themselves but remain confidential or to waive the right of confidentiality and advise them of the potential consequences of that decision. all complaints are evaluated. using our available but limited resources, we must be highly successful -- selective in the cases we accept. we also make case referrals to v.a. in accordance with our complaint referral directive. we make every effort to make sure an official, separate from and at a higher grade than the alleged wrongdoer, is responsible for conducting the review of the allegations. we continue our inquiry until we are satisfied or we will open a case to review the matters further. in many cases, these referrals involve veterans complaints regarding specific episodes of medical care and it is not possible for v.a. to review the complaint without the oig disclosing the identity of the complainant before taking any action. we advise the complainant and request that they provide their written consent to the oig to disclose their identity. if they say no, it goes no further. there is a lot of confusion on the role of the ig regarding whistleblowers and allegations of retaliation. for example the oig does not make a determination as to whether an individual who makes a complaint or provides information to us has made a protected disclosure. this is a legal determination made by the office of special counsel. the merit systems protection board, or the u.s. court of appeals for the federal circuit. these entities have the authority to provide direct whistleblower relief. oig faces many challenges in addressing allegations reported by complainants. vague allegations often present a task akin to looking at a needle in a haystack. for example, it is difficult for us to adequately review a complaint of poor quality of surgical care without details of which clinic is involved. we cannot contact an individual to obtain additional information regarding an allegation if they choose to remain anonymous. similarly, some complainants initially identify themselves but later are unable to or declined to provide critical information that could enable the oig to focus resources more specifically. oig works to protect the identity of complainants who request confidentiality, at times, the complainants become known a some other sources of information. some individuals who have requested confidentiality voice the same complaints to v.a. management coworkers, media outlets, and they have made statements that they are going to come to us or they have come to us. everyone has their own perception as to what is going on. from the whistleblower perspective, they may see the oig coming in and making sure that the eyes are dotted and the teaser crossed. from our viewpoint, we are making sure that all the bases are covered. we have different challenges in verifying allegations especially those complaints that could be criminal. the oig looks to impartially determine the who, what, when where, and why while examining information in a fact-based approach. we need whistleblowers to bring the central issues forward. although whistleblowers perceptions are directly related to their complaint, at times they are not in a position to know all the facts or they overemphasize the viewpoint here it -- viewpoint. mr. chairman, we are not on anyone's side. we are here to find the truth. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from the whistleblowers today and to address these important issues. i am continuing to reevaluate our business processes to ensure that they provide adequate protections for complainants including whistleblowers. this concludes my statement and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> ms. halliday, let me ask you a question. we have danielle here from pogo. when her organization set up a hotline for v.a. employees, she got 800 complaint. you hit pogo with a subpoena asking for all those names. it would seem that you wanted to retaliate against all of pogo's whistleblowers. why did you issue that subpoena? >> i did not issue that subpoena. i think there might be a communications breakdown. from what i understood, the concern of the ig was to understand all of the issues with relation to the manipulation of wait times/. to make sure we have the sites identified and we had all of the sites where potential patient harm could occur. that was the method used. certainly, we understood that pogo did not have the authority to investigate these and we did. >> do you understand the feeling that based on this record that the subcommittee has received ur -- you were subpoenaing pogo to make sure you could retaliate against those 800 people? >> i do not think that was the perception of the ig. we had 98 sites identified where there was potential manipulation of data. v.a. had approximately 150 sites plus we were not sure if we had all the information. something that pogo may have received and we do not even care if we had the names as far as i knew. we just needed to know the site and should we look at it, what is the egregious nest of the complaint. i do think there might have been some communication issues here. >> is the situation is as ms. halliday says, that confidentiality is the cornerstone of oig's work then they have no interest in getting the identities of the people who complain to pogo. >> thank you for an opportunity to clarify. there was no confusion. it is