in and lla camef a bunch -- vi in and killed a bunch of american families, but you secure the border. miles are all that is under full control. we have to get it under control, but the employer verification is key toward making it work. a good example -- we hear bill gates and different people saying look, we just do not have enough people that are trained em, the science,

technology, engineering, math, but when you look at the numbers, a new report out says there are about 105,000 science, technology, engineering, math and a year that come open we are bringing in 129,000 m degrees,ear with ste and it is apparently factual that the people with stem degrees do not have enough jobs around, so do we need to bring in more people that some of the wealthiest americans are saying we do, when actually we need to be hiring americans and make sure we are hiring people that are legally here, and consequences should be there for those that do not follow the law. line fora on our democrats from wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my

call but i did read immigration bill. it will cost $1 trillion for this bill, and they are talking about "different agencies to handle -- a couple of different agencies to handle the people applying for citizenship. to me, that does not seem right. the people came here illegally. why should us as taxpayers pay for this bill if these people have broken the law? could you answer that question first? sa, i cannot agree with you more. americans should not be paying for people to be here illegally. i had one of the hispanic capital lease tell me recently that he and his wife, she is hispanic, went to the hospital recently, and they said well, you have to pay the full amount of your deductible before your procedure, and she said i was not prepared to do that, and

they said if you tell us you are undocumented we will give you the health care for free. the hispanic capitol policeman and his wife said they were furious. so, you mean we have to pay for ourselves because we are legally here, and anyone that is undocumented here -- you are exactly right, that should not be. that is not my bill. i do not support my bill, and you have the right to the heart of the matter. we do not have enough money to be thrown around for everybody that can get here. i have seen estimates before. people have said there might be one billion, one billion and a half people in the world that want to come here. we are a nation of over 3 million people. if everyone came to america that wanted to come, there will be no america to come to because we would be overwhelmed. we have to be serious about who we let in and make sure that

they are legally here, and then we make -- take care of our people, and then we can continue to be a light to the world, only cannot allow ourselves to be overwhelmed, as you pointed out can be happening under the new bill that went through the senate. host:p a comment from -- a comment from bill in new jersey -- whether you like it or will getillion people a pathway to citizenship and people like you and stephen king will be left by the wayside. guest: it is interesting that he uses the figure 12 million people. we have been told 11 million. in recent years we have been told it is as many as 20 million, and they make it more palatable by saying it is 11 million. 12you give more amnesty to million people, just like they

found in 1986 -- if you give amnesty to people and you do not secure the border before you do that, as they found in 1986, within a matter of a few years, you will have more than that come into the country. it becomes a magnet, and then you're not talking about -- some people were told in 1986 it is only about one million people. it turned out to be closer to 4 million people, and then within a matter of years it was that many more people, and within about 10 years after that, supposedly it is basically doubled. so, i appreciate the call the person tweeting -- the e-mail saying i need to get used to it, but you need to get used to the fact that if you do that, the unemployment rate will skyrocket even higher. it will draw in at least as many people as we give amnesty to, even more. the border patrolman have told

us every time we even talk about legal status and amnesty they see many times more people coming to the border and trying to get in. just the talk of it is luring people to their death and to sex trafficking just trying to get here. done, securing the border, even the person that wrote it will be surprised what i would agree to. -- secureher e-mail the border is a vague term. the only way to secure the border is to shut it down, and the business players of america would not let that happen. guest: he makes a good point. the chamber of commerce is arething -- someone -- people that i agree with. and they say get amnesty, the more people out of work, that is

outrageous. host: securing the border -- securing the border does not mean sealing the border. the people that know my heart as a christian, i love what i see in the hispanic culture. generally speaking, i realize this is a generalization, they have a love of god, a hard-working ethic, and unless we corrupt them from that grade three-pronged approach to life -- that makes america stronger. i want more hispanics. you do not seal the border ever. that is like creating a stagnant pond. you need fresh water coming in, but it has to be secured so that we control who comes in. those that say who it -- it -- those who say that it cannot be done, have

ever been to israel. --y needed to control her their borders. to be a while.e they have a fence for about 75% of it, they enforce it, and it works if you are serious about it. host: greg is waiting on the phone. you are on with congressman louie gohmert. caller: i appreciate what you are doing. you are doing great with the american people. you are debt with a president, or an administration, that continues to lie to the american people, and they cannot get around that. they continue to live. so, what are we supposed to do, think that he is special or that he is doing something good for the american people? the economy -- the unemployment rate is probably 12%, not 6.3%, he you know? -- 6.3%, you know?

