one is, what additional steps if the department taking in terms of social media and second, and i am assuming this is about --amic state and about syria has russia been >> we have a new office handling social media and it has roughly 100 people on an expansion now and there is a lot of analysis and frankly, people like anne, a lot of this starts in social media. in this countering extremism fight. i think our efforts in this respect have improved. very importantly in my view, we have set up joint in this country because we cannot message muslims as effectively as people who live in the region. we have a good one with a uae. if we are going to do one in indonesia and other countries where you can get the word out to mostly young men who may be

attracted to the ideology, on the second question, the relationship with russia has been very complex and not to beat around the bush about it, russia is a player in syria and went in there to preserve their interests and at least to preserve it temporarily. but the russians will be key in moving him out at a certain time. we're in constant contact with the russians here and we have channels in geneva and people talk to them every single day about the cease-fire and -- in very extensive and detailed conversations. our intelligence people work with them to resolve issues of fact. it is challenging at times. very challenging at times. but i think it is fair to say that the cease-fire has been

held in important areas in the country and it is always being negotiated in other parts of the country as well. secretary kerry has been the best to say, he will not taken in by this and the proof will be in the results. for that matter, the rest of the international community to advance the cease-fire. karen: they have been saying things in recent days with the assad government about moving toward islamic state headquarters. this is a major objective of the force that the americans have trained. is everyone going to come together in raqqa and either

shoot at each other or single -- seeing, by all. anne p.: i think they would say it is unlikely the syrian regime could reach that but for us and the coalition, eliminating the state is very important because it is the known headquarters of isis. they are under enormous and brutal conditions. to free them would be humanitarian in and of itself. it would also be a huge intelligence troth because there is a lot of reference there about foreign fighters. it is very important but again, the military success against isil has been significant.

karen: we only have three more minutes. i want to ask you about, you mentioned the syrian refugees, while we're on the subject of syria and the administration was going to take 10,000. i think it was within the fiscal year, by the end of september. they have now taken i believe around 300, are they going to make it? >> yes, we are going to make it. karen: good. [applause] karen: and here is a really good question about nigeria, which is, what keeps a nigerian army from the united states and others from hunting down and destroying boko haram. i heard the terrorists are integrated into communities in northern nigeria. is this part of the problem in defeating them? >> i think there is no one answer to that. i think of we look back a couple

of years, it was a lack of capacity, believe it or not, in nigeria and the army. the army had been starved for a number of years. changed but it does not change overnight president bihari is focusing on making sure the army is having the capacity to respond and working with neighbors and other partners to improve the response against boko haram. it is not an easy task. it is an organization that continually marks itself, they are fighting on many different fronts and some of them are in communities, making it very hard to figure out who is who. and where they are. i think with all of our efforts,

working with the multinational task worse and the eu, working with the neighbors have suffered recently from a major attack and we were just talking about that, that it will take even more efforts to deal with the issue. we were concerned about the impact isil would have in terms of what capacity they are giving the group. so it will take some time and i think that is the answer. karen: time for one more? i am personally interested in this is a good question. it's about egypt. it says going forward, what do you see as the best way to balance between the military and support for human rights and civil rights and economic development?

anne p.: that is a really good question and we struggle with it almost every day in the department. there is no question that the situation is more unsettled now. you are seeing pockets of isil, not very large ones, but with a population largely alienated from the central government, it has potential to become a problem. you are seeing a human rights situation that is extremely disturbing. but in my view, in the long term, you are seeing an economy that has not been able to adjust to 800,000 jobs each of needs to -- egypt needs to create every single year. it is important with 90 million people that we maintain contact and we encourage them to improve their human rights situation and improve capacity on the military side. we try to balance our objectives there, which are several.

security of israel is one of them, an important one. with human rights situation and encourage political development. karen: thank you all so much. [applause] karen: great contribution. i wish we could go further. a lot more questions. thank you. and thank you all so much for coming. >> let's thank ambassador patterson, greenfield, and richard for being exceptional role models worldwide. [applause] and karen deyoung you asked the most probing question. thank you and come back soon. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

[indiscernible]

-- >> coming up on

onpan, a discussion guantanamo commissions. later british lawmakers pay tribute to joe crops. jo cox. yellen delivers her testimony to congress. a.m. eastern 10:00 on c-span. the justice department released the full trance crypt of shooter omar mateen. house speaker paul ryan called on the administration to release

a complete transcript. he also talked about the house gop agenda and the 2016 campaign. to a news on the phone is congressman poor ryan. .hank you for being with us on the latestus developments. speaker ryan: we need to be clear about the threat be face. we need to understand that threat that is facing our country. unless it's unique to the investigation, i don't think we should try to whitewash these things. host: the attorney general said

he did not want to give anymore what they are doing. we need to be very clear about the threat we face. do you think the administration will change course? you've been launching a better way with forms. me focus on your first priority. how will your approach move the needle? will have a: it different approach. we still have 45 million people living in poverty in america. i would argue that the world we have in brewing is a stalemate. there are many things that have back filed -- backfired.

if you stand up all the welfare of each other, you discourage people to work. it needs to be a work encouragement program. we want to change the way these programs work. measure success based on results and outcomes, not import or effort. that is what i think this welfare system has become. we measure success on how many programs we are creating and how people are on those programs rather than measuring success by are we actually getting people out of poverty? are we breaking the cycle of poverty? those of the questions that we need to ask and those are the answers that should dictate our reforms. remind you of a

quote from 1989 saying you can be conservative, idealistic and progressive simultaneously. is his agenda driving part of this? he was a critical mentor to me. his brand of conservatism is what i believe in. it focuses on the dignity of every person. it strives for promoting quality of opportunity so people can their dreams. that is what jack spent his life fighting for. he is the one who most inspired me to public service. is making it more accountable. there is growing frustration at washington and the federal bureaucracy.

is a goodan: that question. it is not just president obama but administrations, republican and democrat. it is taken over the long writing function from the legislation. have proposed a very comprehensive list of solutions. go to better. gop. and reclaimed the principle of self-determination. we have this fourth branch of government writing our laws and regulations. these are bureaucrats that we have never voted for as people. we are living under laws of people that we have never voted for. that laws areaway by self-government. we need to reclaim these log writing powers, what we called

article one of the constitution. we put out a very comprehensive plan. far haver speeches so been on c-span.org. i want to take you back to 2004 at the rnc. speaker ryan: we reaffirm our party's commitment to freedom and opportunity for all. these are the knock of -- economic foundation of the american dream. i ask all americans who share dreamream -- this regardless of party to join us. so every worker in america has more control over their economic future. host: you were talking about the bush tax cuts. is that a big part of your agenda? speaker ryan: tax reform is.