true that ms. halliday was not there at the time, but a counselor of her office contacted pogo's general counsel and we told them right away we were very happy to work with them to give them any information that we were getting without having to give any identifying information about the individuals with whom we were speaking. we had every interest and we wrote that in an e-mail to them, saying give us a second we are overwhelmed, but as soon as we get capacity to let us know what we are finding and where it is we are happy to talk to you hear it the next day we received a subpoena specifically asking for the identities of the people who had contacted us. >> ms. halliday, if i ask you to withdraw that subpoena, what would you say back to me? >> at this point, i would hope that there is no information at pogo that would have resulted in patient harm that we wouldn't know about to go take a look at. i would like to ask maureen reagan to come. >> within 24 hours of complaining to the ig,, her identity was disclosed to her workmates. it seems that confidentiality breaches are routine. >> i would like to speak to that. i definitely heard dr. mitchell. i believe the confusion is, her complaint went from senator mccain's office to v.a. it did not come directly to us. as a result, it is very hard for us to protect confidentiality and i do not believe that the reprisal actions came from our office. based on the fact that i am looking at now. however, it did go to v.a. and it came down the tree from v.a. headquarters to the visn to the medical center and i can understand some of the frustration that dr. mitchell has. >> danielle, i would expect -- could you talk about this subpoena and the work on that? i would expect that if you gave the information to the ig's office those 800 employees would receive severe retaliation or it >> -- retaliation. >> the purpose of our organization is to protect the people coming to us so there was never a question that we were going to turn over the identities. i agree with you, sir. >> could you describe the prospects of not complying with the subpoena? >> it has expired and we are waiting because they have not withdrawn the subpoena. what the ig would need to do is go to a court and have the court enforce it. there have been a number of senators like yourself who have questioned the ig on why they have done this and would they withdraw and they have not been willing to do so. i believe this matter has been turned over to this -- to the integrity committee. >> it would seem to me, ms. halliday, that your predecessor made a mistake by issuing the subpoena. i would add you to withdraw it -- i would ask you to withdraw. >> i will take that under strong consideration. >> thank you. ms. lerner. >> chairman kirk and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the u.s. office of special counsel and our work with the v.a. whistleblowers. my statement today will focus on just three areas. first, our role and whistleblower disclosures and whistleblower retaliation cases. second, an overview of progress made in the past year. finally, some areas of ongoing concern. starting with our role. we help employees who make disclosures of wrongdoing and those who ask.'s retaliation for doing so. there are separate processes for these types of cases. if an employee poses a health or safety concern and it meets a very high standard of review, i send the matter to the agency for investigation. after investigate and, the agency had must submit a report to my office. the whistleblower is given an opportunity to comment on that report. i determine whether did -- report contains the information required by statute and whether the findings of the agency appeared to be reasonable. this includes weather appropriate corrective action including discipline, has been taken. i send that information and our findings to the president and congress. that's a process for disclosures. we also protect federal workers from prohibited personnel practices, especially retaliation for whistleblowing. unlike disclosure cases where we do not have independent investigative authority in retaliation cases, we conduct the investigation and determine if retaliation has occurred. we can get relief for the employee, including a stay of any disciplinary action, reversing a termination, and damages for any losses they may have suffered as a result of retaliation. that in a nutshell is our process for whistleblower disclosures and whistleblower retaliation complaint. over the past year, there have been a tremendous surge of cases from the v.a.. i will talk now about how our agency is addressing them. osc has about 140 employees. we are stretched pretty thin. we have reallocated our resources to prioritize our work on v.a. cases. perhaps most vividly, we implemented an expedited review process for retaliation cases. this process allows osc to prevent -- present strong cases to the v.a. at an early stage, sick -- saving significant time and resources and getting quicker relief for employees. in the past year, we have obtained 22 corrective actions for ba whistleblowers through this expedited process, include a settlement on behalf of dr. catherine mitchell who you heard from earlier and two other phoenix v.a. employees who were at the heart of the wait time scandal. my written testimony summarizes a number of the other cases we resolved through this expedited program including three v.a. whistleblower complaint settled last week. it's a sign of progress that the v.a. leadership agreed to the expedited review process and also agree to resolve many more cases through our regular processes, including mediation. 