You dont need to go through the va to get an authorization for care. Sir weve got to make it easier for the veteran. Thats what ive been we totally agree. Thank you very much. I yield back. Members were not going to do a second round of questions. Unless theres one that is just absolutely pressing. With that ms. Brown, youre recognize recognized. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for holding this hearing. As far as im concerned failure is not an option. Weve heard a lot of discussion today. And i find it well where im coming from, it used to be program owned. Facts, just the facts. And i want people to understand the facts before they walk out that door. Because ive seen a lot of people snapping up pictures and us making different statements. I want you to give us a list of the facts while we are in this emergency situation and why, if we dont act before we go home, were going to have a crisis at the va. Every member needs to understand where we are. And this is not anything new. I mean, youve been saying it from day one. You need flexibility. And we need to give you the flexibility and then we will hold you accountable. But i need to sit up here and act like we dont have 7 million additional veterans coming into the system oh wait a minute 7 million additional appointments and 4 million veterans and we have a Community Program that youve taken money for from and used and you used the choice where you could, but it had limited ramifications how you could use it. Give us the facts before any of us walk out the door. We will. Thank you. No, no, i want you to answer it. Well, i think i said you had it but i want you to go back and check the box for me. Okay. What i said was what we would like to do is get the authorization to use 2. 5 billion from the Choice Program for care in the community and 500 million for hepatitis c treatment and we would like to get that before the end of the month because we have run out of care in the Community Money in the va budget and we want to keep our care going for veterans. We think we think were in a good plague place in the sense that more veterans are getting more care. 7 million more appointment these year average wait time three days, Mental Health four days, primary care five days Specialty Care admittedly, we have issues we have to work on in other parts of the country. But were making progress in the right direction. We want to keep it going. Our veterans deserve it. So id like to just add that, you know we continue to buy care in the community for patients so that they were not waiting more than 30 days. When we ran out of money in our budget to do that, we took money out of operations to continue to buy that care. We can probably sit here and debate whether that was a wise decision or a bad decision. Had we decided not to do that and leave it in operations we happen we would not be facing any kind of shutdown or closure. But we would have told people back in june at the beginning of june, end of may, there was no more care in the community. You either waited in the va or went some place else. We chose not to have that happen but rather to continue to buy care for patients that could not get care through the Choice Program. And so today, because of that, we find ourselves not having money out in the field to be able to make payroll and stuff during the month of september. And thats really what were asking today is to be able to use choice money set aside to buy care in the community to pay for care in the community. The last thing i know one of the discussion was i know were having some problems in certain parts of the country. But some of the veterans particularly those in florida, they like the care that theyve received from the va. And i dont personally want to see va just going to a specialty. We need comprehensive care in certain areas and i do know around the country its a real problem with getting comprehensive care. But when you look at the approval rate veterans is like what is the percentage from 80 something to 90 Something Like the care that they get in va. Can you respond to that, also . That is what the vfw study told us. The other thing that we see is veterans have always had choice. Remember, 81 of veterans have multiple ways of getting health care, whether its medicare tricare, va. And what were seeing now as we improve care is more and more veterans are deciding to come to va. So the thing weve got to be vigilant about and i take responsibility for sharing the forecast with you is as we continue to improve care, how many more of those veterans are going to be coming to va for their care . Thank you, mr. Chairman for this hearing. Thank you for the time. And i yield back my time. Thank you. Doctor, did i hear you just say that in june, you were at the point that you were going to have to tell veterans you were out of money and there was no longer the ability to have care provided for them in the local community . To the purchase care program, we started pulling money i think it was about 290 something million from vra to supplement that pool of money in probably middle to early june. But is that an accurate statement, to say veterans would not be able to have care provided to them out of the va . Except through choice. Except through choice. Again, you couched your comment to make it appear that you were going to shut the spicket off in june. Theres 9 plus billion dollars, finite dollars, mr. Secretary which is why weve been so protective of that money. Youre the ones that sent out the card