>> and -- >> they are firing artillery to attack ukraine. >> the you believe that rockets and missiles and artillery fired from russian territory brought down these ukrainian planes? >> we are still looking >> we're still looking into it. >> are you sure the planes went down? >> my understanding, yes. i haven't heard otherwise. >> ukrainians have claimed they were shot down from -- by whatever, from russian territory. >> there's good looking reports about the location -- >> you have not made a determination? >> because we don't make determinations until we have facts and then we present them to you as much as we can. >> but you are sure the russians are firing artillery? >> we have information, yes. >> under the washington examiner headline, talks on fixing veterans affairs are now just

angry tweets. despite bipartisan agreement, congress must act quickly to help end significant wait times at the ct of patients veterans affairs hospitals. lawmakers reached a impasse that threatens to derail the deal days before the august recess. she continues talks so seriously deteriorateed that senators are trading jabs in florida speeches. aides shooting off accusatory tweets and e-mails and lawmakers thursday refused to show up at the negotiating table. that's a reference to a meeting called by house veterans affairs committee chair representative jeff miller. that meeting lasted a half hour. >> thank everybody for being here. we have a hearing that's actually going on right now in the house, some of our members will be shuttling in and out. i appreciate the opportunity to

the purpose of this is not to make five-minute speeches. the purpose of this is for us to present an offer to the -- to senator sandersment i'm sorry he's unable to be here today but i certainly understand his reasons. without question, i think everybody here will agree that our intent has been from the very beginning, and continues to be finish our conference committee work, get something to both bodies so they can vote on and have the president us make our votes before we leave and house leaves next thursday, one week from today. everybody in here knows that we have continued to make good faith efforts. we have made movement in the

process. there's been a lot of give and take from both sides. senator sanders and i continue to communicate on this issue and we will continue to communicate on this issue and what i wanted to do was try to bring everybody what we and say, here's think in the house that we in fact can submit and we don't have total by-in from the folks on the democrats' side so i don't want to insinuate that they do. but they are aware of what our offer is going to be. i saw a statement a few minutes ago i was criticized for saying the senator moved the goal post. the facts are he did. he requested from v.a. dditional dollars and we got a $17.6 billion ad in the middle

of these negotiations. when i asked for the senate for your edification, when i asked for additional backup material for the $17.6 billion, what i got was two sheets of paper and i told the secretary today that, that was not adequate. again, pledged to continue to work. i think it's important. i thought it was important since we had not gotten together publicly in four weeks. senator sanders and i serve as co-chairs of this conference out of a desire to show bipartisanship. tried to do this yesterday and the senator said he didn't want to do it yesterday. he said how about today? and he didn't like today either but here's what our offer is, so

that everybody understands where we're coming from. we're prepared to accept title 1 through title 7 of the original senate bill. with a small change to include all 27 leases. the senate only had 26. we're saying add the 27th lease into that, which is what passed the house last december. provide v.a. with $102 million for the rest of fiscal year 2014 to address some of the department's internal funding short falls and some of those care, alls are nonv.a. emergency space leasing and improvements to rating fiduciaryy and appeals work. and how we will fund it is $10 billion in no year emergency mandatory funding to cover the cost of the senate's choice provisions. this is what c.b.o. scored the

bill at was $10 billion. i think this provides more than a solid onpayment on the first year of this two-year program. and the remaining senate provisions would be subject to appropriations. some of which are efforts to address staffing shortages, authorization of 27 major medical facility leases, the commissions to study v.a.'s access to care and construction issues, improve the training of facility managers, collaboration with other federal health services and treatment for military sexual trauma. it's basically the senate bill, except it's not all mandatory funding. and what we said is we would move to the $10 billion, make that emergency mandatory funding with a no-year limit so we can

carry it over because most of us expect that we in fact will not spend $10 billion in the portion next year because i think this is the critical piece of this legislation. senator mccain, thank you for working so hard to get this particular piece in this conference. both of us, both houses think that's critical to helping v.a. improve the delivery of timely health care. it's a very simple, straightforward offer. with that, i would yield to the ranking member on the senate v.a. committee. >> thank you, chairman miller. let me say to the conferees that are here. when we started this process, every member believed that we should focus on the crisis at hand. the scope of the conference was to address those things that we saw as deficiencies at the v.a.

i think for the most part we have stayed within the parameters and i think that the response from veterans around the country is this will help us . the chairman raises an important issue and that is the v.a. in the midst of this popped up and said hey, we have other needs here financially. here's what they are. and those needs were broken down by 2014, '15, '16 and '17. we either have to trust our appropriations process to address our gears or do away with them. the reality is for the scope of this conference, i think it is well within the scope of this conference to address what v.a. says they need in 2014. the chairman has includeed that in the offer. it's $102 million. i might say of that 60-some million is in the v.b.a. it's not in v.h.a. it's not in the health care

needs. when we talk about the additional -- whether it's $13 billion or $16 billion, let me suggest to you, i'm not in any way saying the v.a. is wrong. i think thraze burden of proof both sigh of the hill and parties have asked show us the information that proves how this is going to be used. we have yet to receive that. but that's probably more appropriate for us to look at in the context of an appropriations process where the request comes from the white house and request just doesn't come from an agency. to those v.s.o.'s around the country, we agree with you. we're willing to look what the additional needs our veterans have. but we want to do it in the normal context. we will address those thing that's have identified in this year's fiscal year that cannot be addressed in the normal appropriations budget. thank the chairman for moving forward. i believe i said as i came in

the room, i'm optimistic we can get a deal. that might seem a little odd considering my counterpart in the senate is not here or his colleagues. but still believe we can get there. we will never get there if we're not willing to as conference entertain a proposal and eventually have a vote. so i thank you for moving it forward. >> thank you very much. i also wanted to let you know there's media reports out there that say the v.a. talks are on the verge of collapse are widely exaggerated. we continue to try to resolve the impasse, albeit not a great one in comparison to where we started but we're getting closer. senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i want to this you and senator burr and all

members on both sides of the capital for the hard work that's been done on this issue. and the priority all of us have given this situation. i don't have to describe the urgency which is associated with this issue. i did have a conversation with the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. i strongly recommend that as soon as possible the four, you two and ranking member and chair sit down again this afternoon. i believe that the only way we are going to reach a conclusion if we are, and i believe we must, it's not a matter of can, it's must, it's going to require a dialogue. i believe that he will understand that there's certain compromises that have to be made as some have already been made and perhaps more. but i would hope that the --

that this afternoon the four of you could sit down and start some really tough negotiating and -- because that really is, we all necessity that's the only way we're going to reach a conclusion. and especially mild mannered people like myself are very supportive of that effort. i thank you all for the great work you all have done and every member, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. many assure you that the meetings and telephone calls i had with your colleague mr. sanders has been in an attempt to try to negotiate something that both bodies could support, be proud of and certainly would speed access and care to the veterans. >> i can't speak for him, mr. chairman, but i am convinced he's ready to sit down and have a dialogue in the same way we do with conferences on every bill that gets up to the four senior

members. i'm still optimistic and i will remain optimistic. thank you for all of your hard work. >> thank you, senator coburn. >> i just note that the senate session is going to prove new head of the v.a. that's my understanding. we will go through the senate this afternoon. the would tell you explanation should be lower unless we add title 30 to him for any conference room. because if you cannot hold accountable employees under your leadership, you will not fix the v.a. my only recommendation is whatever we do, that title 31 authority be given to him so in fact he can clean the mess up. >> the accountability piece we oth had is in there.

