to go and see the corps, make the case for their project and then the corps would say, we sat down with these local officials. there are 10 or 15 projects we think are important. and that's going to be a new w way. we're going to give more local input. now, i have to say, madam president, i am very, very, very excited and happy to be standing here today on this issue, because it was one year ago, almost to the day, that the senate passed the boxer-vitter wrda bill by a vote of 83-14. it was almost a year ago, it's been a year of being in conference, a year of struggling with issue after issue after issue, a year of people saying that's it, we're done, we're walking out the door. wait, come back. it's been a year. when you read how a bill becomes a law, madam president, it sounds so simple. it says the house passes a bill, then the senate passes a bill. then their conferees and they

get together and they just work it out. and then it comes back and everyone is smiling and happy and they pass it and then the bill goes to the president. it's not exactly that way. it's a lot of give and take. now, sometimes you do have a bill that's not as complex, that's easier and it can go smoothly. but how a bill really becomes a law, you know, it depends on who's in the room, it depends on what's happening nationwide, it depends on who the president is, it's so many different things. so we were able to do this. so a year ago we passed it in the senate and tomorrow i believe we're going to pass the conference report. the agreement will cost roughly the same as the senate-passed bill and well blow the last wrda bill. i have to say why. because as we authorize projects, we de-authorized old

projects and that's important. so we were able to go almost -- better than one or one, deauthorizing and authorizing. and also we had a very good talk with the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, which is rare that i've ever said a good talk with the c.b.o. because you're very good at accounting, madam president, you're a genius at that and i could tell you they don't make any sense to me but we were actually -- senator vitter and i, were able to persuade them that in this bill, let's be real stick -- realistic at the way we score it. if a state can't come up with matching funds for fen tennessee years, don't put it in as a cost in the first year and the c.b.o. was very open to working with us. i want to thank them. it's a rarity for -- for putting common sense on the table. in closing, i want to thank all the staff on both sides of the aisle that put in countless hours to develop this

bipartisan, bicameral agreement and i'm saying they worked till midnight, 3:00 a.m., they worked on it 24/7 for all these months. i want to thank bettinna peray, the chief of staff of the committee, our chief counsel, our guiding light, our guiding star. jason albriton, who has worked nonstop and will continue to do it until the vote is over, right? get it ready for the president to sign. and ted ilsen who is on the floor, a wonderful, wonderful staffer and tyler rushforth. these are the key people on my staff. you know you think i it would be 20 or 30 more. it's not. it's this handful of people who made this happen for all of us. and i have to say senator vitter's staff, i got to know them so well, and we laughed at times, there was some irony

involved in all this, zack bigg, chris demassey, on senator vitter's staff and senator vitter himself. again, we were able to set aside a lot of differences that we have on climate, on environment and clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, where we go at it, nuclear power safety, we go at it but we were able to say for the good of the people, we got to show the people that we can set aside our differences and come together. we did it here, we did it on the highway bill, and now it's time for the senate to show the american people that we can truly come together and pass this bill. i do want to show you one more thing before i leave the floor, and that is just some of the people who have supported us and who support this bill. i can't read it all, it would take some long. the afl-cio transportation trades department.

the american association of port authorities. the american concrete pavement association. the -- i'm passing over a lot of these. the associated general contractors of america. association of california water agencies. the association of state dam safety officials. the american road and transportation builders. the american farm bureau federation. i'll give you a few more. these are the supporters. the arkansas waterways commission. the big river coalition. the city of sacramento and los angeles, the concrete reinforcing institute. the harbor maintenance trust fund fairness coalition. the international union of operating engineers. the international union of painters and allied trades, the national governs association, the national asphalt paving association. the national association of clean water agencies.

it goes on and a few more just in case you were interested, the national ready mix concrete association, the national rural electric cooperative association, the national stone, sand and gravel association, the santa clara water district, the nature conservancy, the texas department of transportation, the united association of plumbers and pipefitters, the u.s. society of dams, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the vinyl institute, the water resources coalition, the waterways council, inc. i ask unanimous consent that i may place in the record the entire list of these supporters. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: to those of you who are living to this list it did include the u.s. chamber of commerce, it did include the afl-cio transportation trades, which is so encouraging, the national national governors

association and i will read this one. the nation's governors applaud congress for reaching an agreement that provides states with the resources to address their critical water infrastructure needs. governors urge the house and senate to pass the wrda conference report and send it to the president for signature as soon as possible. i just want to say, mr. president, how much i endorse what the governors said. send this bill to the president as soon as possible. i would be remiss if i didn't mention congressman shuster, who heads the committee -- my counterpart committee in the house. congressman shuster was a slight dliet to work with even when it got tough. we had some tough, tough disagreements but he stuck with it. i also want to congratulate him on his victory yesterday and i just want to tell him through this statement how much i look forward to working with him on the transportation bill. if we can do this, we can do