saying its a temporary program. As you drain the money out of this program and youve already said rightfully or wrongly one missed. You thought you could weather the storm. Its just squeaked by. But you cant. You got caught. Somebody made a bad decision. Veterans will still get health Care Community through choice. Is that correct . Some veterans will get i understand. I know there are some restrictions on dental issues is and things like that. But youre making it appear with the statement you just made that as of june, you thought you were going to have to start telling veterans they couldnt receive care in the community. I think i said that veterans who could not get care through the Choice Program would not would have to wait for care. Not exactly what you said, but ill go back and check the record. Again i stand corrected. We are at a crisis situation. Again, many of my colleagues have brought that you know scaring veterans at their hospitals are going to close and were not going to be able to pay their salaries, i think is just that, trying to scare them. We are the ones that will have to make the decision whether this money gets allocated and i dont think there is a Single Person that allocates anything less than trying to solve the problem that exists out there. What were asking you is when these issues arise internally the sooner you can inform us i think, the better off everybody is. Were still not satisfied with where we are with the Choice Program. I dont think you are, either. I think you have made those comments. But all lands need to be on that. And with that, i would ask that all members have five legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks. With that, this hearing is adjourned. We will hear from other Administration Officials tuesday. And treasury secretary jack lu on capital hill. Theyll be before the House Foreign Affairs committee to testify on the iran nuclear agreement. That will be live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. On cspan. Org well hear from health and Human Services secretary sylvia burwell. Shell be at a house, education and workforce hearing to discuss the Health Care Laws implementations and other priorities for hhs. Thats set to begin at 10 00 a. M. Eastern and again, you can watch that live on our website. Cspan. Org. When congress is in session, cspan3 brings you more of the access to congress with live coverage of hearings news conferences and key Public Affairs events and every weekend its American History tv. Traveling to historic sites, discussions with authors and historians and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. Cspan3, coverage of congress and American History tv. The cspan cities attorney working with our cable affiliates visit cities across the country and this weekend were joined by comcast to learn more about the Literary History of augusta, georgia. We are sitting here in the Augusta Museum of history. About ten years ago, a decision was made to do a military display, a term military display to honor jim meemy dias. The 3500 or so melths medal of honor recipients since the civil war, it turns out hes the only person ever to have earned both award. He will almost for sure say that he did not deserve it. He might point out somebody else that was more heroic than he was. He never talked about the Carnegie Medal. When i interviewed people who knew him. When i did the book a long time ago, people knew him well. I said tell me what about the Carnegie Medal that he earned when he was 19. They didnt know anything about it. I know a lot of medal of honor recipients. Most of them will tell you, i didnt deserve this medal. It should have been given to somebody else. Its a piece of humility that we all can learn from and i think he would have been in that category. We would visit the boyhood home of our 28th president , woodrow wilson. President wilson moved to augusta as a child when he was just a year old, lived in another house, and moved to this house when he was 3. President wilsons very first memory was standing out on the front gate out in front of the house and two men came by in a hurry with very excited tones of voice. They said Abraham Lincoln has just been elected president and theres going to be a war. So young tommy ran inside to ask his father what is war . What did that mean . Why were they so excited . We think its remarkable that his very first memory was about another president , Abraham Lincoln, and about another war, the civil war. Of course, wilson would have to lead the country through world war i. See all of our praems through augusta saturday at noon eastern. And sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on cspan3. The how judiciary subcommittee on Border Security recently held a hearing on Immigration Enforcement law. Thats coming up in just a moment here on cspan3. Before that, though, a look at how certain parts of the u. S. Are neglecting immigration policy in places known as sanctuary city. Marc rosenblum is with the migration policy snoout institute. Theres been so much focus recently on these socalled sanctuary cities in light of the catherine steinly case. In your research can you help put some of the data to that issue. How many sanctuary cities are there out there and the numbers of undocumented aliens that live in those jurisdictions. A group called the irc estimates a little over 360 jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with i. C. E. When they do detainers. Thats exactly what we mean when were talking about sanctuary cities. Mpi estimates those counties or counties and states are home to at least 5. 