31, 38? again, the house believes and our position that it does cover title 38. i hear you, the intent is there. and that's something that we certainly can look at. concur with you, senator. >> and the reason was he had to go through all of this enormous amount -- i said what one thing that you need and that's exactly it.

i yield back. any other comments? mr. kirkpatrick? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join in the comments made by senator mccain this really is about taking care of our veterans. that's the focus. i know everybody here, that's what they care about and i agree they have to continue talking and continue the dialogue because that's how we get things done. >> let may sure, miss kirk kirkpatrick, i appreciate your teapedance here this afternoon, this was not a take or leave it. this was an attempt for us to make a public offer and dialogue will continue. senator rubio? >> i want to take a minute to brag on you. we're proud of the work you're doing. you're from florida. i'm proud of the work everyone here is doing. i believe this conference committee is comprised of individuals that are very serious about bringing this to a atisfactory.

and it's unimaginable for any of us to believe we will go home next thursday or friday to have recess and this issue unresolved. i think it would be viewed as unacceptable. not just by our constituents in florida but across the country. particularly those that rely on the v.a. and increasing flage and challenges and accessing that system. i want to echo sense of urgency i hear here today and necessity to get this off and continue to make progress in that direction. thank you. >> i just want to clarify what will happen with the independent assistant -- assessment in the v.a. and whole management system and how the v.a. works. >> as you and i discussed, that is part of the senate bill. that is tan amount -- tantamount

to finding out what the future is because v.a. needs to look at itself not only from internal perspective but external review and that's what both bodies esire to do. >> i want to add commipts to senator rubio about the urgency of the hour. i think we're doing that distant about why we are here. we're talking about an urge sent situation. it's been almost a month since we met here the first time. i think we have gotten as far as we have because this is a bipartisan agreement. this is about our veterans. it transcends politics. bigger than awful us and hero we depended on our nation. i want to echo as well i think my hope is and i think all of us will work diligently to make sure this is done and crafted and agreed upon before we leave for august, veterans deserve it and american taxpayers deserve it. i want to echo those thoughts.

i'm grateful we're here today and it's a bipartisan and we're actually moving. >> thank you. i think it's important as we go forward as what we're trying to accomplish right here, right now is taking care of those veterans in need. if you're ill and you're in the ambulance on your way to get care to the emergency room, you don't want to hear it's being built in two years. want to hear where you're going right now to get care. and that should be our number one priority. i think we're on the right path with that. went continue on that track. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree there's an emergency situation but it's inappropriate this crisis be used to permanently increase the funding of poorly performing agency. i think it's perfectly appropriate on behalf of the taxpayers of this country to make a down payment towards a better system to deal with the issues that our veterans face and then to allow congressional

oversight to work its process so that we can can measure the results of the agency to make sure it's actually doing what we appropriated the money to do. in your proposal that you just laid out does that. it makes that down payment and allows the process to work going forward. don't see how anybody cannot be supportive over a proposal that balances the best interest of the veterans and still does in an urgeant manner and balances interest of our taxpayers. thank you. >> senator? >> chairman, i want to thank you for the work you're done and ranking member burr, thank you for what you're doing. if you listen to the confirmation testimony of bob mcdonald yesterday in g-50, you heard from a man that delineated point by point specifically what he's going to do to open up the v.a. to bring about a new attitude in the v.a. and deal with the v.a. in whatever we he

has to do it. absence of title 38 will be a problem for him big time. we have somebody who's been there. we have somebody who's done it. he's done his homework. we heard that yesterday. i agree with senator coburn. i will work with you any way i can, chairman miller, to bring this to a successful conclusion so we can invest in our veterans' future and change the culture of the v.a. >> i will also add ranking member, who is zill in the hearing, also supports amending the bill to allow title 38 to be subject to the accountability portion of these bills. >> mr. chairman, let me just say briefly, i appreciate the work everyone has done but i also appreciate on the house side you have really leaned forward to accept the senate bill. i think the senate bill is thoughtfully put together. i think there's a lot of things about the senate bill we can like.

the other thing that you have done with this proposal is you have built in a system whereby this puts burden on us to provide even more significant oversight of the v.a. because what you're saying is look, we will make a major down payment here. we will give them the money that they need now. but we want to see results. what that means for the senate veterans' committee, what that means for the house veterans' committee is we have to stay on top of this. we need to make sure that this department is turning itself around, that it is using this axpayer investment and it is getting service to our veterans and getting the job done. i think the way you crafted this is extremely artful in terms of number one taking care of veterans, making sure that they're going to get the care

they need but secondly saying to the taxpayers, we're also going to make sure that this very poorly run department is turning around. that we will provide the oversight and if something is not working, we're going to force it to turn around. so i just think it's just a giant step to get this resolved and a compliment you on really thoughtful policy approach to dealing with a very, very complex issue. i think it's absolutely good work. >> thank you, sir. any other comments? mr. kauffman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just again i think i want to echo the remarks of a lot of folks here today on this conference committee to say i really hope we get something done before the august recess. and i think it's more important to recognize this issue. i think as you have in terms of

putting proposal forward that recognizes this just isn't a function of resources but it's about restructuring an agency that has not served the needs of our veterans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this morning we heard from acting secretary gibson and from his responses to our questions, your questions, my questions and others, the question for the $17 billion, $18 billion is stale work in progress. they haven't figured out how much people they really need and so i'm just cures why that's come forward at this time. i don't know if it's helpful or not. but in any case, that is a work in progress and i don't think they're ready to make that request to be honest. thank you. i yield back. >> has everybody said everything? >> i just want -- >> i didn't ask if you can say it twice.

[laughter] > all right. >> we had an article in "the wall street journal" yesterday that the problem was money. written by one of the v.s.o.'s. the problem is money. we had 60% increase with 17% increase in demand. we increased money three times faster than demand has been placed on the v.a. system. throw money and if we money at this without the oversight that you have done in the past and needs to be done in the senate, we will have failed the american taxpayer. but most importantly, we will have failed the veteran. it's not about money. i don't care how many articles are written. all you have to do is look at how much the veterans' budget grown in health care and how less efficient it's become every year. the key is management. we've got a great leader. it's going to gait proved. what we have to do is give him

the tools. >> thank you very much, senator. thank you, everybody, for coming and joining us. i have drafted a letter that i'm sending to senator sanders outlining our proposal and asking for him to join me in a call that we come back together in a public setting as a conference committee to actually vote on monday afternoon. with that, we're adjourned.