i want to go beyond just trimming the code. later this week, we are going to be offering a very comprehensive overhaul on our tax system. are losingantly we our economic competitiveness because of our tax code. we are going to be proposing tax reform that is good for families and small businesses. that is one ofng the crown jewels of our growth package. we need to take on the issue of tax reform if we are going to let the economy reach its potential. we were to be offering something very comprehensive. and on the issue of repealing and replacing the affordable care act, what he wanted you? speaker ryan: we are going to be offering this week the fifth and

sixth installment of our better way agenda. everyone knows republicans are against obamacare. what people need to know is we have good ideas that what we should replace it with reducing the cost of insurance and giving people more choices. that gives us a patient centered system. we're going to be offering a conference of plan to repeal the affordable care act. we think it is just critical to getting jobs and growth back in the economy. be covering the speeches. will congressional public -- republicans be running on this links? these are reforms that are going to be offering in 2016 so we can earn the right and the mandate to put this in

place in 2017. this is what we need to get the country back on track. them allo campaign on year. we want to earn this mandate. here is our solution to get the country back on track. if we win that election, we will win the right to put it in 2017. host: is this your version of contract with america? you can call it that. it is a similar kind of objective. times this spent many meeting with our nominee. i'm sure we will disagree with this or that detail. congress always negotiates the final details when it comes to putting legislation together.

we are in agreement on these things and that is why we are moving forward to offer the country. how did you come up with bees six agenda items? whater ryan: we discussed are the agenda items that we want to take to the country. this does not solve every problem in america. what it does it unites all republicans that improves people's lives. this is not only a unifying agenda but it is a clarifying agenda. we think of this as something that solves the big pressing problems that are in urgent need of solutions so we can go forward and offer it to the country. host: do you think the senate

republicans will be in the majority next year? that is our: intent. stronger majority in both house and senate if we an agendated based on to get things done. host: do you feel you have settled into the job of speakership? i had to redesign it to fit my own strengths and style. i do feel that i have grown onto it very well. aam a younger guy with younger family. i also prefer being more of a policy maker been typically speakers are. has family issues been the biggest challenge? speaker ryan: i have always been hypervigilant about managing our

schedule. non-negotiablea condition. they had no problem traveling every weekend. that we challenge was came together and reached -- those are the two critical things that i want to focus on and i am pleased that we are here where we are. host: thank you for your time. speaker ryan: thank you, steve. take care. is not only something i would love to do but something that could be different from the kind of folks that have been written about in the past. it is a way to rethink and reevaluate who this person was and what his real significance was.

what his virtues really were that made him one of the most adored and angelina figures but also what were his flaws. what were the things that made him hated by millions of people. arthur herman takes a look at douglas macarthur it in his book, douglas arthur: american warrior. future moree clearly than he saw the president whether it was the rise of china or the split between china. it was also the fate of american domestic politics. >> next, veteran affairs

secretary on veterans health care. secretary mcdonald took place in a discussion hosted by the brookings institution on monday. >> good afternoon everyone. i am the director. the center for effective government here. it is my great privilege to open on, can be veteran affairs be modernized?

let me introduce the secretary and then i'm going to introduce one of my colleagues here. the secretary will speak and and alsoill monitor take your questions. we will have a hard stop at 3:00. he served as brigade and was recognized by the royal society of arts, manufacturing and commerce. that is quite something. he served with the 82nd airborne division.

he earned the infantry badge. on leaving military service captain mcdonald was rewarded the meritorious service medal. career spent most of his at proctor and gamble. under his leadership, proctor and gamble significantly calibrated its portfolio. he grew the firm's organic sales by 3%. just about two years ago, president obama selected robert mcdonald to be the secretary of veteran affairs. yearthe course of his 10 the v.a. has expanded veterans access.

it has continued to drive down thanks in part to large partnerships across the federal government with both profit and nonprofit organizations, it has focused on prevention and treatment for veterans homeless. brieflybe interrogated by our very own norm eisen. he served in the obama administration as special government ethics. he then went to the czech republic where i first met him. and iwith us at brookings am very pleased to have him. he will be talking with you

afterwards. with that, please give secretary mcdonald a round of applause. [applause] secretary mcdonald: thank you for that kind introduction. i want to start by answering the question asked today, can the department of veteran affairs be modernized? the answer is absolutely yes. not only can it be modernized, it is already being modernized and we are ready seeing the results. based on what veterans are telling us, we have already seen improvementant -- from the v.a.. we completed 5 million more appointments than in the previous fiscal year.

almost 57 million appointments and 20 million appointments in the community. past march, we set a new record of completed . we had 433,000 authorizations for dear in community in march. these authorizations will result 2 millionan appointments in the months ahead. the clinical workload is up 11% in the past two years, nearly 9% inside the v.a. and 27% with be

with -- with -- v.a. community care. that means over 7 million additional hours of care for veterans. the results? 97% of appointments are now completed within 30 days of the veterans preferred date. 86% within seven days. and a 22% to our same-day it appointments. average wait time last month five days for primary care, six days for specialty care and two days for mental health care , but none of those numbers tell the whole story. they are important. what really matters is whether veterans are satisfied with their experience at the v.a. so we are asking veterans what they think using automated , kiosks at our facility. more than half a million have responded in recent weeks. one of the questions we ask is

how satisfied are you that you got today's appointment when you wanted it? nearly 90% say they are satisfied or completely satisfied. less than 3% say they are dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied. and, i don't know how patients in the private sector would answer that question, and i suspect our results would compare pretty favorably. but guess what? care,we improve access to more and more veterans are choosing v.a. care for the quality, convenience, and cost savings. i'm sure you have heard it said, if you build it they will come. well, we are building a better v.a.. that and it know are coming to us for more of their care. so even though we are providing more appointments than ever, some veterans are still waiting

the longer than they should have to wait. but that is not a measure of our failure, that is a measure of our success. , wee provide header care are providing more care. care, we are providing more care. veterans are waiting less time for care and so they are coming to us for more of their care and they are telling us they are satisfied or completely satisfied with the timeliness of their care. how does that not spell success? but until all veterans are satisfied with their care i will not be satisfied with v.a. nobody will. but i am satisfied that we are on the right track and we're making progress and that progress is undeniable. though of course some people are determined to ignore it. i have had some experience running very large organizations and i know you cannot accomplish a major overhaul of appropriations culture and operations overnight.

i also know the v.a. has several areas of excellence it can brag about. the american customer satisfaction index has rated our national cemetery administration number one in customer service five times running. jd power has rated our mail order pharmacy best in the country in customer satisfaction six years running. we are a leader in many fields of research. traumatic brain injury. spinal cord injury. prosthetics. genetics. the first implantable cardiac pacemaker. the first successful liver transplant. the first nicotine patch. three nobel prizes. seven lasker awards. and, look at what we have done with the backlog of disability claims. not long ago we had a backlog of

over 600,000 claims, more than 125 days old. that was all you heard about in v.a. in those days. we implemented an automatic claims processing system and today the backlog is just a fraction of where it was. it is down almost 90%. so, the idea that the a cannot be fixed or that we are not fixing it is nonsense. v.a. can't be --v.a. can't be fixed or that we are not fixing it is nonsense. we are fixing it. we are just not finished yet. we still have work to do. our vision, the goal we set for v.a. is being the number one customer service organization and the federal government. we are building a high-performance organization, and integrated customer centric enterprise leveraging the v.a.'s scope and scale on behalf of every veteran we serve.