the people that have not found a job have stopped looking. here we sit and listen to mr. obama tell us what we want to hear at that time, and the democrats -- , i can hear the frustration and i share that frustration, but a good example of what greg is talking about, there is an article from "the "the obama19 -- administration said monday the government needs to find ways to get more skilled foreign workers into the country." , wean, for heaven sakes have skilled workers than the jobs. i have had job fairs in east texas, a number of them, and it breaks your heart, john, when you are out there with people degrees, butonly masters degrees, airline pilots,

engineers, all of these different people, they have been thrown out of their jobs, and if you are 50 years of age or older and you have lost your job and you have great skills or technological abilities it is tough to find a job. here you have the department of labor out there saying we need to bring more skilled people in to take the jobs that americans are having trouble finding. host: this is part of an effort the obama administration in 100ed to bring thousand skilled immigrant workers to make them eligible for work visas. problem, as i the mentioned earlier, when it is estimated that you have about 105,000 stem jobs a year available and you bring in degree foreign stem people, it does not bode well for americans desperately trying to find jobs, and as greg talked about, many have just given up working.

as unemployedr those that are truly unemployed and gave up even looking for jobs, then our employment rate skyrockets, doubles what it is now. host: on securing the border, vivian on twitter asks -- would congressman gohmert agreed to raise taxes in texas in order to build a border fence? guest: actually, texas, we would not have to raise taxes to get our part of the border security and texas, but the problem we keep running into in this the federal government running in, as they have in arizona, saying you have no right to control the borders in your state. we, the federal government have the right to control the border, not you, texas. so, it is a national problem. it is not just a texas problem, but texas, it stands ready.

rick perry, my friend from college days will tell you, they are ready to do it if the federal government will get out of the way and let them do it. host: brian is in massachusetts on online for independents. caller: i have a good way to solve the border problem. we need to fine any business that hires an illegal immigrant $20,000, putting $5,000 bounty on them, and take the money patrol, and have more people arresting these people and throwing them out of this country. have social security work together with the them lawyers to prove that they are not -- with the employers to prove that they are not legal. host: commerce and gohmert, -- congressman gohmert, the businesses? then, yeah, every now and

both under the bush administration, which did not do enough to secure the border, in my opinion, and the obama administration, which is not doing enough, when they go around to getting as an employer, they do get fined and they get hit pretty hard. one of the callers mentioned my good friend stephen king, and he has had a solution along the same lines that i think would be extremely effective, and that is if you are a business that is found to have hired people that are illegally here, then you lose all of the deductions as business expenses for those people that you paid. every dime that you paid them does not get to be a business expense. you have to put that back on your books. it means there will be back taxes to pay, that businesses could not possibly afford to be hiring people that are illegally here if they know they are going

to have to end up adding that money back to their books when they have deducted as business expense. it would really get their attention in a hurry. the line for is on democrats from chicago, illinois. caller: good morning, how are you doing? guest: all right. caller: i noticed republicans are good at throwing the rock and hiding their hands behind the back. my question to you, mr. gomer -- every time i see you on tv, i crack up. 10 weeks ago they had a bill in the senate -- i know it is not your division, but they said they did not have the money to help the veterans, the guys you call on night and day to fight your wars. you could not cut up with -- come up with $60 million to help veterans, but you go on tv and act like you are so in love with the veterans. my next question, why are you

all going around here having hearings after hearings on benghazi and fast and furious -- ust about when bush lied into a war? 60 embassies were bombed. i mean, it ate embassies were bombed, i'm sorry. you had 60 people died. no hearings on that. under reagan, 250-some people died. where are the hearings on that? host: let the congressman respond. guest: as hard as under reagan, we will take the last first, the democrats in congress made clear they would not stand for anything further after our marine barracks were bombed in beirut, and others that were part of the reagan administration, so it was a big mistake, but we withdrew our people out of beirut. the message went back to the radical islamists that we are a paper tiger, we do not fight if

you hit us, and that, along with our reaction in 1979 when our embassy was attacked and we did nothing, that has helped recruit radical islamists. so, the democrats in the house and the senate that fully control the house and the senate in 1983, they could have had hearings, but it was very clear what had happened. in beirut. the problem in benghazi, and the reason we need to get to the bottom of it is we have been told a lie from the beginning, and as far as the lie that ocean said to get us -- that bush said to get us into a war -- i know that has been the rhetoric, and bush lied, people died, but everybody, democrats and republicans, including hillary clinton -- everyone there was a democrat in congress, that i'm aware of, had indicated that, you know, we knew -- it was not a lie. iraq had weapons