>> there have been attempts to make it appear the house did not want to pay. $10 billion up front is what we would consider down payment. because we have to do this quickly before we go home. >> for how long? >> however long that $10 billion lasts, that's why we call it a no year. we don't lock it into a single year. we truly believe that the $10 billion is going to last more than a single year. so we call it a no year appropriation. and then we say let's go to the normal process for the additional dollars that have been requested. and whether he have the benefit of the independent review by which to substantiate moving the needle either up or down as it relates to money. >> the outside care or to improve the v.a.?

>> the care. that's what it's for. >> will you sit down with senator sanders this afternoon? >> i have a very full schedule. don't foe what schedule sanders' quedge is but we have to see. >> how is -- >> you said whatever. but how when there's only one democrat here, miss kirkpatrick, how cannot be considered unilateral? >> you will have to ask democrats why they didn't come. i heard rhetoric thrown around on the floor today that this was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, not true. we had not been negotiated in good faith. certainly not true. senator sanders knows that. all we wanted to do today was come together in public and make the offer and leave and that's what we just did. that's all that would have happened had the democrats come.

>> how much are you offsetting and what are those offsets? >> we will find the offsets through the appropriations process next year. the first year, there are no offsets. it's $10 billion hard money immediately. >> and next year which competes under the spending caps for money, just like regular appropriations. >> spending caps are still in place. >> how is it negotiating senator sanders? > it's been wonderful. senator sanders is a good friend. we want the same outcome, quality health care delivers in a timely fashion to our veterans. he has a believe we can do it a different way. he has a belief more money and more people will solve the problem. the acting secretary testified a little while ago that there are tens of thousands openings right now within the veterans' health

add vague -- then tens of thousands of openings yet they're asking for 10,000 more eople. even in his testimony it clearly says they don't have a way to determine what's an appropriate staffing level. so that's why we're saying, give us some time without the pressure of the end of next week to go through a normal process for the appropriations. >> how do you feel putting out your offer, regardless of the reasons for not being here, how does this advance thing when's the clock is running so fast towards the end of next week and solve this before the recess? how does this add sthrans? >> how did senator sanders advance the process by rushing out before we had this meeting and not bringing it to the meeting? this isn't tit for tat. this is first public meeting when he in four weeks.

the number needs to know where we are -- the public needs to know where we are and certainly needs to know the house is willing to put $10 billion emergency mandatory funding up immediately. >> from your point of view, is the ball now in senator sanders' court. is it up to him to act? >> don't know where the ball is right now. i wish i did. he's put something out. we put something out. whether he get back together monday if he wasn'ts to do so. -- wants to do so to vote on something. look, the house can turn something around very fast. the senate cannot. they are bound by rules that require a lot of time to allow a bill to lay over. the clock is tolling in the senate. the house smazz time in the early portion of next week that we can do some things. >> you said $10 billion for private care or internal

resources? >> no, that's what the senate bill was. what c.b.o. says was the cost of choice portion of this legislation. $10 billion first year, $25 billion second year. and i already offered this number to senator sanders. this will not be a surprise to him. we offered $10 billion and said the house is not -- i said it in the press, we have not been trying to offset every penny. >> but there's nothing in this $10 billion that includes the new v.a. request? this is all based on senate and house bills that came to conference? >> correct. >> what about the 27 leases? >> that's in. that's in. >> you said they vote monday. if you don't hear back, will you vote on your proposal monday? >> now look, at some point you have to vote.

and get a conference out so both parties can take it and go forward. continuing to delay serves nobody. i'm not accusing anybody of delaying. i'm just saying this meeting was being held specifically to allow he public to understand what's been going on behind closed doors and there's negotiations going on every day all day for the last four weeks. >> when it comes to appropriations, what sort of metrics are you looking for? >> i don't understand your question. >> when you come to reappropriate $10 billion when it's gone, reup, what are you looking for from an oversight perspective from the v.a.? >> i don't want to see anymore waiting lines for veterans. i think that is probably the most important metric and i think what you're going to see is over a two-year period whether or not there's going to be this rush to leave the v.a.

system, which i don't believe is going to happen. there's a fear by some of my colleagues everybody will leave the v.a. i believe there will be a certain portion of people that will leave the v.a. and many will stay inside the system because they're very comfortable with it. so it's my hope as senator sanders said on the floor when they passed their bill that this two-year pilot program will be deemed a success and it will be ade longer than two years so veterans, if they choose, can seek care outside of the v.a. >> what do you say to the fact the regular appropriations process has pretty much been broken for a little while here? >> in the senate it has. >> in the congress overall -- >> no, in the senate it has. house passed seven appropriation bills this year. >> congress passed none -- >> because the senate hasn't done it. house has done their work.

house has done their work. the only reason we haven't been in regular order is because the senate has chosen not to pass a budget. senate has chosen not to pass appropriation bills. thank you. > thank you. >> a headline in "roll call" says -- "a congressional fix for the vet ans' health care crisis remains stalled over the price tag. he continues saying the two sides are closer paying for access to private care for veterans on long waiting lists than they are on beefing up the v.a.'s own services. the head of the veterans's affair committee, bernie sanders of vermont, said he has objections for the house plan for the v.a. but also says he's hopeful. he and other senators spoke with eporters for about 20 minutes.

>> thank you very much for coming. i have with me a number of colleagues from the senate committee on veterans awares. it is no great secret to the american people the congress is dysfunctional. despite eenrmous problems we're getting virtually nothing done for people of our nation. my strong hope has been and remains -- and remains, that on this issue the need to address the very serious problems facing the veteranses fs our country and veterans' administration, that on at least this issue we can overcome the dysfunction and partisanship that have done so much damage to our nation. in the last four years some 2

million more veterans have come into the v.a. for health care. prile airlinely because of the ars in iraq and afghanistan. in addition the veterans administration is treating an aging veterans' population with many folks having serious medical needs. give you just one small example of the challenges facing the v.a., and this is amazing, some 500,000 men and women have come back from iraq and fghanistan with either ptsd or traumatic brain industry -- today, today over 49,000 vet vans are getting outpatient mental health appointments. today, tomorrow, monday, tuesday, wednesday. every day. that is just outpatient mental health appointments. everybody knows that they are

unacceptablely long waiting times for tens of thousands of veterans in many facilities throughout our country. and everybody with common sense knows to accomplish the goal that we are striving for to provide quality health care to our veterans in a timely manner, the v.a. needs more doctors, needs more nurses, needs more medical personnel and in many, many facilities, needs more space. congress asked the new acting secretary of the v.a., sloan gibson, to assess the needs of the v.a. we said sloane, you're in there. tell us, what are the needs of the v.a.? and what he told my committee and i understand it today has told the house committee is that in fact v.a. needs more doctors, more nurses, more medical personnel and more space. two years fromot

now find ourselves in the place we are today. but it's not just sloane gibson. yesterday 16 mage vert rans organizations, these are the people in many ways know the v.a. better than anybody else. these are the folks going into the v.a. 16 mage vert vans' organizations including the v.f.w., disabled american veterans, vietnam veterans, iraq, afghanistan veterans and many others, they made the same exact point and the point they made is yes, we've got to provide emergency contracting care to private facilities and whatever but we have to strengthen the v.a. so they can provide quality care in a timely manner. these organizations and we also believe veterans living more than 40 miles away from a v.a. facility should be able to go to