to achieve that goal we are applying best practices and standards of customer service businesses. 12 of our top 17 executives are new since i became secretary and all 12 have top level leadership experience in business, health care or government. together we have conceived and organized a transformation initiative which we call up "my v.a." because that is exactly how we want veterans to see us. customizede proud of customized for them. we are committed to five long-term strategies. first improving the veteran experience. second improving the employee experience. it's not a surprise that the best customer service organizations in the world are all of the best places to work.

third achieving support service , excellence. forth, establishing a culture of continuous performance improvement. and fits enhancing strategic partnerships. for the near term we are focused on quick wins for veterans. 12 breakthrough priorities for 2016 that support our long-term "my v.a." strategies. eight of the 12 are about directly improving service to veterans. first, improvement the veteran experience. increase access to health second care. ,third, improve community health care. fourth, deliver a unified veteran experience. modernize contact centers. fifth modernize contact centers.

sixth, compensation and pension exam. seventh develop a simplified appeals process. and continue to reduce veteran homelessness. four of the 12 priorities are critical enablers designed to help the previous eight. those are improve the employee experience. staff critical positions that are vacant. transform our office of information and technology. transform our supply chain to increase responsiveness and reduce operating costs. those critical enablers are about reforming internals systems. giving employees the tools and resources they need to provide great service and consistently delivering an exceptional veteran experience. for employees serving veterans growing a high-performance organization means equipping more teams to dramatically improve care and service delivery to veterans. that's what our leaders developing leaders program is all about. ldl is an example of continuous enterprisewide growth spreading best practices across the v.a.

we launched ldl last november and have already trained over 19,000 employees. we are also training employees on it and business techniques like lane six sigma and human centered design. executive performance ratings and bonuses are being tied to veteran outcomes, employee surveys, and feedback. growing a high-performing organization also takes world-class collaboration and strategic partnerships. vast networks working together to serve veterans. it's why we have enabled a national network of 50 community veteran engagement boards. these are designed to leverage community assets not just v.a. assets to meet local veteran needs. our goal is to have 100 of these are the and of the year. that's why we are capitalizing on strategic partnerships with external organizations to leverage the goodwill resources and expertise of partners such as ibm, johnson & johnson, amazon.

university of michigan health system and many more. that's why we are working collaboratively with world-class institutions like usaa, the cleveland clinic, wegmans, starbucks, kaiser permanente, hospital corporation of america and many others. and it is what we have brought together the diverse group of business leaders, medical professionals, government executives and veteran advocates who serve on our my v.a. advisory committee. growing a high-performance organization takes a clear purpose, strong values, and enduring principles supporting sound strategies. we already have a clear purpose. our mission, caring for veterans

and their families. we have strong admirable values. they are values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence. they are foundational to everything we do. growing a high-performance organization also takes strong passionate leadership and we have that. a growing team of talented making innovative changes. it takes the kind of responsive systems and processes we are building, veteran centric by design. we believe veterans should have same-day access to primary care and that new patients should receive a same-day mental health is the smith and immediate care if needed. this could mean a same-day appointment with a primary care doctor or it could mean a call from a nurse with medical advice. or a telehealth or mental telehealth encounter. for a secure message.

prescription refill. or they walk into a clinic or emergency facility. we have put in place a system to identify best practices in our veterans hospital administration and implement those best practices throughout dha. we are already doing that. it is based on the shark tank model. we invite employees to submit ideas. we take a couple dozen of the best ideas and then we have employees present their ideas to a panel of sharks. the ideas that survive are assigned to a team to oversee implementation throughout dha. it's an ongoing effort aimed at continuous improvement in operations directly affecting the veteran experience. nobody else in the health care community is doing it. v.a. is leading the way as it

often does. we are improving access to health care in many other ways as well. we are making it easier for veterans on the road away from their regular va hospital to receive care or refill prescription at another v.a. facility. we are making it possible for veterans to enroll for health care on line or over the phone beginning july 5. we are already calling every new enrollee to welcome them to v.a. and offering to schedule an appointment and telling them about other v.a. benefits and services. we have called 200,000 veterans so far this year and the response has been tremendous. we have created a mobile app that lets veterans schedule, reschedule or cancel appointments on their smartphones. thousands have tried it and loved it in the field tests we conducted and we expect to make it fully available later this year. we are creating a single phone

number and a single website so veterans have a one-stop source for information rather than asking them to navigate our complicated internal structure. we are also working to give veterans more opportunities to provide immediate feedback on the quality of the care they receive. these channels will be in place later this year and that feedback will help us meet the needs of veterans. we are committed to doing everything we can for veterans advancing along all these lines and many others. but important priorities for transformational change require congressional action. the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request is another tangible sign of his steadfast devotion to veterans and his commitment to transform v.a. the senate appropriations committee approved a budget nearly equal to the president's request. the house markup proposes a $1.5 billion reduction. let's be clear. that reduction will hurt veterans and it will impede

some critical initiatives necessary to transform v.a. into the high-performing organization veterans deserve. so we are encouraging congress to fully fund v.a. at the request level. more than 100 legislative proposals for v.a. are in the president's 2017 budget and 2018 advanced appropriations request. over 40 of them are new this year. they require congressional action. some are absolutely critical to maintaining our ability to purchase non-v.a. care. in mid-march, i testified to congress about the most important requirements to help us serve veterans better. deputy secretary sloan gibson will be testifying for the house veterans of heirs committee affairs committee

again on thursday. we need congress is help monitor rising and clarifying the v.a. purchase authorities. above all else is needed to get done to ensure a strong foundation for veterans access to community care. we need congress's help streamlining care in the community systems and programs. last october we submitted our plan to consolidate and simplify the overwhelming number of different programs and improve access to v.a. care in the community. we need congress to enact legislation that will allow us to better compete with the private sector to get the best medical professionals to choose to work in v.a. that makes flexibility on the 80 hour pay period limit and compensation reforms for network and hospital directors. likewise we need to treat health care executives more like their private sector counterparts. that means expanding the title 38 authority to vha senior executive level medical center directors and other health care executive leadership positions. then we can hire these employees more quickly with flexible competitive salaries. and operate under strong accountability policies.

we have to be more responsive to veterans emerging needs so we're asking for modest flexibility to overcome artificial funding restrictions for veterans care and benefits. and we have urged ambitious action on our disability claims appeals system. we cannot serve veterans well unless we can come together and make big changes in the appeals process. it's a heavy lift. we have met with veteran service organizations and we have gotten their assistance in putting together a comprehensive appeals modernization legislative proposal which we made it to congress in a world and updated earlier this month. i believe congress is responding on the senate side, chairman johnny isakson in partnership with ranking member blumenthal is working on the veteran's act, a large omnibus bill that includes many of the legislative solutions we have been urging. on the house side chairman jeff miller has been working closely with us as well. our window of opportunity is closing fast. we need congress to act on the proposed legislation before they

leave town in it to life or their extended election year summer recess. if congress does not act on these transformational changes the v.a. will not be able to complete its transformation and veterans will have to settle for a v.a. that is not as risk wants it to their needs. asto a v.a. that is not responsive to its needs.