that. and why it's important is, we have to keep america moving. we're the greatest nation on earth, but you can't be the greatest nation on earth if you don't have a water infrastructure, if your cities are flooding, if your ports can't move product. you can't. and you certainly can't have a great nation when you cannot have a highway system that functions, a transportation system that functions, you can't. there is no such thing. because if you can't move commerce, if you can't move people, you can't move america forward. with that i will say again my deepest thanks to staff, my deepest thanks to senator vitter, my deepest thanks to senator carper, to my entire committee, senator barrasso, to congressman shuster, to senator reid, to all of you because this was one of those labors of love we all engaged in, we all wanted a bill, we

put away our little side arguments, came together and now we have a bill that's a multibillion-dollar bill that's going to build our nation and that is going to help our commerce and it's going to put 500,000 people to work. i couldn't be happier. i look forward to this vote tomorrow, and one more person, i will thank congressman nick rahall who worked as the ranking member with mr. shuster. the two two of them were a great team and we were able to cut across the partisan divide, cut across the house-senate divide, tough as it was. it's a great day for the united states senate and for the congress. i look forward to the president signing this bill and with that i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i would also ask for the yeas and nays, as

previously ordered. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, stanley fischer of new york to be a member of the board of governors. the presiding officer mrs. boxer: mr. president, we yield back all of our time. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the confirmation of the fischer nomination. [inaudible] is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to or change their votes? the vote is 68 yeas, 27 nays. the confirmation -- the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate now stands in recess until 2:00 p.m. recess:

they will be back at 2 p.m. eastern. a series of votes is expected about 10 minutes later. those will include a procedural vote on the nomination of david baron to be a circuit court judge for the first circuit. live coverage here on c-span2. president obama met this morning with veterans affairs secretary eric shinseki. the president saying he will not stand for any misconduct that the hospitals and dispatched a team to the phoenix va to investigate. we will have the president's comments momentarily. also likely the action on the va

will come up in today's white house briefing. we are waiting to take you live shortly to the white house. jay carney will brief reporters. it was scheduled to start right about now. we will have that like for you when it gets under way. in the meantime, president obama from earlier today addressing the va issue after meeting with secretary shinseki. >> [inaudible conversations] i just met with secretary shinseki and rob nabors, who i temporarily assigned to work with secretary shinseki and the va, and we focused on two issues, the allegations of misconduct at veterans affairs facilities and our broader mission of caring for our veterans and their families.

as commander in chief, i have the honor of standing with our men and women in uniform at every step of their service, from the moment they take their oath, to when our troops prepare to deploy to afghanistan, where they put their lives on the line for our security, to their bedside as our wounded warriors fight to recover from terrible injuries. the most searing moments of my presidency have been going to walter reed or bethesda or bagram and meeting troops who have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, and their spirit and their determination to recover and often to serve again is always an inspiration. so these men and women and their families are the best that our country has to offer. they've done their duty, and they ask nothing more than that

this country does ours, that we uphold our sacred trust to all who have served. so when i heard allegations of misconduct, any misconduct, whether it's allegations of va staff covering up long wait times or cooking the books, i will not stand for it, not as commander in chief, but also not as an american. none of us should. so if these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and i will not tolerate it, period. here's what i discussed with secretary shinseki this morning. first, anybody found to have manipulated or falsified records at va facilities has to be held accountable. the inspector general at the va has launched investigations into

the phoenix va and other facilities, and some individuals have already been put on administrative leave. i know that people are angry and want swift reckoning. i sympathize with that. but we have to let the investigators do their job and get to the bottom of what happened. our veterans deserve to know the facts. their families deserve to know the facts. once we know the facts, i assure you if there is misconduct it will be punished. second, i want to know the full scope of this problem, and that's why i ordered secretary shinseki to investigate. today he updated me on his review, which is looking not just at the phoenix facility but also va facilities across the nation. and i expect preliminary results from that review next week. third, i've directed rob nabors to conduct a broader review of the veterans health

administration, the part of the va that delivers health care to our veterans, and rob's going to phoenix today. keep in mind, though, even if we had not heard reports out of this phoenix facility or other facilities, we all know that it often takes too long for veterans to get the care that they need. that's not a new development. it's been a problem for decades, and it's been compounded by mor and than a decade of war. that's why when i came into office, i said we would systematically work to fix these problems, and we have been working really hard to address them. my attitude is for folks who've been fighting on the battlefield, they should not have to fight a bureaucracy at home to get the care that they've earned. so the presumption has always been we've got to do better. and rob's review will be a comprehensive look at the