a private doctor. but the issue is whether or not v.a. is going to have doctors and nurses and space that they need. as you know, legislation passed here in the senate overwhelming vote, bipartisan vote with the strong help of senator mccain by 93-3 vote. that legislation according to he c.b.o. was going to cause $35 billion. at the same time, the house of representatives passed their legislation. that legislation is estimated to cost $44 billion. we have been working very, very hard on this legislation. have been accused by some moving the goal posts. i guess i have. we moved the goal posts to a much lower and more realistic number. the proposal we're offering cost

less than $25 billion. that's $19 billion less than what the house passed. $10 billion less than what we passed. our legislation addresses in a significant way exactly what the veterans' community needs to do. now, i have been working -- and we all have -- with our republican colleagues in the house, led by jeff miller, chairman of the house committee for veterans' affairs. we put good faith offers on the table again and again. and have tried to meet the republicans more than halfway. but i'm sad to say at this point i will only conclude with great reluctance the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side. just an example, last night at 10:00 in the evening, the

co-chair of the conference committee, mr. miller, announced that there was going to be a so-called conference committee today. the purpose of the conference committee was to hear his proposal. today an hour or so, i received a letter, one-page miller, which he states, quote, i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee monday, july 28, 2014 for a formal vote on this proposal. in other words, what he's saying is take it or leave it. now every sixth grader in this country understands the united states congress consists two of bodies, the u.s. house of representatives and u.s. senate. and every textbook, civic textbook talks about the need for the house and the senate to come together on legislation. that's the way it historically

has been done. it's not somebody saying here's my bill. come to a meeting. vote for my bill. end of discussion. that's not democracy. that's not negotiations. so i say to mr. miller trust me, i very much will be back in vermont this weekend. i am prepared to be here this weekend, prepared to be here tomorrow evening to start serious negotiations in terms of house we work out our differences. so that in fact on monday or tuesday the house and senate can pass some serious legislation. let me now introduce -- who's here, patty want to go? ohn? >> bernie pretty much laid it on the line. access is the big issue in the v.a. it's the issue we heard about when the v.a. blew up in arizona. big our around this country.

if we're going to address the access issues, it's going to require the v.a. to get -- hire more doctors and nurses and address facility concerns that bernie just talked about. i was not here in 2003 but i would be throg bet anybody that's here they did not talk about offsetting the wars in when they decided to fight that war. taking care of our veterans is cost of war. we need to do right by them. therned these benefits. we need to come together as house and senate. we need to depolitical size this and do what's right from our veterans. the fact is it's going to cost money. we need to do it. thank you. >> i want to thank our chairman. i believe like all of us do, when it comes to caring for our nation's heroes, we cannot accept anything less than excellence. there's been major bipartisan efforts in both house and senate to move legislation addressing

the problems we know are plaguing our men and women in uniform. in fact, as chairman sanders said, six weeks ago the united states senate voted 93-3 -- 93-3 to pass the bill to reform the v.a. system. so there's no reason republicans and democrats, house and senate, can't come together on behalf of our nation's heroes. i'm very disappointed it hasn't happened already but there is still time. and right now there's more policy we agree on that we disagree on. i would like to remind all members of our committee one of the most important things that is agreed upon and that is the notitment that we have made only congress but as a nation when we send brave men and women to war, our service members sacrificed so much and we need to make sure our country is there for them when they come home no matter what. no matter what. it's clear there's good and reasonable ideas on the table right now for how we can get

this donement but i'm concerned the proposal put forward by house republicans this morning is moving us in the wrong direction. so i hope our republican counterparts can step back, look at why we are really here and work with us to build on the bipartisan momentum that we saw in this congress just a few weeks ago. , to truly address some of the immediate accountability and transparency concerns plaguing the v.a. and fix its deep-seeded structural and culture challenges. the clock is ticking and our nation's veterans are waiting. >> thank you. the whole premises behind a conference committee is there are co-chairs. the chair from the house side, the chair from the senate side. there's no such thing as one chair, co-chair, unilaterally saying here's my bill and we're going to take a vote on it. that just isn't the way things should happen. every single state has thousands and thousands of veterans

counting on us to do the right thing and remember just a few months ago, this whole issue of wait times and how we have a commitment to support the veterans to the benefit and health care that they earned, that was the big news. we should stay the course. i'm pleased to be a member of the conference committee. every single state, hawaii, the senate bill was practically passed unanimously passed items that helps our veterans in hawaii to create a new clinic in the community, work with native hawaiian health care corporations to expand the capacity for veterans' care. there are other items for every single member of both the house and the senate. so we need to get on with the business at hand, and that is to keep to the promise that we made to our veterans and not to be fooling around with unilateral take it or leave it propositions. thank you. >> last month the president of

the united states nominated a republican from my state, bob mcdonald, to be the secretary of the v.a. he was confirmed -- passed out of committee yesterday unanimously out of the veterans' committee, support from people in both parties. he was hired by the president to do what our legislation and the senate does. he was hired by the president to support what the veterans' service organizations from the legion to v.f.w. to paralyzed vets to polish-american veterans and every other organization wanted. that's primarily three things -- bring accountability to the v.a. number one. number two, it's to help those veterans that have had to take care of the vet vans outside the v.a. if they had to wait 30 days or longer. and third, scale up the v.a. that means more doctors, more nurses, more physical therapists, greater capacity, more expansion of community-based outpatient clinics, expansions of veterans' hospitals all over this country.

the president of the united states did not hire bob mcdonald. we're not going to confirm bob mcdonald to be president and c.e.o. of a private hospital. the veterans' administration, 6.5 million veterans got care last year. 85 million patient visits. if you're in the v.a. system, you're getting good care. we need people, we need to help make sure everybody has access. that's what this legislation will do long term. that's why it's so important. >> just quickly, my view is this letter has a typo. the typo is the reference to this proposal. it should be the proposal, the purpose of a conference committee was to confer, to have a conference. and to say my way or the highway, take it or leave it, is really a disservice not only to the congress but to our veterans. thanactually more saddened

angry that we have come this close to an agreement and now seem to be veering away from it. i want to thank chairman sanders for his great work. senator murray beforehand, chairman of this committee, which has been a bipartisan group seeking common ground and the fact of the matter is, we have so much more in common than in conflict. we have in common a commitment to our veterans on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the congress and we ought to see this moment, to keep faith with our veterans and make sure that we leave no veteran behind. the veterans' administration is t a turning point. time is not on our side. we need to demonstrate we can be functional if we want the v.a.

