mr. frye and the various legal arguments made by the v.a. litigation makes it seem unlikely that over the last number of years clear policies and procedures were in place. g.a.o.'s testimony points out significant weaknesses in v.a. monitoring and oversight of its nonv.a. medical care program. perhaps it is now time to stop applying quick band-aids and resolve right now to fix what is wrong. it took years for v.a. to get into this problem. and it will take time to fix it. but the first step in addressing the problem is to acknowledge these problems and quickly and forthrightly come up with a concrete plan to fix them. finally, i'd like to thank mr. labonte for appearing before us today to relay his story which is absolutely horrendous. mr. labonte reminds us that the bottom line is the quality of care for our veterans. in quality can certainly be impacted by lack of accountability and process when it comes to making sure that all relevant laws regulations and policies are followed. and with th

mr. frye has indicated similar levels of mismanagement and abuse in the procurement of non-v.a. health care services by vha. by far the most prevalent method by which veterans receive non-v.a. care is through the individual authorization so-called fee basis process. under title 38 of the code of federal regulations section 17.52, the v.a. is authorized to obtain non-v.a. medical services when demand is infrequent and the needed health care is not available in-house or through an existing contract. unfortunately v.a. uses this process even when these requirements are not at issue. moreover, v.a. admits that the execution of these authorizations does not comply with the contract requirements of the federal acquisition regulation, or f.a.r. and veterans affair acquisition vaar. mr. fry will testify that by long standing and massive circumvention of the f.a.r. and vaar in the fee basis authorization process v.a. has illegally obligated billions of dollars. he well explained that v.a. incurs billio

mr. frye will tell you about that. if they were above the $10,000 authorization for fee care and were non-far based, one could logically say they probably require ratification. and if they require ratification, one could make an argument that they perhaps were not proper. >> okay. i'll allow a colleague to pursue this, because if they choose because i'm out of time and for the record will ask mr. williamson what is noble about the cost of purchasing this care without contract $7 billion do we know it or is it noble? but i realize i don't have time now. we'll ask this question for the record and yield back to the chair. >> thank you, mr. o'rourke. now five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am aiming this in the direction of mr. murray and boyle. not sure which. there's a business in my district that supplies specialized shoes. diabetic shoes and to vets through the va. however this business didn't have a contract. in november of 2014 11 notified them that the custom orthotic appliance and related service released a

mr. poore. i believe you are represented by cathy frye, is that correct?ir. >> unlike cedric whose public defender is likely to be carrying a heavy case load and have limited resources, james poore has hired a private defense attorney. >> miss frye has been in this morning. not guilty plea entered on your behalf. good luck. >> thank you. >> after the arraignment, the two brothers try to talk. but an officer notices the exchange and separates them. >> did that go the way you thought? >> oh, no. i didn't know nothing about no attorney. how is his court process moving quicker than mine. >> you tried to talk after you were arraigned. what were you trying to say to him? >> how did you get an attorney? how were you able to afford an attorney. i know i'm scrambling to try to get an attorney myself. >> you gonna be cool? >> it never hurts to shed a tear especially when you're a man of deep feelings. >> catch up, catch up, catch up. >> on the advice of his new attorney, james declined to discuss the case any further. but as he is led to a single-person segregation

. >> tim frye here to talk about things from the historic preservation commission the historic preservation commission architecture review meet to review 72 ellis on our calendar today mrout the review but the commission wanted me to gnaw to the planning commission how much they appreciate work in a collaborative way especially 2, 3, 4 regards to the design review and supportive of this commission referring the item back to them for review when the full commission convened one of the first items on calendar was president from commissioner hyland to be part of the san francisco update the port was in attention and supportive of that appoint i'll keep you posted and commissioner hyland any developments on those working groups commission moved ton 0 it's only entitlement at questions hearing for e 55 stevenson the sky bridge connecting the market on a category one building under the building code on stevenson the architecture review committee reviewed the design and was she very supportive of the design the commission vociferated unanimously in support of the project along with staffs recommendation and conditions of approval the item be before this commission at our augu