of mass instruction. we knew they had poison gas because they had poisoned hundreds of thousands of kurds. we knew they had those. it was not a lie that got us into the war and one of the great things that happened as a result was gaddafi, who had been a supporter of terrorism, gave up his nuclear proliferation, opened up his country, said come in, and he stopped being a radical until this administration helped get him killed and thrown out of office. now we have radical islamists training can't in eastern -- training camps in eastern libya and all over. as far as the veterans, i could not agree more. we need to be spending more to take care of our veterans. host: is there not enough funding right now, or is it a management issue? well, i think we have both, but clearly, you

cannot see the problem in the the a when it is being -- in the v.a. when it is being hidden by administrators, and i am hearing from people that they had to hide how long it was taking or they would not get their bonuses. is heavens sake, if there bonus money out there, it ought to be going to treat veterans, not to keep them on some hidden, secret list. so, if the administration needs more money -- i know the hearts of most of the people on both sides, we will take care of spending the money to take care of our veterans, but we have to have a realistic analysis of just what it is and we need to spend, and it does not need to be on bonuses for the a officials -- v.a. officials that are hiding the fact. winston -- in winston-salem, north carolina. caller: good morning,

representative gohmert. it is a pleasure to see you on tv this morning. i always in your you talking. -- always enjoyed your talking. guest: thank you. host: geoeye with your comment, david. we will be have said overwhelmed with immigration. we have already been overwhelmed. we have been invaded by a foreign country. hour in 1987. i have a friend that is doing something much more technical than i had done, and he is getting paid $12 an hour today, paying his own insurance. he gets his workmen scop, but he is paying his own taxes. you go to construction sites today, and it is very hard to and a legal american in construction site at any of these corporate home-building

places, track houses. i do not understand why we cannot get a bunch of buses, bounty hunters, and round people up. i keep hearing that we cannot deport 20 many people -- 20 million people, that we have a limit. we do not limit the number of people that we jail for assault or drug prosecutions, or the number of people that we jail for dwi. why do we have a limit on the number of people that we can deport? host: congressman gohmert? guest: is making a great point. i am not -- i do not think you need to take buses and round people up, like he is talking what an earlier caller said and imports with employers that you have to be documented legally here in order to get a job.

that go after employers are employing people illegally, and we enforce the law that you are not supposed to get welfare benefits, social security benefits, all of the different benefits -- you should not be getting a child tax credit. we have many people that are getting more money back from income taxes than they pay in because of the child tax credit. so, if we just enforce the law, now welfare and benefits of different kinds have lured people into the country, out ofll be lured back the country because the jobs are not here, but we have to enforce the law with employers, enforce the law that we do not keep giving him financial benefits to people that are not here.

when i was in england not that long ago, they were saying, for example, even people that legally come into their country, they are not allowed to obtain any kind of benefit from the government until they have been there for a minimum of five years and they have been paying into the system. there is nothing wrong with doing that to save our country from financial ruin. host: patricia waiting on our line for democrats, calling in from louisiana. guest: hi, patricia. caller: good morning, how are you doing, congressman gohmert? i am doing well. i was wondering if you would assisting u.s.ll citizens phenomena to the way refugees are assisted pertaining to relocation and all its expenditures in conjunction with

resettlement and assisting the person to find employment? guest: well, that is a wonderful point, and you are obviously plugged in because you know that that is happening. we are spending, no telling how much money, and in fact, as one house district judge in texas -- judge in texas said the department of homeland security is now involved in human trafficking, and we have seen, even this week, as thousands of children have come in, the message has gone out loudly, just as she is talking about -- if you get into this country, we will spend money to find your parents if they are illegally in the country. we will find them, get you together -- i mean, these are children, refugees that have into thened -- lured country, and we are helping with

human trafficking, and if you cannot find your parents, we will get you with other parents, and she makes a fantastic point. the thing is we do not need a bill to do that. it is a law. if we just secure the border under the law, the money she is talking about that is being spent to illegally human traffic kids that come into the country illegally, unaccompanied, that can be spent on relocating american refugees who have lost their homes, whether it is from flooding, like we had after hurricane katrina, whether it is after wild flies -- wildfires -- things like that. we can be helping americans with that kind of money if we just enforce the law. we do not even need a bill to do that, but she >> real leave this discussion and go live now to the u.s. house. general speeches first and a bill that will give the veterans' affairs secretary the authority to fire senior