to overcome its dysfunction. and right now is the opportunity and challenge to do it. thank you. >> any questions? >> do you have an objection to the plan as it is or how presented here? >> of course i have an objection to his plan. essentially as you heard from all of us, many of you know from the veterans' organizations, the v.a. today provides good quality health care for those people who get into the system. i tell you go to vermont and i suspect many parts of this country, people will say is this the story in today's paper, television in vermont, v.a. saved my life. we heard that story all over the united states. all over the united states. the problem we're having is absolutely outwageous wait periods in various parts of the country. the reasoning you have those wait periods is we don't have medical personnel and space to treat veterans. and that is one of the issues we

have got to deal with. of course, have to figure out how best way for that. i again, just made the point, you cannot talk about negotiating. you cannot talk about a conference committee when somebody says i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee for a formal vote on this proposal. that's the way congress is supposed to work. es, ma'am. >> the way it's come together, criticizing your co-chairs and it seems it has been derailed, can you explain why it's hopeful and if you see a deal coming together? >> i am hopeful that we can come up with an agreement because tend of the day, i do hope, i do believe that every member of the united states congress understands is what a terrible thing it would be to turn our back on the needs of men and whoim put their lives on the

line to defend us and many of whom today have serious problems. and i believe many members of congress of the constitution understands that. that is my hope. and i'm prepared to work as hard as i can to make that happen. i'm more than aware of that. where there's a will, there's a way. unanimous consent and ways to move things quickly if there is a desire to do so. >> you said your bill would cost less than $25. can you provide a little more detail on cha what that means. >> somewhere between $23 billion and $25 billion. how is that? ok. intends u to say if he to say take it or leave it? i see the letter but it might be wait you're interpreting it. >> i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee monday july 28, 2014 for a formal vote on this proposal, this proposal means the proposal he brought forth.

by the way, the meeting we had at 12:00, didn't have a written proposal that.s0 does not sound negotiating. i will get on the phone as soon as i'm out of here is to ask him to sit down with me and with other members, senator byrd congressman and ranking members of the committee and let's do it. >> it sounds a fiff sol cal divide, it sounds as though you believe chairman miller is moving towards trying to privatize the v.a. >> i don't want to get into that right now. the answer is -- the answer is very simple, i have said, what the veterans' organizations have said, what the acting secretary of the v.a. has said, what common sense tells us, v.a. needs more doctors, more nurses, more medical personnel and more space. they need us and that's what i'm fighting for and what we're fighting for together. yes, ma'am? >> is there something with the

republican colleagues who did attend the meeting this afternoon? what did you have to say to them? >> i have not yet. it just took place a little while ago. >> senator, representative miller said it's not the proposal and the fact based on the senate bill, the first seven titles of the senate bill are concluded in the proposal and he said there's an offer that's out there that talks continue. >> if that's the case, good. let's sit down -- again, any honest reading of what he says has come to a conference committee to vote on this proposal. that sounds to me like take it or leave it. >> he also said acting secretary gibson and others mentioned in the testimony today that there are vacancies, they have a lot of vacancies for doctors and nurses at the v.a. now and they can't -- in other words, they can't fill those jobs. >> you're raising it and that's why they have to get going immediately. let me tell you what i do worry

about and you raise a good question. we have a crisis in terms of the numbers of primary care doctors with the v.a. and private sector. you have a crisis in terms of the number of nurses, and that's why we have to get moving right away. to delay it makes a difficult situation even more difficult. >> i just want to say with regard to the boyfriend, it is an important question, the number of docs and nurses were short. there's also legislation out there remove caps on loan forgiveness, which could make a big, big difference as far as recruiting docs to the v.a. that needs to be included in comprehensive package that will move the v.a. in a direction we can be proud of. >> john is right. what we have in our legislation is to give the v.a. the capability now to provide debt forgiveness to medical schools, students, who want to work for the v.a. also to fill residency physicians as well. that's one way we can bring more

medical people into the v.a. all right. yes, sir? >> can you describe the working conditions are considered bad by doctors, is that why they can't recruit -- i mean, give you -- the pay is low but to be honest with you, we have a crisis very much what i worried about, we don't have enough primary care physicians. there's an estimate we need 50,000 more physicians in the next 20 years. one of the positions as john mentioned we put in here is not steal primary care physicians from other facilities but make sure we go into medical and nursing schools and offer incentives to get young people to go into the v.a. one more question, yes, sir? >> secretary gibson requesting $17 billion in additional funding complicate things at all? >> no. i think what he did was look, you asked me to take over the v.a. you asked me to sess the problems we have and i'm trying

to be honest with you. i don't want to come back in two years in the same position we are now. i appreciate the acting secretary, obviously. ok. thank you all very much. >> house budget committee commit chairman paul ryan announced a plan thursday to address poverty and economic mobility. you can see the entire event from the american enterprise institute online at c-span.org. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> i would start a pilot program called opportunity grant. it would consolidate up to 11 federal programs into one stream of funding to participating states. the idea would be let's states try different ways of providing aid and then test the results. in short, more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. is get rid basically of bureaucratic formulas and put emphasis on results.

participation would be voluntary. no state would be forced to join. we would not expand the program until all of the evidence was in. the point is, we don't just pass a law and hope for the best. if you have an idea, let's try it. let's test it. see what works. don't make promise after promise. let success build on success. here's how it would work -- each state that wanted participate would submit a plan to the federal government. that plan would lay out in detail the state's proposed alternative. if everything past muster, the federal government would give the green light and state would get more flexibility. it would get to combine into one funding stream up to 11 different programs. things like foot stasmps, housing assistance, childcare, cash welfare. this new, simplified stream of funding would become the opportunity grant and it would be budget neutral. the state would give the same amount of money as they would under current law and not a penny less. in effect the state would say give us some space and we can figure this out. the federal government would say

go to it on four conditions. first, you have to spend this money on people in need. you can't take this money and put it on roads or >> every person who can work should work. we got to have basic choices. the state welfare agency can be the only game in town. people must have other options. fourth. test the results. the federal government must agree on a neutral third party to keep track of progress. if approved, a state could use stay programs. families in need would have a choice. there would just be a federal agency. they could choose from certified providers. nonprofits like catholic

charities, like america works, community groups that are unique to your neighborhood. they would work with people one-on-one and provide a personalized case by case management. now you have to go to a bunch of different offices to enroll in different programs, each with different rules. under the opportunity grant you go to one office and work with one person for all of your needs. that person would give you financial assistance and act as a personal resource. maybe you are struggling with an addiction and need counseling. you come from a broken family, and need a network of support. the point is you would work together to get you from where you are to where you want to be. foreign ministers of el salvador, honduras, guatemala discuss the status of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border illegally. more about the situation along

the u.s. southern border with grijalva.tive raul >> a couple of live events. the house oversight is looking into 9:30, the house foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and north africa will markup resolutions related to the israeli-palestinian conflict. in government dealing with the tyranny of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day.