there is no question about that. if congress acts we will all look back on this year as the year we turned the corner for veterans. those are a few points about our progress and challenges. some of argued that the v.a. can best serve veterans by shutting down v.a. health care altogether. they argue that closing vha is bold transformation veterans and the families need, want and deserve. i suspect that proposal serves some parties pretty well. but it's not transformational. it's more along the lines of dereliction. it doesn't serve veterans well and it doesn't sit well with me. president reagan gave veterans a seat at the table of national affairs nearly three decades ago. my v.a. is about keeping veterans at that table, in control of how when and where they wish to be served. thank you for sharing this time with me this afternoon.

i look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. secretary for that fascinating overview of all that you and your colleagues at the v.a. are doing. to take the next step, to modernize the veterans administration. to better serve our veterans and to make all of america proud of the care that we provide to

them. it is an enormously challenging enterprise to come into government and attempt to reform, and modernize. remind everyone here and everyone in our viewing audience viewingn and in our audeince on c-span tha we are i amtweeting the event and email.ckin g my

questions from the twitter feed. you can direct those questions. they have been coming in at my twitter account. @normisen. we will also take them at #vasec. first i want to talk about the question i have for you. what has been the biggest surprise for you coming from a distinguished military career and a private sector career good and bad? the biggest surprise in your tenure as v.a. secretary. mr. mcdonald: you will not find this surprising and i certainly didn't find it surprising. i think the amplitude of emotion is surprising. that is the ability to do a good thing for a veteran on any given day. i like to think before i go home at night about how many veterans did i help today? how many did i help through i did the systemic or transformational changes we are making or even how many called me on my cell phone. you know i gave out myself for a

number out my cell phone first nationalmy septembererence in 2014. veterans every day. and i enjoy that because i like to listen to the voice of the customer. i would not say it was surprised but i think the amplitude of satisfaction is surprised. surprise on the other side i think is the difficulty, the sheer difficulty of trying to get things done. we have a lot of stakeholders and as i mentioned in my talk we put together what i think it an outstanding transformational plan for the v.a. but frankly if we don't get the budget and we don't get the law changes we need from congress, we are going to fall short of what we could otherwise do. we are working very closely. the great thing is we have relative unanimity within congress. we are hoping we can get these bills on the floor and passed. they generally have gone through committee. we want to get them passed

before the congress leaves in july. norman eisen: on your amplitude point you remarked in your speech about the new customer service kiosks and you got just under 90% satisfied or entirely satisfied and just 3% dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied. i will say that every one of those 3% sent me a tweet with a tough question for you, mr. secretary. mr. mcdonald: that's a really interesting point. because we run a health care system and there are roughly 21 million veterans in the country, 9 million attached to our health care system. 6 million use it frequently. so 3% is still on except double. -- unacceptable. anyone will tell you that even one unsatisfied or dissatisfied customer is one too many. that's why no matter how much we transform this is an ongoing process that we need to continue.

one of the themes in the twitter question, a recurring theme. this particular tweet that i'm looking at is from robin mitchell. a recurring theme is your comment that wait times are important but they are not the only measure of veterans experience and that's what veterans are telling you. in the time around which you made that comment you analogized to how corporations measure and you mentioned disney and that created somewhat of a furor. i thought i would give the opportunity and response to the veterans. myself as a child of a veteran i experienced some of that amplitude myself. to give you a chance to respond to that point and to the many tweets we're getting on that issue.

mr. mcdonald: as that occurred and as you know, i put out a statement right away that said, basically if any veteran or any american looked at those comments and thought in any way that we were not taking access to care seriously, i regret that. what we're trying to do is build a world-class health care system for veterans. access has been the primary focus of everything we have done as i came into office. we have added 4 million square feet of physical space. we have added over 1200 new doctors. we have added over 2300 new nurses. we have added evening hours, weekend hours. we are doing everything we can as i mentioned in my remarks, to get people access to care. one of our priorities for this year is to be able to have

same-day access to medical professionals to resolve issues. right now we have that at 34 of our facilities. about 25% of our facilities. we have a team of people dedicated full-time to figuring out how to do that in every single facility. so access to care is a top priority for us. norm: while you answered that question, 15 additional questions came in on @normisen and #vasec. keep them coming in. i'm going to ask one. that is not perhaps strictly within your purview but because of the commitment to caring for veterans for your fellow veterans that you've articulated, i myself was curious. it jumped out. although the health care needs of veterans are the primary focus of your work, veterans do have a full spectrum additional set of needs.

there have been recent studies. josh protus says there have showingent studies insecurityof ffod among veterans. have you thought about that at all and how in general, when there is such critical requirements in the core health care mission that occupies so much of your day, how do you deal with the additional needs of our american vets?

sec. mcdonald: that's a great question. one of the things we did when i actually started under sloan gibson was a long-term study of, where do we want to take the veterans hospital administration? one of the thing that differentiates v.a. care from the private secretary is it is integrated and holistic. we deal with mental health, physical health, spiritual health. we deal with nutrition. one of the things we want to do is move care from curing disease to preventing disease. one of the things that bothers me, and into about 300 v.a. facilities -- i have been to about 300 v.a. facilities and one of the things that bothers me is seeing obese veterans. obviously that creates all kinds of bad outcomes. these are individuals who at a time in their life were exercising every day. were taking physical fitness tests. become thatet them way? why can't we work with them in

order to maintain their fitness once they get out of the military service? we are moving toward preventing disease and we have a special medical advisory group chaired by jonathan perlin who is the chief medical officer of hca. he is helping us along with other medical professionals to design a program focused on prevention rather than cure. i think that's the direction we need to go. think of the savings for the taxpayer. norm: mr. secretary, i don't want to neglect the real-life human beings who have filled our room here at brookings in favor of virtual reality. i'm going to ask questions in the room now and i will begin with this young lady in the third row here. yes ma'am. hold on. for the sake of the viewing audience we need to give you your microphone. i will remind everybody. if you don't mind, say who you are when you ask a question. i will say this is the reason i think brookings invited me to be a member of the family here.

i will ask everybody to make their questions questions. please limit yourself to a one or two sentence question. i will be ruthless in enforcing the no filibuster rule. it may be allowed elsewhere in washington, but not here. >> i'm dr. dana robinson. i would like to thank you very much for coming and spending a portion of your day with us. i also served in the navy for almost 25 years as an enlisted member and as an officer. sec. mcdonald: thank you for your service. >> absolutely. it was my pleasure. i recognize the importance of modernization. as a primary care provider i know it is important that we stay up to date regarding all of the new standards and best practices. however, take into consideration that more than 600 veterans are

committing suicide every single month. is it responsible to utilize the money for modernizing this system as opposed to addressing the problems that are within the v.a. system that are causing veterans to even come to the v.a. to commit suicide? sec. mcdonald: it's a great question. obviously one of our 12 priorities -- please, you can sit down. is to reduce the number of veterans committing suicide. as you know we have estimated in the past that about 22 veterans take their life on any given day. 17 of those are not connected to the v.a. 5 of the 22 are. we know that if we can outreach people the program works.