99 to be exact. we are also encouraged v.a. leadership has enlisted our assistance in training at counsel in retaliation law. on the disclosure site our work has led to important improvements at the v.a., as well as discipline for over 40 officials with many more cases pending. these disciplinary actions include the termination of employees who failed to properly safeguard patient information and a suspension of four employees who improperly handled and restocked expired prescription drugs. these are some of the positive steps we are seeing. there are, however, certain ongoing areas that require more attention. a particular concern is the accessing of employee medical records. in many instances, v.a. employees are themselves veterans and receive care at v.a. facilities. in several cases, their medical records have been as sex -- have been accessed -- accessed without adequate permission. i have notified the v.a. that it should consider systemwide corrective action which could deter these types of breaches. finally, i want to comment briefly on the two whistleblowers who testified in the first panel. osa recently received the v.a. reports generated in response to the disclosures made by doctors mitchell and nee. after our review, the doctors have the opportunity to comment on those reports. we will formerly transmit the information to congress and the president. given we are in the process, i cannot provide details of these matters at this time. however, i can say that doctors mitchell and nee exhibit five the courage and tenacity that are necessary to overcome obstacles to change in an organization like the v.a. while work still is to be done, their efforts will lead to improved care in phoenix and i want to thank them both. in conclusion, we appreciate the committee's interest in our efforts to protect v.a. whistleblowers. thank you for this opportunity to testify and i happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we would like you to go into detail. the method of retaliation you are describing is that the retaliate or for the v.a. goes in to the employee's medical records. maybe that employee has been a veteran and has socked here inside the hospital and will use that information to retaliate against the employee. >> yes. >> that sounds particularly heinous. >> that is one thing we are seeing. it may not necessarily just always be someone who is interested in retaliating. it could be a colleague. >> i understand. about 40% of your case log at the osc is from v.a. employees. >> that's correct. both the disclosure side and the retaliation side. >> what was the worst case where the access of the whistleblowers medical records to retaliate that your office dealt with? >> i'm a little hard pressed to say the very worst, but what i can tell you is this is a really important issue. my written testimony provides more detail on it, but i want to stress to steps that the v.a. should take. one, they should make it much harder to access these medical records. they need a better lock on the system. doctors need to have access to medical records. coworkers and colleagues do not. they shouldn't. it seems like a pretty easy technological fix to put a lock on the system so that only those who have a need to know get into those medical records. the second thing in the bigger picture that i think the v.a. can do is evaluate how it stores information and stop commingling the medical information with the demographic information. for example, what we are hearing sometimes from the v.a. is that we need the employee's address to mail them a w-2 or a pay stub. so we go into their medical records. there is no need to go to employee's medical records to get their home mailing address. if they can stop commingling those two systems, i think it would go a long way to solving this problem. >> i am told that you guys have 316 retaliation open cases now in 43 states. is that true? >> yes, that's correct. that is just on one side. that is not on the disclosure side. >> it shows how widespread this corruption is. >> it's happening nationwide that's right. i can talk more about the numbers if you'd like me to. >> that's great. senator baldwin. >> i want to thank you for holding this valuable hearing and thank you to our witnesses for your time and insight. as i have seen in the wisconsin v.a. facility and in the rest of the nation, the role of whistleblowers is critical to running an effective organization. agencies need to be open to accepting constructive criticism in order to improve, especially agencies such as the v.a. this has been tremendously important to the mission of taking care of our veterans. ms. lerner, i wanted to thank you for mentioning ryan hunnell in your statement. people like ryan truly make a difference and in particular, he helped turn around what was happening at the v.a. in wisconsin. after considering the testimony that witnesses have given and i apologize that i was quite tardy in getting here, but i just have a few questions that i think get to the heart of some of the problems at the v.a. i want to talk about the culture that i have just