veterans health administration's approach currently to access to care. i want to know what's working, i want to know what is not working, and i want specific recommendations on how va can up their game. and i expect that full report from rob next month. number four, i said that i expect everyone involved to work with congress, which has an important oversight role to play. and i welcome congress as a partner in our efforts, not just to address the current controversies, but to make sure we're doing right by our veterans across the board. i served on the veterans affairs committee when i was in the senate, and it was one of the proudest pieces of business that i did in the legislature. and i know the folks over there care deeply about our veterans. it is important that our veterans don't become another political football, especially when so many of them are receiving care right now. this is an area where democrats and republicans should always be

working together, which brings me to my final point. even as we get to the bottom of what happened at phoenix and other facilities, all of us, whether here in washington or all across the country, have to stay focused on the larger mission, which is upholding our sacred trust to all of our veterans, bringing the va system into the 21st century, which is not an easy task. we have made progress over the last five years. we've made historic investments in our veterans. we've boosted va funding to record levels. and we created consistency through advanced appropriations so that veterans organizations knew their money would be there regardless of political wrangling in washington. we made va benefits available to more than 2 million veterans who did not have it before, delivering disability pay to more vietnam vets exposed to agent orange, making it easier

for veterans who have post-traumatic stress and mental health issues and traumatic brain injury to get treatment, and improving care for women's veterans. because of these steps and the influx of new veterans requiring services added in many cases to wait times, we launched an all-out war on the disability claims backlog. and in just the past year alone, we've slashed that backlog by half. of course, we're not going to let up because it's still too high. we're going to keep at it until we eliminate the backlog once and for all. meanwhile, we're also reducing homelessness among our veterans. we're helping veterans and their families, more than a million so far, pursue their education under the post-9/11 gi bill. we're stepping up our efforts to help our newest veterans get the skills and training to find jobs when they come home. and along with michelle and joe biden and joining forces, we've

helped hundreds of thousands of veterans find a job. more veterans are finding work, and veterans unemployment, although still way too high, is coming down. the point is, caring for our veterans is not an issue that popped up in recent weeks. some of the problems with respect to how veterans are able to access the benefits that they've earned, that's not a new issue. that's an issue that i was working on when i was running for the united states senate. taking care of our veterans and their families has been one of the causes of my presidency. and it is something that all of us have to be involved with and have to be paying attention to. we ended the war in iraq. and as our war in afghanistan ends and as our newest veterans are coming home, the demands on the va are going to grow. so we're going to have to redouble our efforts to get it right as a nation.

and we have to be honest that there are and will continue to be areas where we've got to do a lot better. so today i want every veteran to know, we are going to fix whatever is wrong. and so long as i have the privilege of serving as commander in chief, i'm going to keep on fighting to deliver the care and the benefits and the opportunities that your families deserve, now and for decades to come. that is a commitment to which i feel a sacred duty to maintain. so with that, i'm going to take two questions. i'm going to take jim kuhnhenn at ap first of all. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. as you said this is a cause of the presidency. he ran on this issue, you mentioned. why was it allowed to get to this stage where you actually had potentially 40 veterans who

died while waiting for treatment? that's an extreme circumstance. why could it get to that point? >> well, we have to find out first of all what exactly happened. added to want to get ahead of the ig report or the other investigations that are being done. and i think it is important to recognize that the way times generally, what the ig indicated so far at least, is the wait times were for folks who may that chronic conditions, were seeking the next appointment but make already received service. it was not necessarily a situation where they were calling for emergency services. and the ig indicated that he did not see a link between the weight and then actually done. that does not excuse the fact that the wait times in general are too long in some facilities. and so what we have to do is find out what exactly happened.

we have to find out how can we realistically cut somebody's way times. there has been a large influx of new veterans coming in. ..

scheduled veterans during the course of the year. that is a lot of appointments. and that means that we have to have a system that is built in order to be able to take those folks in a smooth fashion, that they know what to expect, that it's reliable and it means to set standards they can meet. and if you can't meet them right now, then it's going to have to set realistic goals about how to improve the system overall. >> is the responsibility -- >> the responsibility for things is ultimately with me as the president commander in chief. rick should -- shinseki is a veteran and nobody cares more about the veterans and rick shinseki. if you ask me how do i think he

has performed overall, i would say that on the 9/11 g.i. bill into working with us to reduce the back log against the board he has put his heart and soul into this and has taken it very seriously. i have said to rick and i said today i want to see what the results of the reports are and there is going to be accountability and i'm going to expect even before the reports are done that we are seeing significant improvement in terms of how the admissions process takes place in all of our va healthcare facilities. i know he cares about it deeply, and he has been a great public servant and warrior on behalf of the united states of america. we are going to work with him to solve the problem, but i am going to make sure that there is

accountability throughout the system after i get the full report. steve. >> thank you sir. has secretary shinseki offered to redesign coming and were you caught by surprise by the allegations? >> rick shinseki serves the country because he cares deeply about veterans and about the mission. and they know his attitude if he doesn't think that he can do a good job on this and if he thinks he's got the veterans down, then i'm sure that he's not going to be interested in continuing to serve. at this stage, rick is committed to solving the problem and working with us to do it. and i'm going to do everything in my power using the resources at the white house to help that process of getting to the bottom of what happened and fixing it.