so, a lot of what i was describing in the modernization was ways to improve that outreach. for example, hiring more mental health professionals. i talked about same-day access to mental health care. i talked about if you show up at one of our emergency rooms, we have somebody trained there. our veterans crisis line where we need to add more people and make sure there are no dropped calls. we need to make sure that if you center,.a. medical whereas in the past it would have said if you are in crisis hang up and call this number, we are putting in place a system that says if you are in crisis, press 7. the people who run our crisis line that was shown in the h bo documentary that won an award -- outreach is critical to do. we have to make sure the entire population is working together to recognize the five signs.

the five signs when a problem is coming. because we can't wait for veterans to get connected. we have to connect them. similarly i think we have a problem in this country. we tend to see national problems perhaps before they get into the news. we are not creating enough mental health professionals in this country. one of the things i'm trying to do is work with medical schools. we train 70% of the doctors in this country through their residency. i don't know where you did your residency. v.a., itve been at the may have been in the navy. but we've got to create more residencies. if we have residencies, the deans of medical schools tell me they will increase the throughput.

and we have to get more students to study mental health. we were able to increase the number of amount of loan payback for people starting mental health. we have to increase the number of mental health care professionals in this country. sorry, that was a filibustering answer. norm: well, slightly different rules for the guests. but only slightly. i will go to twitter for another question. on the reform and modernization front. i know i found this when i was advising president obama and had government reform in my portfolio earlier in the administration. there are limits to the innovations, the lessons of the private sector that one can bring to government. you have referred to the need for congressional approval in order to take some of the big next steps. administrations change.

you don't have an infinite amount of time. i have a question from aisha cho audry. do you feel you have to speed up some of your priorities? if so, which ones and how you -- how do you deal with these horizons moving from the private sector to the public sector? sec. mcdonald: that's a great question. as i said it does take time to transform an organization. that the administration would change at the term of the year is what caused us to take those five long-term strategies and turn them into 12 immediate priorities. notice i said by the end of the calendar year. these are the 12 things we want to get done. what we did, i actually asked for a congressional hearing and

i know that's unusual. but i asked and chairman isaacs in the senate had a hearing for me to review what progress we made in 2015. what progress are we committing to in 2016? what are the veteran outcomes? like having your appeal decided in 12 months. getting more people into community care. these are things we committed to providing we get the budget and we get the legislative changes that we need. so that was the reason we did it. if you came over to our building and i invite you all to come over, we have a room where we have literally by week, by month, the accomplishments for each one of these 12 that we track every week to make sure we are making progress because we want to make sure we deliver. we want to create irreversible momentum for this transformation by december 31.

norm: is that the biggest thing you would say you have brought over from the private sector? setting the benchmarks, using data? sec. mcdonald: i don't know. i think so. this is my first time in federal government other than when i was in the army. certainly that is a practice that we have. we have to set and sharks and goals and hold people accountable to achieve them. >> i'm going to go to the back of the room now because i don't

want to neglect people who are sitting at the back. i have three great questions from veterans that i'm going to combine into one question for you after i go to this lady here in yes ma'am. >> julie davidson. can you talk about your decision not to implement the discipline procedures in the veterans accountability act and what you are doing to improve accountability? sec. mcdonald: yes. since i have been secretary we have terminated over 2900 employees, julie. and we are holding people accountable. we think accountability is very important. we think it means more than just firing people obviously. means providing feedback and training and development they need to get the job done. we have taken advantage of the accelerated process for nine senior executives service individuals. what we decided recently is given that that part of the law has come under question, constitutional question, we did not want to continue to follow the procedure since what we don't want to do is have a different area process go on and then have it overturned later for a technicality because the laws decided to be overturned. so we are using the old procedure. the old procedure is fine. frankly the new procedure really just affects the amount of time

for appeal. it really doesn't affect the process all that much. the answer to the whole thing in my opinion and i would say in the opinion of at least the senate is what we have in the veterans first act. the provisions that senator isakson and senator blumenthal have put in the veterans first act we all support.

ca supports them. the republican party in the senate supports them. the democratic party in the senate supports them. we really think that is the ultimate answer. i'm hoping the veterans first act will get passed soon. it has already gone through committee and it will go to the floor and get passed in the senate. i'm combining three from twitter. i have one veteran who asks, where do nonprofits that serve veterans go to navigate to find their door into the v.a. bureaucracy which even after your efforts remain substantial? sec. mcdonald: let me deal with the first one. norm: i hope i remember the other two.

sec. mcdonald: it's very easy. e-mail me. bob.mcdonald@va.gov. when i took the job i very quickly realized we cannot do this by ourselves. there is a lot of goodwill for veterans. we need strategic partnerships. matt callier who has a very successful career running companies came in and leads our strategic partnership efforts and we have set up a number of those. there is an organization called give an hour which is an organization of psychiatrists and psychologists who do pro bono work for veterans. we have set up a strategic partnership with them for the reasons i mentioned earlier. it's hard to get mental health professionals. these individuals can help serve veterans. that's an example. this is important for two reasons. strategic partnerships are force multipliers. they help us expand our outreach and ability to care for people. but there is a second very important moral issue which is by law we cannot care for people

with dishonorable discharges and so if a veteran comes to us and they may have a dishonorable discharge and have not yet enabled to get it changed, we have to be able to have those private sector partners who can treat them because we are not able to. norm: great. and that tweet was from @militarysaves. you heard the e-mail addresses. you don't mind if i retweet those later. my thumbs are not very good with all of this. a second question is about whistleblowers at the v.a. the question is because of the importance of whistle lowers for accountability, what are your plans to improve the situation for whistleblowers? that is a situation dear to my own hard because when i was like you when i was in the white house i gave my phone number and e-mail to whistleblowers so they would have somebody personal to call. sec. mcdonald: sure. we honor whistleblowers in the v.a. who have identified things we need to improve. if you have an organization focused on customer experience especially for veterans you want

to know what you are not doing well in order to improve so whenever i go to a site -- i have been to roughly 300 locations -- i always meet with the whistleblowers separately, privately without the leadership. we also work very closely with the office of special counsel. we were the first organization in government certified by the office of special counsel for dealing with whistleblowers and we taken very seriously to make

sure they are protected. many of them have become great advocates for the transformation we are doing. a lot of the transformation we are doing right now -- after the fourth of july we will start enrolling for health care either by phone or by the internet. that was unheard of before but that idea came from some interaction that we had with whistleblowers to do everything we can. i want to create a culture of continuous improvement. this is why we are training to you all in lean six sigma. we should have everybody at the v.a. working to improve the systems that they work on. as i was going out and doing town hall meetings which i have done at all the sites i have been to, employees were telling me they felt like they were victims of the system they couldn't control. what i'm trying to do is say, i want you to control that system. i want you to change that system. the best high-performance organizations in the world are run by the employees. norm: you are a strong evangelist for bringing best practices from the private sector, but what is the limit?