seen that exists against whistleblowers. ms. lerner, you said that no other federal agency has taken such a proactive approach to training managers on whistleblower protections, yet complaints about reprisals are up. in fact, your statement reads that the osc is on track to receive more than 3800 prohibitive personal practice complaints in this year and that more than 1300 are approximately 35% of those will be filed by v.a. employees. you also make this point. v.a. now surpasses dod in the total number of cases filed with osc despite the fact that dod has twice the number of civilian personnel. i know that secretary mcdonald and his team are working to change the culture at the v.a. yet complaints keep coming. more must be done to change the culture at the v.a. to improve the system so that there is aggressive action against those who retaliate against whistleblowers. the question i have for you is but i would also like to hear what ms. halliday have to say is what specifically do we need to do to change the culture here? >> i think there are several steps that we can take. there are no easy fixes. there are important stacks that the v.a. can take. we have to keep working to change the culture to embrace whittle -- whistleblowers. changing the culture begins with an understanding that we need employees to come forward and report health and safety issues. we don't shoot the messenger, we reward them. we give awards to people who identify problems. deputy secretary gibson came into our public servant of the year ceremony last fall where we honor dr. mitchell and two other v.a. whistleblowers. that's great. they should have their own awards ceremony. i understand the secretary tries to meet with whistleblowers when he goes to visit facilities. that's terrific. but after he leaves, what is happening? the hospital administrators need to be told to recognize and support whistleblowers. they need to keep meeting secretary gibson, secretary mcdonald they need to keep meeting with whistleblowers, listen to them praise them, and repeated over and over again until it takes hold. the second thing is train managers. they are doing a lot of training now but they need to do more. this means hospital administrators and doctors need to get trained in y whistleblowing is important. it may not be intuitive to them as administrators and doctors why whistleblowers are important but they are and the more they are trained, the more it will help. >> i regret cutting you off but i would love the rest of your statement in writing. i did want to give ms. halliday a chance to also respond to that question. >> thank you. i believe you really have to enforce accountability here. when you have reprisals against whistleblowers. it has to be tough. it has to be a point where somebody would take great pause to do that. i think you need training in the v.a. system with regards to the hr personnel practices. you need training in leadership. i think leaders have to step forward and protect whistleblowers. i don't think they always do. maybe they don't have the right tools in their pocket to do that. but it's clear that the need to improve in that area. i personally, in the three weeks i was here, i added a component of training on whistleblower rights when we go out and do our combined program assessment. out of the medical facilities and people in the medical facility at attend these briefings. criminal investigators normally give that. i told them i wanted that piece in their so there is better training. that does not touch everyone in the v.a. system, but it touches a lot of people. those would be some of the things i would look at immediately. >> thank you. >> very quickly, i know we have to vote so i won't take a lot of time. ms. lerner, the 40% of your cases are v.a., so that means 60% are the rest of the federal agencies. >> that's right. >> that's really remarkable. >> we have jurisdiction for most of the civilian workforce. >> we talked about dod and all that, but the reality is, 40% of all the agencies, that's remarkable that it's occupying such a significant caseload of yours. ms. halliday, i agree, we need training in leadership and all of those things. but we also need accountability for those that do go after whistleblowers and very strong actions in that regard. the best i can tell is that it is simply not happening. the other thing is, it does appear that in some cases, there appears to be collision with the ig, with the administration, perhaps telling them too much fax -- facts regarding the whistleblowers and you really need to look into that. the other thing is, i think the hippo laws are being used -- hippa laws are being used in an inappropriate way to prevent people from going forward. that's the excuse. i think that's a huge job for you. we have not had a full ig for well over a year. i appreciate you holding this hearing, mr. chairman, i think it's important. if were not going to have a full ig, we are going to have to step forward and try to do that in place of it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. brian, how does the v.a. inspector general to the other 24 inspector general's? >> there are many more ig's across the federal government at this point and i without reservation can say it is the worst shop in the government. simple. >> pretty decisive. [laughter] on that, i will let our members go. we will be in recession. [indiscernible] >> the medicare and medicaid laws were signed by president lyndon johnson on july 30, 1965. maryland senator marked the occasion on the senate floor. >> mr. president i seek unanimous consent that i be able to speak for no more than 10 minutes. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. i'm here today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of medicare . 50 years ago on july 30, 1965, president lyndon johnson signed into law the legislation to create medicare. mr. president, i say thank god for medicare. it was a great idea in the 50's it was a great idea 50 months ago, 50 weeks ago, 50 minutes. i stand on the senate floor to say, we must keep medicare as medicare, keep the integrity and sovereignty of medicare. we cannot turn medicare into a voucher. we cannot dilute it, phase it out, or eliminated. i will say this until my last vote is cast in the senate. i will defend medicare. i saw what this meant in 1965. that summer, i had just graduated from the university of maryland's school of social work. change was in the air. the civil rights movement was making its progress towards history and moving forward. there were beginningthere were doubts about the vietnam war. the nation was recovering from the assassination of president kennedy. president johnson wanted to lead in a bold way. he said he wanted to create a great society. he knew that a great society meant that we had to have a great heart. what we know then, as we know today, is that people feared financial bankruptcy because of the health care cost. they were terrified that a heart attack that would end up in hospitalization, would bankrupt the family. they delayed the idea of getting cataract surgery which needed to be done in the hospital, because they were afraid, not of the surgery, they were afraid of the cost of surgery. for people over 65, if you are independent, this was a person who never had health insurance after 65. whether an agriculture or urban small business. medicare changed all of that. medicare protected people from two things. number one, it protected them so that they could have the doctor that they needed, when they needed and health care that they needed. the second thing that it did was it protected them from financial disaster. today, 55 million americans nearly every senior, has access to medicare, including one million seniors. what was so significant about that bill is that it provided universal access to doctors. it had no worry about pre-existing conditions. it was portable cousin was national. no met -- because it was national. the matter what state. america at that time had many things going for it. we had a sense of self-confidence that we could solve problems and meet the compelling needs of our country. and, it had compassion. one of my guiding principles that i believed in and that guided the nation was the principle of -- honor thy father and thy mother. we knew it was a good policy to live by. we ensured that all americans had access to health care regardless of their income. as i said in the 1960's. 1965 was the year i actually graduated from the school of social work. i went to a program called responding to the elderly's abilities and sicknesses otherwise neglected. our job, a social worker and a nurse, one of my longest friends from school -- our job was to help ordinary people know about the program, sign up for the program and help them use the program. the joy the sheer joy of people hearing about this program where, simply because they were american citizens, their needs, with a modest premium, could be taken care of. hospitalization. a safety net. in those days, care for significant illnesses had to be done in hospital. the advancement of medicine and medical technology, where we do less in the hospital, the idea of cataract surgery and other things in done now on an outpatient basis was not there. they no longer had to fear the cost of hospitalization. then there was this part called, part b. it meant that you had access to see a doctor. to see if you had diabetes. to see if you had high blood pressure. to see why you could not see those grandchildren or do your work on the family farm. what you needed was maybe better eyesight cataract surgery. maybe you were feeling old and slow because you had diabetes or other consequences. then there was the cost of the dreaded c word of cancer. my colleague and i worked in the neighborhoods to make sure that we took care of how people could get to the facility. know about those services and know about those barriers. in those days, baltimore seniors were struggling. when you retired it was often the end of health insurance. it meant more than half of seniors were uninsured. they went to clinics, standing in long lines. often shuttle from one clinic back-and-forth to another. the look at your kidneys here and your eyes there. primary care was fragmented. before medicare, seniors were just one heart attack away from bankruptcy or one cancer diagnosis away from destitution. that was before medicare. many were skeptical. the other party fought it. they were wondering what it would mean. people were skeptical. was this a big government move or a big opportunity? my job was to show them that this was not about the government -- big government, but government with a big heart. we had enrolled hundreds of people into this