responsibilities was representing the secretary of defense on a deputies committee, which is the senior-level group that works through the issues, developing options. a lot of crisis management focus. when you are in a think tank, your utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the day but do work to raise their day, to look over their rise and, to see what are the issues i'm going to confront a year from now ? former undersecretary of defense and cofounder of the center for national american security, michele flournoy. 8:00 on c-span q&a. salvador,ent of el

honduras, guatemala our meeting with president obama tomorrow to discuss the status of unaccompanied children crossing the southern u.s. border illegally. on thursday the foreign ministers of those countries discussed the issue at the wilson center. this is a little more than an hour. >> good morning. it is a pleasure to have all of you here. a special welcome to our distinguished guests. be joined by the other two foreign ministers. welcome to the ambassador of hon doris and his colleagues who will join us. speaking foreign language]

welcome everyone. is proud toenter host the ministers of el salvador and honduras. they will be discussing this situation of young people who have been migrating an numbers into the united states. this situation is a human tragedy and aroused well-deserved concern in all of our countries. to be reunited with family members that live here. there is the personal safety fear because of high levels of violence in these communities that drive people away.

certain, there are no simple solutions to the problem. a number of measures can be taken to dissuade young people for making the trip north. the governments of the countries represented have already taken a number of these steps. a longer-term challenge that has to do with poverty and violence are going to require sustained efforts. to invest in education, jobs, and rule of law. primarilythings that have to be done in each country and led by their government and society. there is also, since this is an issue that binds us together, opportunities to do things together across the region am central america to north america. our colleagues at the wilson center have been covering this issue extensively. chris wilson, those testify in congress among convening discussions with civil society leaders and others. this is a strong commitment to

, andt -- central america also migration is a major concern for many of us at the wilson center. a few months ago we did a report with the financial policy institute where we look specifically at central america, the three countries here. what we should be doing together in terms of managing migration. in terms of regional competitiveness so we can manage migration but also deal with the long-term concerns. it was a report that came out that actually was had people from all five countries involved. we did this before the major flow started, but there are some ideas in terms of longterm security in the five countries and what binds us together, and why we benefit by working

together that would be worth looking at. the wilson center president is not with us. she is at the aspen institute cochairing a panel. she let me know she spoke with the secretary last night. one thing that he pointed out is flowsct that migration are decreasing noticeably. the foreign ministers pointed this out from the numbers they have. we are seen a 50% drop for on the last 50 date -- 15 days. what this should allow us to do is focus on the positives, on the because is. it is something in the interest not only of el salvador, honduras, guatemala, but the united states. all come to the foreign ministers of el salvador and guatemala. good to have you here. 's latinon center america program is proud to be a test -- trusted space where this can be discussed.

i'm very pleased to turn this over to the director of the latin american program at the wilson center. [applause] thank you very welcome to everyone. thank you for your patience. thank you to the ambassadors of el salvador, honduras, and the three distinguished ministers of el salvador, guatemala. crisis hasce, the given rise to a roiling debate in the united states, not only in the congress where there are divergent opinions over how to respond, but in the cities and towns across the united states that have been asked to shelter large numbers of children pending the review of their cases. for all the hardships that have been suffered by these young

people and the divisions here about how to respond, i see one silver lining in this crisis. it has focused renewed attention on the insecurity and lack of opportunity that affect millions in central america. there's some and veterans of previous eras in region,ations with the i can recall no time since the 1980's when so much u.s. ed and policy attention has been paid to the region. we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the surgeon these miners, but there can be little dispute over the objective conditions from which they come. according to our own department of homeland security, seven dorian children come from violent regions where they perceive the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. is preferable to remaining at home.

northernevels in this triangle of three countries have gone down since the 1990's. it is still the case that approximately 45% of seven arean's -- salvadorians poor. there is no magic bullet to address these problems. the of taken decades, if not centuries to develop. theress is possible with right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic participation, and adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability. a critical ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself. i believe that a long-term solution depends not only on what the u.s. government is prepared to commit over the long , but what responsibility central american actors are willing to assume to transform

their own countries. central americans came together with the support of the international community to in their fratricidal wars, a the mayeffort back in to convert this current crisis into an opportunity for building more inclusive and democratic societies. i would like to thank the associate director eric olson, and the interns in this building or all of their assistance in putting the event together. i would like to now turn the program over to the distinguished host for national voice radio, whose dominates the commutes of so many of us. it is an honor to have you here, and an honor to host these foreign ministers. >> thank you. [applause]

i thought you must be referring to someone else. thank you all the same. thank you for your remarks. it's an honor to meet you all, and to share this platform with you. much discussed american news story from the perspectives of other countries that are so clearly affected. i'm speaking with three diplomats. i understand that. i wish to begin with an undiplomatic question. we have heard the problem described, whose fault is it? [laughter] carefully.down would you like to begin? >> thank you. is, can i speak in spanish? i'm going to speak in spanish.

it is more comfortable for me. [speaking spanish] get to theon doesn't point. this isn't a matter of finding guilty parties or finger-pointing. of sharingter responsibility. we have been speaking to central america from the standpoint of challenges. citizens challenges. we have this responsibility that we see as a shared one. that is differentiated. we have to, in the case of drug trafficking, we have to look at it from the span -- standpoint of the producing countries on the one hand, and consuming countries.

hondurans, our belief is, that the lack of opportunities, the levels of violence, of cultural exclusion that we see in honduras, and have seen, are not only the responsibility of hondurans. this is a problem that is all encompassing. it ties into the tragedy of our country, which has led us to situation of a war being waged in our territory about having been the ones to take the bulk deaths.its by way of and having a large international crime organizations that have stolen our country, these can be

separated in honduras. there are other problems, clearly. when i talk about transnational crime, i'm talking about certain difficulties, which are tied to the issue of migration. minors, trafficking of sexual exploitation, labor exploitation. but the correlation in the case crime ands, organized those cities from which the migrants, are one and the same. that is why i strike this ofation, to the principle burden sharing these of the this phenomenon that we have seen over the last couple of months.

i'm referring to this historic flow of unaccompanied minor immigrants. you can speak in spanish or any language you like. it will be translated. [laughter] will just mentioned, because there is a webcast, if there is a portion you are able to say in spanish, that will be outstanding. to reach the widest possible numbers of people. the foreign minister of honduras has talked about co-responsibility, multiple countries are responsible. let me dig deeper though. is there another way you would like to express this? who is at fault? we want to diagnose the problem so we apply the proper solution. please. [speaking spanish] i apologize for not speaking in

english. i will be speaking in spanish. we take a cold hard look at the numbers. the crisis of children has very arerete policies that resulting in the current juncture. 35 years ago, although it has reached a height in the last couple of years. coyotes whoot the have convinced the families of the children that at this point in time, if they bring the children to the united states, they will be allowed to stay. ofn you've got the lack [indiscernible] that believe that promise. there waseem like this migration of children. but it isn't really a migration.

400,000 new babies are born, and a half million under 18 years of age. jordan witht refugees flooding in. this specifico phenomenon, duping families into thinking they can bring families as a business. $2500 is the cost the coyotes charge to cross across the river. up to $7,000. this is so profitable that for the last year the number of coyotes offering this service has grown exponentially in many

communities. that said, as this is a relatively small number compared to the overall group of children, it hasn't led to the wholesale displacement of communities. ofever, the migration central americans into the u.s. generally speaking is something you have to break down and numbers. i don't pick we have a single explanation in this case. the largest immigration has not taken place in the last 45 years, not even the last 50 years. in 2001-2008, and it stopped. the surge stopped with the economic crisis in the united states. before that, when hundred 80,000 would move every year. -- before that, when hundred 50,000 would move every year.