where have you hit the wall and where have you learned that what doesn't work in the private sector just doesn't work in government? sec. mcdonald: it doesn't work where there are laws that encumber you. i went to a bunch of medical centers and discovered we were outsourcing our rooms. to me, outsourcing your emergency rooms seems like a relatively poor business. what i discovered is there's this 80 hour work period law which prohibits us from operating emergency rooms with 12 hour shifts. i went to the private sector and everybody works 12 hour shifts. so we are not competitive. we cannot hire the doctors and nurses we need to run in a room because of this law. this law was not designed for hospital system. it was designed for government. a different part of government. are we going to treat this like a business serving customers or like another art of government? there are other examples. this appeals law i was talking about is 80 years old. we have over 400 thousand appeals waiting to be dealt with. it would require over five years

each one of those to be just cited. we have to change that law. rather than ignoring that, i believe in the part of the west point cadet prayer that i grew up with. we have everybody in the room under the leadership of sloan gibson, veterans service organizations, members of congress. we said, we are going to lock the door and slip the food under the door. you are not coming out of the room until you come up with a new law. we now have the new law but it has to be passed by congress. if we can get these laws passed veteran outcomes -- we said if we can get this law passed as we work down the backlog eventually

we will be able to deal with an appeal in one year. not five years plus. it's just a matter of solving the problem but then you have to get congress to pass the law. norman eisner: ok. coming back to our audience. yes sir. just hold on one second. we're going to get your microphone. >> i would like to say that this vietnam veteran thinks you have turned the corner. we are definitely making solid progress. sec. mcdonald: thank you for your help.

>> the 630,000 are going to be the most vocal. the question i would like to ask is can you give us the status of data on choice, the choice program which is designed to help those that are further away from the v.a. facilities? sec. mcdonald: yes sir. in the fall of 2014 in response to the access crisis, congress passed the choice act. the idea was to have greater capability of sending people into the community for care. we were already sending people in the community for care. but the choice act was an attempt to make it even more broad. there were certain limitations put on the act. things like 30 day time limit, 40 mile originally geodesic distance and then driving distance. i was given some authority if there was a geographic area. what we are seeing is dramatic growth. in the choice act and in the authorization. that we have given for care in the community. dramatic growth.

the issue we have had is we have seven different ways of providing care in the community. each one came from a somewhat different law. each one has different selection criteria. each one has different reimbursement rates. it's very complex. as a result of that confuses veterans and confuses the employees. last october we put together another proposal for change in the law that would take all those different seven ways and make them one. one criteria, one reimbursement rates and make that the new choice act moving forward. we have had hearings on that. there are pieces of it that are part of the veterans first act

in the senate we are thrilled with. the house is dealing with pieces of it. to me that is the ultimate response is how do we make this simpler? we also looked at everything we thought was wrong with the original act. as you work overtime you learn how to make it better. we have put that in the new veterans first act. we're thrilled if the senate can pass the veterans first act and the house can pass parts of it as well -- as well that we will do a better job of the community. thank you sir. >> ok. we are coming down now to the last minutes. so i'm going to ask one from the -- you have been too good on twitter. there are literally hundreds of tweets that have flooded in. i apologize to those of you. the secretary and his team will get them and address the issues and questions therein. shifting again to another one of the non-health care needs because i promised some of the veterans organizations that i would ask about those.

financial literacy issues. there have been reports about the struggles of some veterans with financial issues about being subject to predatory lenders and other financial scams. what are you doing to help address financial literacy among veterans? sec. mcdonald: that is a very important point and i am glad we are going to talk about more than just health care because v.a. is one of the largest mortgage companies in the country. we insure mortgages. the g.i. bill is how my father and father-in-law went to college and how i went to graduate school. i think the ultimate answer to financial literacy is what we are trying to do with the transition. they're going to be roughly 250,000 service now each year. it's unacceptable for them to have a gap in their service from

active duty to becoming a veteran with full benefits that a veteran should get. we are trying to do is take that transition process and push it upstream working with the department of defense and secretary ash carter is a great partner in this. we get the servicemembers maybe 120 days before they leave the service. i have participated in these programs. they are called transition assistance programs. we go on base and the commanding general stands with me and says, we're going to help your transition. we train the noncommissioned officers how to help with that transition. we then do a number of things. we try to get them the medical examiner they need to qualify for benefits. we signed him up for health care, for the g.i. bill. and so forth. and then at the end of the program we actually have a job fair. we have had tremendous success in terms of placing veterans right on the spot. so that there is no transition time, in transition time from the time they leave the service. i have to say it's one of the reasons that veteran unemployment is virtually at an

all-time low of about 4%. mr. secretary, it's 3:00. we could go on for hours. the fascinating analysis of what you have done in the v.a. and the implications it has for the rest of government in a time when we are approaching transition in the need for congressional approval and other limitations on the model the fire systems to work together.

many additional tweak, including one from a whistleblower. i will personally make sure that the secretary's attention is drawn to it. i want to thank everybody in our audience here. everyone in our virtual audience , on c-span, on twitter, and on social media. it's been a great privilege welcoming the secretary. sec. mcdonald: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

tuesday, a hearing on the national public safety network for worst response or. -- for first responders. you can see it on c-span3. about the planning for july's democratic national convention. we will bring you that reefing live on c-span three. thing live on c-span3. to thec-span's road white house takes you to this summer's political conventions. watch the republican national convention starting july 8 teen wet live coverage from cleveland. mr. trump: we are going to go in so strong. announcer: and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with large -- live coverage of from the

adelphia. ms. clinton: let's return as a unified party. mr. sen. sanders: we take our !ight to philadelphia announcer: every minute of the democratic and republican parties national conventions. on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. chief officer for guantanamo spoke of the national -- at the national press club last week. he was fired from the research service for writing to opinion articles criticizing obama's decision not to close guantanamo detention center. you know i started in september

of 2005 and i was the third chief prosecutor for general martin's, who is the sixth chief prosecutor. during my tenure, we had a policy i would not use any evidence obtained by what i referred to as enhanced interrogation techniques. you know, the pentagon was always really good at having terms that made things sound like something different than they really were, and enhanced rotation techniques are what most people would call torture. back then, i could use the word

-- could not use the word suicide, i had to use the word "self injurious behavior." -- quite frankly, it was necessary. mohammed, his trial is still a work in progress. bush06 after president made the decision to transfer high-value detainees from the cia to the military and the plane landed at guantanamo and 14 men got off that day, it was september 2006, and almost a decade later and that trial, there is still no firm date set for the trial to take place. sheikh mohammed, there is ample evidence to prove guilt without ever using a word he said in our custody, which does not make it right that would make it irrelevant in charges against him.

so that became the policy for two years during my tenure as chief prosecutor. towards the end, some people appointed above me, retired and moved on, and they were replaced, by political appointees. for example, general john alton erg was a career military officer who served for 30 years in the army, with a distinguished career, and he was truly devoted to doing this in a credible way. he laughed and was replaced by susan crawford, who never wore a uniform a day in her life, but had been dick cheney's inspector general when she was secretary of defense. in my view, that was the beginning of the end for the credibility of the military commissions, when civilians began getting involved. -- summer 2007, i was told that president bush said, we don't torture, who are you to say that you do?