program. what does it matter? before medicare 48% of seniors had no health insurance. today, only 2% are uninsured. out-of-pocket costs have decreased. before medicare they paid 66% out of their pocket. imagine what that meant if you were hospitalized in those days at $500 per day. life expectancy is now five years longer. death from heart disease has dropped. the elderly poverty rate has declined. seniors have access to more affordable drugs. this isn't about numbers and it isn't about statistics. it is about people. people and what their compelling human needs are. it is about the government that says i am on your side and at your side. we will use our national resources, our national brainpower, our national know-how to create a program that you can participate in. at the end of the day, your life will be better and our society will be proved -- improved. i am proud of what the president and congress did 50 years ago. i hope we have the same attitude again. it is not about big government, it is about government with a big heart. there are those who continue to talk about ending medicare. most recently, a presidential candidate, who has incredible ability, jeb bush, said that he wanted to phase out medicare. how do you do that? do you start with age? phase out 90-year-olds and then 80-year-olds? do we phase it out by disease? this year, no more diabetics? this year, no more cancer patients? they really cost a lot of money. what is phasing it out and what do you face it out to? medicare -- phase it out to? medicare must not be privatized. do we need to reform it, refresh it, take a look at it? yes. we have done that with part b. no matter what, thank god for medicare. when you go around this country the matter how they feel about government or congress, they love social security and they love medicare. we half to defendant -- have to dfefend it. we have to make sure it is there when we need it. on this 50th anniversary, let's make sure they continue to be focused on this. not big government but with a sense of self-confidence that we consult the problems -- that we can solve big problems. we have done it in the past. mr. president, i will conclude by saying, thank god for medicare and for the ability to be here on the senate floor to defend it. >> general martin dempsey and his wife didi speak to the children of military veterans. he offered advice to the young men and women who want to join the service. it was hosted by the military child education coalition. the children of military veterans generally moved six to nine times during their k-12 school years. >> next i have the honor and the pleasure to introduce two individuals who are no stranger to the military child education coalition. this is the fifth year that general dempsey and his wife have joined us and participated with the military child education coalition. gen. dempsey is the 18th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he and deedee have been married 39 years. they have raised three children all three of whom have worn the uniform to defend this great nation. day in and day out, they have been stalwart supporters to what we do and what we stand for. and our efforts to support the military child. it is with great honor and pleasure that i introduce two good friends. general marty dempsey and his wife deedee. [applause] >> we are glad to be back. has been said, this is our fifth year so for those of you who know how the military works, i now qualify for my silver oakleaf cluster. every year it has been an absolute joy to see you and feel the commitment you make to our children. dededee will remind you that there are things that you have to do and then there are things that we get to do. we get to spend time with people like you. as we come to the end of our career, that is the part we will really miss. really briefly, then i will turn it over to dd and then we will bring a panel of distinguished questioners, today in history chris kristofferson was born. some of you are old enough to remember chris kristofferson. he kind of crosses generations. many of us are member him as a country-western -- remember him as a country-western singer with johnny cash and the highwayman. others remember him as an actor in the "blade" movies as whis tler and in "a dolphin tale." he has done pretty good for himself in entertainment. he described being a military child as magical privileged, and painful at the same time. many of us can relate to what that means. he commissioned into the army and volunteered to vietnam instead they sent him to west point to teach english. while teaching english, he decided to get out of the military and pursue his career in music. i mention that because i was a captain at west point teaching english and i decided to sta y. i have often wondered -- [laughter] not really. i did want to mention that image of painful privileged and magical at the same time. let me turn it over to duty and -- deedee and then we will bring out those youngsters. deedee: as moms, thank you for what you do for kids. as we get the privilege to travel around and talk to families and hear their issues, we can say that msec is working on that. you ought to be proud of what you do for all of those kids. i wish that they had been there when my kids were little itty bitties, but we were. there are kids all over who are thanking you and appreciate what you do