9 million unauthorized democrats. Thats about 53 of the unauthorized population in the u. S. More than half of the unauthorized immigrants live in jurisdictions that dont cooperate fully with the Immigration Enforcement. When you say dont cooperate fully, is there a baseline of specific issues where they dont cooperate that makes a jurisdiction a sanctuary city . The main way that dhs does Immigration Enforcement within the u. S. Is when people are arrested by state or local police for any kind of violation. When the Police Department sends their fingerprints to the fbi for criminal background check, the fingerprint data is shared with dls. If dhs determines that that person may be an unauthorized immigrant or deportable for any reason they contact the local i. C. E. Office and i. C. E. Can request the Police Department hold the person after theyre done and the criminal Justice System so that i. C. E. Can pick them up and put them in removal proceedings. So this list of 360 or so jurisdictions are those that dont always hold people for i. C. E. And theres a number of reasons that jurisdictions dont want to hold people for i. C. E. , but the biggest one is that Police Departments believe that it undermines Public Safety. Because when immigrants think that police are involved in Immigration Enforcement then theyre afraid to report crimes theyre not willing to serve as witnesses in crimes. So most Police Departments in the country oppose playing that Immigration Enforcement role. And youve written that the sanctuary cities highlight this tension youre talking about between federal and local Law Enforcement. Can you talk about the history of this and sort of where they sanctuary cities came from, what happens the laws that caused these decisions on these local levels. Well, weve had sanctuary cities for a long time, since the 1980s. A lot of jurisdictions back in the 80s sort of actively resisted cooperating with Immigration Enforcement at that time because you had a bunch of people fleeing the civil wars and Central America and jurisdictions were offering sanctuaries out of support for those refugees and out of opposition to the u. S. Foreign policy in Central America. This current round really in reaction to this enforcement model that i was just describing. Beginning in 2008 is this program called secure communities is the main program that dhs uses to identify unauthorized immigrants within the u. S. And so it relies on this very sort of close form of cooperation between local police and Immigration Enforcements. As that program became more widespread, dhs initially unveiled it in 2008 and at the time described it as a voluntary program. But over the next several years, they decided it was a mandatory program and that jurisdictions, you know, were required to participate in it. And then that really provoked a backlash where you had between the Public Safety concerns and sort of the flawed roll out of the program then making it initially voluntary and then mandatory, you had an increasing number of jurisdictions limiting their cooperation, trying to opt out of the security communities. From a legal perspective, how can local jurisdictions do that . Doesnt federal law have here when it comes to these issues . Well, there is no federal law that requires jurisdictions to hold people after their criminal justice processing for dhs. And, in fact, a lot of these jurisdictions see it as an Unfunded Mandate. What dhs is asking them to do is, you know, once somebody either has completed their time in jail or if charges are dropped against them, so there is no charge pending against them, theyre asking jurisdiction toes hold them for up to 48 hours after that and the locality has to pay for it and so this raises both sort of a fiscal concern because, you know jurisdictions see this as an Unfunded Mandate because theyre being asked to assist with federal Immigration Enforcement and constitution concerns because these are people who arent facing you know, theyre not charged with a crime and theyre being detained in jail beyond, you know, any probable cause. So actually a federal court has ruled that the local you know, county sheriff or Police Department can be held liable if they hold somebody beyond their criminal justice processing. Were talking with Marc Rosenblum of migration policy institute. Hes the Deputy Director of the u. S. Immigration policy program there. You can check out their work at migrationpolicy. Org. Last weeks hearing on sanctuary cities and Immigration Enforcement. This house judiciary subcommittee heard from local Law Enforcement and the father of catherine steinley who was fatally shot in San Francisco by a Mexican National with a criminal record. This is two hours. Sth a judiciary subcommittee meeting. We will come to order. I want to start this morning with a matter of requesting reports from the department of Homeland Security for the potential beneficiaries of two private bills hr242 for karina tesenevic and hr246. Under a long standing agreement between the committee and the first immigration and Naturalization Service and now the department of Homeland Security, the subcommittee requests a report on the beneficiary. U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will stay removal of the a leen enforcement for the next year. I would support this if dhs find no derogatory information the committee can then make up the decision to mark up the private b