all the evidence you are not using, you need to dust it off and get these guys convicted, and that was for me kind of the last straw. i lost confidence in our ability to ensure we would have full, fair, and open trials, so in october 2007 i resigned as chief prosecutor of the military commission. which then leads into the next chapter of my life. i decided, at that point, approaching 25 years in the service. like many in the military, i joined planning to do four years, to serve my country, then get home to north carolina, and the next thing i knew for years had -- four years became 25, because i truly enjoyed my time in the military. it is the most ethical practice of law you will find anywhere. a lot of practitioners will tell you, they came into it with a jaundiced view of military justice and military attorneys, and they changed their mind. they were very impressed by the ethics of the people that were involved. so i really enjoyed my time. if i was young enough, i would

go back and do it again. but it was a point where it was time to decide what to do. if it was time to leave for another assignment, or if it was time to retire. frankly, many people think i chose to retire because of guantanamo. the truth is, it was because of the housing market. i'm just here in 2005, at the peak of the housing market, and by 2008, we were so far underwater, i could not really afford to leave, so i chose to retire. i'm still underwater. i don't know if i will ever live long enough to get back above water, but i chose to retire and stay here, and i began looking for jobs. one place i applied in the spring of 2008 was at the congressional research service. i was invited in for an interview for a position that spring, and i met with the director of the congressional research service, dan mulholland. i was interviewed for a position there, and i got a call from mr. mulholland several weeks later, in april or may of 2008, saying

there was someone else they thought was better qualified for the position, but they were impressed by the principled stand i took on guantanamo and a leadership i had shown in the military, and he asked if i would be interested in another position that he thought he december 20, 2008, i began

tenure at congressional research, as the head of the foreign affairs and defense division. in the military, we don't get involved in partisan politics, so for 25 years i have participated, as a voter,

staying informed as a citizen, but as far as being directly involved, i didn't do that, so when i retired on october 1, 2008, for me it was the first time in a quarter-century i was able to actively participate in the critical process. i put an obama sign in my front ruraland i live in a gated community in virginia. one of my neighbors dust the sign -- doused the sign in light of food and lit on fire, so i put up another sign. i worked, going door-to-door, and i don't think anyone was more excited than me when he got elected. so december i start my new job, and january obama starts his job, and was the first thing he does? first thing he did was signed the lilly ledbetter act, and the second thing was the order to close on time. 2009, i'm not sure if anyone in d.c. was happier than me. i'm retired from the military,

guantanamo is closing, and i was in a job i liked, working with people i respected, and life looks like it could not get much better. things progressed, and he still seemed to be going well, until the fall of 2009, when rumblings began to emerge that the president was not going to close guantanamo, and the military commissions might be revived, and i was again having concerns that this whole hope and change was not going to take place, as it appeared it was at one point. an op-ed an article, in the washington post by former attorney general michael mckay he said, if we bring detainees from guantanamo to the united states, life as we know it will come to an end. i wrote a letter rebutting that. in the same year, i wrote an op-ed that i submitted to the wall street journal. i have written a lot of pieces. the vast majority of what i have

written has never seen the letter day, and often when i would write something, i would have to shop it around, edit it, make a lot of changes, and eventually someone would publish it. but for the first time ever, on a sunday afternoon, i sent twice, and by tuesday i had two articles, one in the washington post,, one in the wall street journal. the next day was veterans day, so i was off work but i had an e-mail from mr. mulholland, the director of crs, expressing displeasure that i express these opinions and questioning my suitability to serve at the congressional research service, and that's when the six and a half year odyssey began, that veterans day in 2009. ironically i guess, in the sense when i was chief prosecutor, the human rights organizations and groups that are generally viewed on the left, did not particularly only in high regard. one of the organizations that i do not think was fond of me was the american liberties -- civil

liberties union. they were sent a representative to guantanamo to observe the proceedings, and i would meet with them and talk, and we had a cordial relationship, but i don't think they were fond of the positions i was taking advocating for guantanamo. when word got out that i was getting fired for having rest my opinions -- express my opinions on guantanamo, one of my first calls was from anthony romero of the aclu who said, what can we do for to help? for six and a half years, they represented me throughout the process. we went to court in january 2010, seeking a temporary restraining order to stop crs from firing me, pending the litigation of the lawsuit on the first amendment protected -- whether the first amendment protected my right to express my opinion. mr. mulholland called me and before he gave me the letter of termination, wanting me to admit that what i had done was wrong. he wanted me to apologize, and he said it appeared i put the

constitution ahead of the good of the organization. and i said, that's true, i do. i can sit here and tell you, yes, you are right, i was wrong, the constitution does not write to me -- fight to me. but i served in uniform for 25 years to defend the constitution, and if i said it did not apply to me i would make a false official -- falsificial statement. i was fired for exercising my right of free speech, in the james madison building, the author of the first amendment. so i stayed on until january 20, and we went to court to try to get a temporary restraining order. the department of justice argued against granting the restraining order. there were several elements you have to prove to get a restraining order. was the reggie walton, judge for the entire six years in my case, and judge walton

family met all the elements. it was likely i would prevail on the merits it was in the public interest. the one element he found i did not establish based on the government's argument was, i was unable to establish irreparable harm. the department of justice argued in the hearing that if i prevailed on my first amendment lawsuit, they could write me a check for back pay which would make me whole, if my claim was validated. judge walton agreed. so i was not granted the restraining order, and that afternoon the deputy director walked me out to the parking lot as i carried my cardboard box with mice tough -- with my stuff, and i left. if you months later, the same attorney from the justice department argued that was a missed take, and the back pay act did not apply to the legislative branch, and there was no possibility of getting so at that point we

began fighting to get me reinstated to my position. we also filed suit against mr. mulholland, in his personal capacity. we litigated that, in the spring of 2010, and the government argued mr. mulholland, as a government official, had qualified immunity and could not be sued for act he took in official capacity. judge walton denied the motion, and said if the facts alleged are true, no government official could believe it was appropriate to fire someone for exercising their can't you should not -- constitutional right. the government appealed, and we went on the detour to the d.c. circuit, which added a year and a half to the case. the d.c. circuit, my case was assigned to a panel, with the chief judge on the panel -- if you look back, you will see that was the same panel, if you mecall the case valerie plav

brought after she was outed as a cia agent, and her dismissed was -- her case was dismissed by 2-1 on the panel. not surprisingly, i got the exact same panel, and i got the exact same result. in a 2-1 decision, the d.c. bringt ruled i could not suit against mr. mulholland in his personal capacity. they did that because they said congress enacted the civil service reform act, which provided a comprehensive remedy andgovernment employees, the fact they exempted the legislative branch, they exempted themselves from the coverage, that showed they considered the legislative branch employees and chose them, to not include them in the coverage. so even though i have no remedy on the d.c. circuit, i could not proceed on those grounds. so i spent the rest of the time fighting for my readers it meant at the congressional research

service. again, one of the things i learned from this, i was extraordinary fortunate that anthony romero called me when this all happened. had i been anyone else, just an average guy on the street in similar circumstances, i would have had to throw in the towel a long time ago, because the government, the justice department, the tactic they seem to use was delay, defame, bankrupt, to try to litigate the case. so over the six and a half years, the american civil liberties spent lots of money trying to get me reinstated. i thought it was interesting that the arguments i made in the op-ed's i wrote was to go back and look at the testimony,