even if you do not know what it thank you, select your the questions from the kids. gen. dempsey: when is the raffle? i have been holding onto my ticket. i heard there was a ruffle. where is pam? i was hoping to be part of it. >> [inaudible] [laughter] gen. dempsey: ok. don't make eye contact. [laughter] deedee: they are here. gen. dempsey: this is a great group of youngsters. the best thing to do is to start by having you introduce yourselves. then you will ask me the first question. introduce yourself. >> i am katelynn johnson from falcon high school in colorado and i will be a junior. >> i am sarah from washington. i will be a senior next year. >> i am a junior in florida. >> i am raul gonzalez and i am owing to junior high. >> i am a junior at falcon high school in colorado. gen. dempsey: how about a round of applause? [applause] ok katelynn. >> general dempsey. how do you define your success? gen. dempsey: i don't know. [laughter] oh, you want me to extrapolate? >> yes, please. gen. dempsey: that is a great question. it works at a bunch of levels. the thing i am most proud of, about myself -- although pride is counter to humility which i think is the greatest virtue of all in senior leaders but i am proud of being a soldier. not much more than that. meeting, it is not about the stars -- meaning it is not about the stars. that surprises people sometimes. i am proud of being a soldier, a husband and a father. >> do you think that failure plays a part in that success? gen. dempsey: could you the question? can you say something to make sure they hear you? >> yes, sorry. do you think that failure plays a part in that success? gen. dempsey: failure plays a part in every success. in life -- i'm sure, you have overcome your old -- own challenges. it's like chumbawamba, i get knocked down and i get up again. [laughter] i am trying to connect to the kids. do you want me to break into uptown funk you up? ♪ don't believe me just watch ♪ it really is true. you measure the path of life and the ability to stumble and keep on the path. there are some things that i tell youngsters, to include my own kids, being in high school is about keeping doors open. every door that you imagine is open to you until you do something to close it. that is the great thing about being american. i am a grandson of four irish immigrants. my father was a postman and my mother stocked shelves at a convenience store. i am the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that would not happen anyplace us. the doors are open, you just cannot close them. you can stumble, you just cannot fall flat on your face. i believe it to your imagination to decide which are stumbles and which are catastrophe. do you want to add anything? >> no. gen. dempsey: you get your own questions? deedee: i am not helping you with yours. [laughter] gen. dempsey: anything else? >> that is it, for now. >> i have a question, mr. dempsey. if you had to start over again that our age, would you have done anything if really? -- anything differently? deedee: when i was your age is when i met this guy sitting next to me. the life i lead, i never would have imagined at that age and out looking back i would not have changed it. it has been an amazing ride. i don't think i would. >> general dempsey, i have a question for you. gen. dempsey: good. >> are you ready? do you have any mentors? gen. dempsey: of course. mentors are an important part of growing up. it is a two-way street. you can want anyone to be your mentor, they have to want to be that in return. i have been blessed, in particular that the military leaders i have chosen -- by the way, they do not always have to be older than you. i have peers who i consider to be mentors. i have military mentors some of whom are still on active duty. though, i am now, for better or worse, the oldest officer on active duty. it is hard to find someone older than me to mentor me. even -- mike shish ascii -- mike ksyewski is a great friend. if you are not a duke fan, you probably do not care. if you are a yankee fan you have to live with people from boston. but mentors can illuminate -- they cannot actually do it for you. you have to do it yourself but they can illuminate ideas you may not have had the opportunity to think for yourself. you can take them in. you are the aggregate of the things that impress you and inspire you. i am not a person who believes that you need one mentor. i think that you have to cast your net very wide so you can understand how others have done it and then decide how much of each of them will become you. ultimately it is you. >> have they impacted your life? gen. dempsey: constantly. i get phone calls, sometimes unsolicited and sometimes i reach out every week, for sure. not every day. every week i will reach out or be reached. in particular, on things like -- i am the only one who can define for myself this issue of civilian and military relations. it is challenging. in the information age trying to stay centered as the senior military leader, the advisor to the president and the secretary of defense, the mentor of combatant commanders and the field of servicemen, i have to work to find that centerline. to make sure we are finding a political -- apolitical best military advice. sometimes i will call up a professor who i have a relationship with and i will say -- how did that go? yesterday's congressional