1.5 million who have moved are now citizens. only 100 some odd thousand are not yet citizens. they have residency of one type or another we think. ,000 are already citizens. this is a long-standing process. from 2001-2008 there was a surge. there are a number of factors. chief is the u.s. economy, which is binar -- very dynamic. there was a demand for workers. element behindnt 2-3 tropicalon, storms, large storms hit our

country and others, contributed to the communities giving rise to immigration now. of mexicanso a drop immigrants into the u.s. the coyotes had to make up for that loss by bringing in central americans. all this added to the fact that a wage difference between u.s. and central america is a factor now. be attributed to one administration, one given policy. this is a social phenomenon that transpired in a period of time that are still there from 2008 on. immigration growth has been relatively slow compared to earlier. with my poor spanish, i

believe you're telling me that there was less demand by mexicans to travel to the united states, and they coyotes move south. trafficking networks move south in search of human beings and found your countries prayed that is what you are telling me. >> the total children coming to the u.s., you had at least 17,000 for mexico. a 2011, it was down to 11,000. when you see the trend of when it reaches this the next year is when you see the surge in central american children coming. it's a good business.

it is very profitable. elements very specific that have been created for illegal migration of people that explains this. why do i use this explanation? always discuss it as a question of law enforcement. it is a question of how markets work. how the markets work, they will find solutions for the problems. if we have the idea or follow the idea that this is a law-enforcement problem, and we can only solve this through law stop it as, we will well as the drug wars. how do you change the market for human beings? attack the to smuggling networks. this is something we haven't done.

we capture smuggling networks seven weeks ago in guatemala. how much noise have you heard? >> nothing. >> it's not important enough. how many people did we capture in guatemala? 14. how many in mexico? 15. how many in texas? 45. y were based in texas. this is something, how this business has been developed over the years. definitely we need to tell the story, with children you can't really get it. there are limits for everything. i can giveult says you money, and that is an a negal concept, but that is a adult.

we createof network, many programs for children definitely. we have human smuggling. martinez, would you like to add? [speaking spanish] we have already said this phenomenon has multiple causes. some reasons have been aired here by my colleagues. another situation, there has been a lack of opportunities in points of education,igrants, and security. when weaver talking with joe biden with this, this is a matter of finding guilty parties in the short term, but to

address the current crisis, and think in long terms, that lead to this migration are not [indiscernible] and we have been working in coordination with the northern triangle together. aretraffickers and persons pounding the borders more carefully. we have a campaign in the three countries, making parents aware of the risk in sending their u.s., ando the putting them in the hands of people who are involved.

we can talk about the other things we've been doing to stanch this flow of unaccompanied minors but we have made a proposal to the obama administration about the measures that need to be taken now. in there in effect countries of origin. to create opportunism, businesses, such that people feel motivated to stay home and work where they live. ae second approach would be wager on technical and vocational training.

ande offer young children teenagers good education, good to come into them the labor market, that is going to spur them to stay in their countries of origin. , we have been focusing the cities in each country where there is the biggest problem of violence and gangs, and we are going to have for lawe teams enforcement, and sure the reinsertion of those who have been picked up [indiscernible] but you said something about needing to invest in security. >> is there a lack of

government? >> no. >> the share size of organized crime is not something that can be tackled in isolation by a country or an administration. we have to tackle it. organized crime does not respect laws or borders. if we do not come together in a crime,inst the organized there is no other solution. certainly, the networks and people who have collaborate with them.

the only way for us to tackle this is to join forces. arrests needs or to be made with us. one country, operating alone, will not be able to do this. >> i think that a thing that has not been said and, i want to point out that it seems diverse, the response you have gotten , you canthree of us complement them. if, you see it another way. -- you can complement them if you see it another way. i fully agree and it was said by examining thethat

causes for migration, it is a historical phenomenon. you have places where economic development is happening. this comes as an attraction for people to find a better life. even if that is not true sometimes. they think that they are looking for something better. i talk about violence and, in honduras, the homicide rates are high and we that.ata that supports it is related to drug trafficking. if you have that in mind and you have a small budget like , you give 20% of

your gross national product to the cost of security. >> is that a correct number? you are currently spending 20%? [speaking spanish] that 20% of gdp is devoted to the overall cost of violence and then 1.8% is for health care. when wed it be possible talk about lack of opportunities ? not we see is that if we do break from the vicious cycle, one thing impacts on the other government, it is

snapshot of our country that shows us what our vulnerabilities are and shows us the shared responsibility that needs to be taken by transit and destination countries. so, we should work together to break the cycle. violence does not encourage investment. we have been working over the last couple of years with large initiatives to create jobs and attract foreign investment. , howe risk factor is high much can we actually do to really attract investments and

jobs? the first thing is to focus on containing violence and creating a safer environment. we are talking about citizen security and legal certainty. there is trust in state institutions that are undermined .y organized crime this is the fight against corruption. had -- hasrime has undermined the credibility of democratic institutions, without a doubt. this is something that we accept and we are working on this. , there werey

non-government organizations fortunately, decided to join the government to engage in the medicineor purchasing and helping honduras with what they are doing to ensure a more open and transparent administration. when we talk about violence and we talk about market behavior, saying about the land of opportunities, these are things that we cannot see in isolation. all of these are part of an overall approach. orre is no single cause

responsible party. we have to have a comprehensive and pragmatic approach for us to take care of the immediate crisis at hand and the humanitarian emergency of unaccompanied children and adolescents. also -- >> what is the u.s. responsibility here? >> we could spend a long time talking about that. are twothat there things that have already been mentioned here and i will paraphrase them in my own words. states, that the united traditionally, views the issue of drug trafficking and the consumption of drugs in the u.s. as a matter of public security is unacceptable from the

standpoint of central america. there has to be a different way to look at this issue. we talk about how many people there are. in thee engaged and, howng of adults many of them operate within the u.s.? i don't know if this was the diplomatic -- we had a meeting in panama about the issue of security and i started to receive a lot of information about how the cartel .ere setting up shop

we have to ask how drugs are distributed when they come into the u.s.. that is the huge drug consuming country. traditionally is the blessing of central america and the bank. it is the bridge between the north and the south and the heart of the hemisphere has become the biggest tragedy. there is a demand goodis eager to receive a in the south that is transported through our territory now. drugs that come into the united states come to honduras. >> are there problems with united states? what about the assistance that the united states could provide? >> do you need more?