essentially the same thing i said about the notion that somehow congress would be surprised that i had a strong opinion about guantanamo. that ship had sailed before i was ever hired. becameition essentially the same position i had advocated. general holder said in hindsight it had been a mistake to give up then to revert back to commissions. the man had been convicted, he would have long since been sitting on death row. of those 14 one that has been tried, convicted, and sentenced in this case. he denied the case was over and done. ahmed gallant is the only good tugboats detainee brought to the united states and prosecuted and federal court where he was

convict did and got a light sentence. the other men who got off the plane with him are still waiting for their opportunity to have their day in court. i was reading how the congress, the house has passed a measure that would further restrict president obama's ability to transport or detain out of guantanamo. the only person that has been did successfully has been a ahmed gulati who was convict did in federal court. so even sure lady after i was terminated, judge walton, during about myssions said qualifications, i had a bs, a jd, 25 years of military service, he said there would be no problem finding a job. irritated the republican side and now i had

excited. the credit in washington, d.c., when you manage to irritate both republicans and democrats, it is not an enviable position to try to find a job. i would like to think the citizens of the district of columbia put the unemployment checks i got because i applied for over 200 jobs with governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, academic organizations, you name it and i applied. places that had offered me jobs a few months before, suddenly i was no longer a good that with their organization. one human rights organization said, we totally agree with everything you said but we think you are too toxic. the administration will hold it against us. so for six months i collected unemployment because i could not find a job. i am very grateful because up until recently, for four years i was an assistant professor at

howard university. the mayor of baltimore was the dean of the law school. the vice dean and the dean were willing to take me and when no one else would. i/o a huge growth -- debt of gratitude to howard university for giving me a home in making me feel welcome and giving me the opportunity to do things i could not have done otherwise. a position on change.org to close guantanamo and a quarter of a million people signed that the petition. i could not have done that if i had been in the government job i was in. it gave me the opportunity to go out, speak, write, participate in protests outside the white house. i did draw it at putting on a orange jumpsuit and put on a coat and tie. they gave me the opportunity to do things i could not have done otherwise.

ago i wenter a year back into the federal government, an organization where i feel welcome and work with people i respect and consider myself very fortunate. things, i would like to mention i learned over the last 6.5 years. the library of congress and the progression -- congressional research service are incredible institutions with remarkable people who do great work. what they have lacked is leadership. is apparentlyen librariane the next of congress and i wish her the best and hope she brings the leadership to the organization it has long needed. the library of congress, if you go back and look at the case, i think there were three public opinions in my case. and a couple other decisions that were not published.

title, davis versus billington, is dr. billington, at the time the head of the library of congress to recently retired. in the wake of his leaving, the director of the library of congress can only server 15 years. he served for an excess of 30. the person that hired me is also retired. those of them i have no doubt loved the organization but i think they loved the organization the way dj edgar hoover love the fbi, no divide between their personal view and the official written regulation. the library had a regulation tot employees are encouraged speak and write about areas outside of their official responsibility. that was the official published policy. the official unpublished policy was no one should say anything outside of the walls of the office. so again, i think it is in an

credible organization and institution. this organization, crs played a vital role. or better or worse, there is a proliferation of think tanks that did not exist a half-century ago and depending upon your persuasion, you can find an organization to provide what looks like research to support whatever position you want to take. the one organization that will give you the unvarnished truth is the research service. lawsuit, the notion that crs provides nonpartisan advice, that is not what the statute says. it says it provides advice on a nonpartisan basis so it is not the advice that is nonpartisan it is the provision of service. this happened quite often, and aid would call and say my member has a hearing, can you give me three points in favor of this

well and we would do that. we may get another call in 15 points.for an opposing we did that on a nonpartisan basis. spent theirle that lives with phd's and a lifetime of work and expect them to not have an opinion on the issues they cover, i think, is totally unrealistic. that taxpayersn spent 100 million dollars year on crs and if you go online, you can often find a copy of the reports for free but another cases you have to pay someone who has taken that report that the government generated and they are going to sell it back to you. there are no reason that crs reports are not made public. take a partisan position. we often did that for a member. if a member wanted a memo that look at a particular angle, the reports would do that. we used to read book -- referred

to crs as the place with 1000 hands. the report always says on one hand this, and on another hand that. and never stakes the exact answer but it provides a lot of useful information to the public that they have a right to see because they are paying a lot of money to produce it. a lot of memorandums and internal work done on behalf of , the reports in general i think are to be made available. i guess another lesson i learned will stand upent firmly for your constitutional rights as long as you do not use them. it is kind of like in taggart he and a lot of other terms people are fond of throwing around in theory but not application.

out in the public people like to think of the constitution is being carved in granite. in fact, it seems to be carved in sandstone. i spent 25 years in military. in the military we take an oath to defend the constitution and what to view it as an unbreakable document. but then you get here and see that the government says that in public and when the lights are off they take an entirely different view. i think it is important that the people stand up for those of rights. particularly the aclu. i could not have fought this battle without the incredible assistance that they provided. it was not the government. after spending 25 years in the military, it was not the government that stood up for my constitutional right it was the

aclu standing up to make sure they meant something. i am eternally grateful to them for doing that. by thesappointed department of justice and the attitude the attorneys in the department of justice took. one of the things i tried to stress to people who work for me when i was a senior attorney in hadminute -- military and junior attorneys that were overzealous, was that to treat everybody with respect. i feel this was disrespectful. spend, tond defamed, try to make it is painful and difficult as possible. one of the issues that sidetracked us for another year did the i left crs i same thing i did after every military assignment, my last day of copied the files off my computer and left. it took two years before they actually looked at the computer i used and when they did, they discovered i took all the documents and suddenly i am

being accused of theft. cavalierid not have a attitude about me taking my e-mails of the government computer, they said it was government property. they insinuated i could face criminal charges. ad so i had to go out and get criminal defense attorney to represent me when suddenly i am being accused. the doj used terms like misconduct, lack of integrity. it really disappointed me. the way the department of justice pursued this. again, i was fortunate to have standing behind me. if i had been a regular guy off the streets i would have been crushed by the government effort and had to give it up a long time ago. the other thing i learned it is this notion of free speech. there is nothing free about it. it is very costly to speak.

i said, i applied for in excess of 200 jobs and could not find one for a very long time. i went to court at one time, there was an opening for a position comparable to what i had been in and we tried to get them, tried to get them to in that position because i was earning about 100,000 a year less than what i was making at crs and judge walton said that losing $100,000 a year was not substantial harm. i am not sure we are in the same financial circle, but i found losing $100,000 a year was pretty substantial harm. again, the back pay act, congress exempted themselves so i was not eligible for back they so even though it would have eventually settled that i got $100,000, i lost about $100,000

a year for the five years i was out of the government. aboutee speech cost me $400,000. government, in my view, i aink the aclu and may have little bit different opinion. i think the government does have a right to regulate the conduct and speech of government employees if there is a significant government interest that justifies it. in the military for 25 it was an black and white. it was in the rose. the government has the right to regulate speech and conduct if there is that compelling interest and if they make it clear to their employees. the library of congress had a regulation that employees were encouraged to speak and write. got fired fori