testimony? they will say, you moved a little too close to the shoulder of the road. i have not talked to them today so this is not about yesterday. [laughter] but they will tell me. the left or right of the centerline. not the political left or right but they help center me. they help me think about my job. >> thank you. gen. dempsey: you are welcome. >> mr. dempsey in -- in -- gen. dempsey: we are proud of you. take your time. >> can you describe the life of being married to the general? gen. dempsey: in one word? [laughter] i have this whole vocabulary. deedee: humbling. to be in this position is humbling. you get the opportunity to touch the sailors and marines as you travel around. because of marty's job, i have influence to help in situations. to be given that gift is very humbling. there are probably 50 words i could give -- not yours probably. if i had to do one, it would be humbling. you are also an ambassador for your country. marty and i do a lot for our counterparts around the world. no matter where you go, we are representing the united states of america. you land in that plane as the united states of america and people are in awe with their cameras, taking pictures. it is neat to know we have been giving this gift to serve our country and our service members and to care about them as best we can. gen. dempsey: your word was better than mine. [laughter] >> general dempsey, how did you become involved with mcec and how are you helping others? gen. dempsey: that is a great question. it started when i was chief staff of the army. we were asked to come to this thing called mcec, frankly i did not know what it was. deedee: i did. [laughter] gen. dempsey: i didn't, really. the way it works for a four-star general is you have a meeting in your office and you say to your a decamp -- aide de camp, what is next? as you are walking, you prepare for that event. i know that you think i took weeks to prepare for tonight -- today. is it night? [laughter] but it is your lot in life that your life is directed for you. i said to my aide, where are we going? he said mcec. i said, what? i had no idea. and you cannot help but fall in love with the organization and the idea. just the idea that there is a group of people that gather together with sponsors to try to help military children navigate the path they took. so, i have not missed it since. we build our calendar about six months out. when i build my calendar, there are three to four things we put on the calendar and we tell the rest of the world to fit around it. sometimes the white house is a bit of a challenge. that is why these morning events are better for me. they don't really spring into action until the early afternoon, and well into the evening. [laughter] seriously, it has been a privilege to be a part of it. how has that helped my development? that is the question. the answer is, you can become isolated as the chairman unless you put yourself out there and try to find out what is going on. i learn a lot from the adults. i will ask a couple of you a question in a minute. i hope you're ready for that. >> mrs. dempsey same question. how did you become involved in mcec? deedee: i was in germany. in what was at that time called awag. american women american= germans. it was this crazy background. i wanted to learn -- crazy acronym. i wanted to learn more about it. my kids were grown and you get away from it. then, we were asked to come back to speak, it renewed that interest and appreciation of what mcec does for all of you kids. >> which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- gen. dempsey: is it my turn? you've got a real future. i said is it my turn? she said, if you would like it to be. [laughter] >> general dempsey, what is some advise you to anyone interested on joining the military? gen. dempsey: advice on joining the military. we are several things. we give young men and women purpose, meaning and variety. we give them a genuine purpose. you can feel like you are accomplishing something and you are part of the team. my instinct is that young men and women in america today, at some level because of electronic devices, are content to sit in the middle of a football field all by themselves with a laptop connected to the world, you know what i mean? they want to be kind of by themselves but in the virtual world, connected to everybody and everything. what the military does is take that instinct for belonging to something and make it physical. we take it out of the virtual world. from the moment you come in to any service, you are part of the team. that idea is literally drilled into you and it in the -- and it eventually becomes your own. so that's purpose. meaning, there is no higher meaning then be willing to protect your fellow citizens. and then ready, you know, there is a notion that the military is this kind of monolithic giant, faceless carryingless or lack of caring organization. actually, it nurtures. it has a built-in system of mentoring. importantly, we changed jobs almost constantly. we moved 23 times. how many times have you moved? >> neither of my pairs spin will we will get you in and move you a lot. [laughter] gen. dempsey: not only do we move you geographically but we move you from job to job so you can develop this versatility. we literally invest in your development from the time you come in to the time you get out. the last thing