>> we do. coming and weblem made a call to the international community. we call for a central american strategy that contains four components. strengthening the institutions for combating crime and the law enforcement approach. funds.time frame of now, there were amounts pledged and the execution of these are currently lower than the needs. we are not saying that this is something that has to be

financed only by the international community or the united states. our countries are taking in resources. there are budgetary difficulties that we have to combat the enemy of such magnitude. trafficking, much more resources are necessary. also, the structural phenomenon needs to be attacked. and ink of opportunity many of our communities, we have being extortedho by organized crime. if they dold that not collaborate, we will kill you and if you do collaborate with us, you will have the easy money to buy whatever you want for yourself. on the other hand, the children

are excluded and they do not have sufficient educational opportunities or labor opportunities. what we have suggested to the u.s. and the international community is an alliance or partnership with these countries. createsly, it prosperity for the united states because we are connected. there has to be a common front to solve this problem. >> getting back to my numbers, i find that the narratives are ideological and they are not based on facts. know anything in washington about ideological. know. you guys are about scientific evidence for issues. [laughter]

washington.just that is everywhere. y,estions of governance, oka poor governance is reflected on certain data. mortality rates should go up. murder rates go up. school cover should be going down or stagnate. health reform should be implemented. judicial orr the social security taking place. everything is happening in central america. you see the trends. look at maternal mortality. it is going down. primary school coverage is going up. murder rates are going down during the last five years in all the countries. so, numbers are not supported.

the idea that poor governance is taking place, some good governance is taking place. a number are our countries. solve your problems. billion-dollar -- billion -- a budget.dollar dollar it is a marginal part of it. you mentioned forms of aid from the united states and it would be less than $2 billion. >> if we continue this way, when are we going to achieve a goal that is important for affecting

migration. ? school coverage is critical. we have secondary school coverage in guatemala. >> 27%? >> secondary school coverage. if we continue with our resources, we will have secondary school coverage in the next 15 years. if you provided us funding, we can cut that to half. it is a question of funding. the political decision is there. the institutional capacity you can believe. the money is not. the second part is a question about taxpaying in central america. it has to go up in countries like guatemala. taxpaying has to go up.

a push forcovered fiscal reform in the beginning of the term. because of the constitutional norms and the elements, it is diluted. we are taxing personal income. how much taxation provides personal income in el salvador? nothing compared to the u.s. or other countries. still, 2%. the average in latin america is 4%. we collect is 0.7% in personal income tax. to give you an example -- >> you are meeting john boehner later, right? >> i am meeting with anyone in the u.s. who is pushing for less taxation.

levels ofthat our taxation are so low that even conservative americans would not supported. i took the tea party manifesto on taxation and was going to publish it in guatemala to see the reaction. i was pretty sure that everybody would call me a communist. guatemala would be communist. we need to improve taxation. i am saying this. it depends on these elements. larger contributions, definitely. and, improving taxation at the same time. >> i have many more questions and i see that our time is running down. we want to stay on schedule. i invite a few questions and the audience. you, stand and

state your name. time is short. ask a direct question and we will answer as we can. -- or,ere in the front in the third row. >> i am penny starr. you address more about border security in your country? --y have to read the border reached the border of your country to get to our border. >> you are asking if they are trying to keep people in? >> i am asking about border security. before,we were saying we have seen the flow of unaccompanied minors doesn't correspond with records that we

have in official border points. route thatthere is a the traffickers follow that is the route that these unaccompanied minors follow. when they leave our country, they leave irregularly. in el salvador, our laws determine that a minor cannot leave without a notarized item from parents. controlscreasing throughout the borders. these individuals, these children, are leaving through regular points of exit.

we have reinforced and strengthened our border to we do not have a regular flow out of our country. as parents, we understand the feeling that a father or mother has to meet their children. we would like to say to them that it is not worth it. it is not worth risking the lives of your children. >> a related question. onit is important, again, the question of what we are doing and what we should do. we identified this as a problem. we have been working with mexico. one is the agreement that we signed a few weeks ago in which they stayed in mexico for three days within a territory.

territory of -- you want to go for tourism or business. you can do that. you would be amazed how many guatemalans do the supermarket and mexico. 50% of consumers come from guatemala. after the 80 kilometers, the controls get strict. you cannot go with that. the idea of the card is that everybody is identified. if you do not have a card, you cannot get in. guatemalan, i am a and i have my card. they will stamp it. after 80 kilometers, more strict.

you are going to have three levels of control. you may say, they can go around the controls. it is so easy. they go in the river. youcan go one by one, if want to. that improves your chances if you want to go to the u.s. illegally. if you want to go to the u.s., you want to take a convoy. it is cheaper for everybody. that is what you need to control. that is what 95% of people go through. same thing in guatemala. we have a project of $350 crossingsd 10 legal with the same level of security on both sides. there is a security border.

the engineers of mexico designed this crossing and we are going to have the same thing. it is a lot of money for us. it will be worth it. we think that we will have that in place. >> if you allow me, i have a comment. i've a quick comment in connection with what honduras is doing. in the past few weeks, the president decided to work with the director of migration in honduras. there were blind spots. not are crossings that are defined border crossings. activities were conducted there. trafficking activities

of minors. on us.d an effect groupsny of the coyote need to be brought in to justice. it is a good idea to make a distinction from regular migration from irregular migration. regular migration is a reality of the globalized world. no one can deny that. viewpoint,at this there would be a contradiction. the northern triangle countries have been pioneers. towards moving our goods and services quickly from one border to the next.

the same thing happens regionally. one could say that there is a contradiction. on the one hand, we are facilitating the movement of goods and services. we have to stop the movement of people. we tried to solve this contradiction. legale to look at migration alternatives. the experience that has come out of this shows, once again, that the harder migration measures are, the more sophisticated illegal trafficking networks are going to become. is to me -- the harder it is to me aet

objective, the greater the risk. there are issues that come out of the process that we need to address. andalk about resources assistance from the u.s.. i want to say a couple things about that. there was a senate decision that funds forof the central american security initiative because we have not bytified that the efforts the government are sufficient in certain areas. ,he question that we pose is are the funds ready or are they not ready? they are there and they do not get to us. i am not good with numbers like

my colleague from guatemala. woman, iss a humanitarian in nature. apart from the figures and the way that we use these figures to base our opinions, we are talking about children and families that are being broken. i think this is important. i think we need to be logical when it comes to these prophecies and think about these things. what have we gotten out of this? what have we gotten out of the strengthening and hardening of the border issues in the states. ? 10% tounited states gave ,upport employment programs

the story would be different. >> good morning. my name is jackie. i am from el salvador and i live in the district of columbia. my question is for the minister. i am sorry. and things have been heard there can be campaigns for children not to come here. child isther, if my country, i am going to run risks. if you do not have a good campaign, it is not going to work. e have a cancer here. border and wethe

will find a way to get to the states. what is the plan to combat violence in el salvador? >> thank you for the question. i have talked about the measures already. we have focused on municipalities where we have seen the largest number of gangs and the greatest violence. we started with municipalities. started aboutwe two months ago. is --are muses pallet goingpalities and we are to apply measures to fight gangs provide safety and opportunities to young people.

we are acutely aware of the problem that you put forward. the causes of why some are coming to the united states. >> we look at this from a unilateral viewpoint. we are not strengthening borders. traffickingdo with and how the criminal networks use the paths to move. measures so that young people have opportunities. theirave opportunities in communities of origin. there is a technological institute built and the young people