but i'm also going to be waiting to see what the results of all of this review process yields. i don't yet know how systemic this is. i don't know are there a part of other facilities that have been put on the books or is this just an episodic problem? we know that, you know, that essentially the wait times have been a problem for decades in all kind of problems with getting benefits, getting healthcare, etc.. some facilities to do better than others. a couple of years ago, veterans affairs set a goal of 14 days for the wait times. what isn't clear to me is whether enough tools were given to make sure that they were

actually met. i won't know until the full report is put forward whether there was enough management follow-up to ensure that those folks on the front line were doing scheduling and had the capacity to meet the goals come if they were being evaluated that were realistic and they couldn't meet because there were not enough doctors were the systems were not in place what have you. we need to find out who was responsible for setting up those guidelines. so there are going to be a lot of questions we have to answer. in the meantime, what i said to him today is let's not wait for the report were respectively -- retro spectacle he. for those currently waiting for appointments that they are getting better service. that is something that we can initiate right now. we don't have to wait to find out if there was misconduct to make sure that we are upping

their game and all of the various facilities. you know, i do think it is important not just with respect to rick shinseki, but with respect to the va in general to say that every single day there are people working in the va who do outstanding work and put everything they've got into making sure that our veterans get the care, services that they need. so i do want to close by sending a message that there are millions of veterans that are getting good service from the va, who are getting really good treatment. i know because i get letters from the veterans asking me to write letters of accommodation or praise to the doctor mac or a nurse or facility that couldn't have given them to better

treatments. and so this was a big system with a lot of good people that care about the veterans. we have seen the improvements on a whole range of issues like homelessness, starting to clear up the backlog and make sure the people that were not previously eligible for disability because there was a mental health issue or because it was an agent orange issue are able to get the services. i don't want to lose sight of the fact there are those in the va that are doing a good job and working really hard at that. that doesn't on the other hand excuse the possibility that number one, we would not -- were not doing a good enough job in terms of providing access to the folks that need unemployment for product conditions. number two, it never excuses the possibility tha that somebody ws trying to manipulate the data in

order to look better or make the facility looks better. it is critical to make sure that we have good information in order to make good decisions. i want people on the front line if there is a problem to tell me or tell rick shinseki or tell whoever is their superior that this is a problem. don't cover up a problem, do not pretend the problem does not exist. if you can't get wait times down to 14 days right now, i want you to let folks up the chain know so we can solve problems. we need more doctors, do we need a new system in order to make sure that the scheduling and coordination is more effective and more smooth. is there more follow-up plaques that is what disturbs me about the report is the possibility that folks intentionally

withheld information that would have helped us to fix a problem. there is not a problem out there that is not fixable. it cannot always be fixed as quickly as everybody would like, but typically we can chip away at these problems. we have seen these with the backlog and with veterans homelessness and the post-9/11 g.i. bill. there were problems with it and it got fixed and now it is operating fairly smooth lease of the problems can be fixed, but the folks have to let the people that they are reporting to know that there is a problem. >> [inaudible] >> they are going to find out. my attitude is listening to someone has mismanaged or as ms. engaged in the conduct, not only do i not want him getting a bonus, i want him punished. so that is what we are going to hopefully find out from the ig report as well as the audits that are taking place.

>> [inaudible] >> the president earlier this morning. now back lif live to the white e for today's briefing with spokesman jay carney discussing mismanagement that started about five minutes ago. >> -- hiding the wait times, for example. it should be punished. there should be consequences. so, he made that clear to the secretary shinseki and he awaits the results of the secretary review and will have preliminary results next week as well as the general investigation. >> we went through this yesterday and i think the day before but i want to try it again. was he caught offguard were surprised by the allegations of the hiding of the wait times, the concealing of the wait times lex times? >> i think the president made it clear that the problems in the

va with access to health benefits have been with us for a country as a long time and have been exacerbated by the fact that we are at a more than a decade long period in the war. we see a significant increase in the veterans come a number of veterans and number of veterans who need this ability benefits and health services. and that has been a challenge for the va for a long, long time. certainly for the past decade or more. so, that is asking said today, the president said today that is not a new issue. it is part of a broader challenge that we as a nation conferencconfront when we dispah americans to countries a long way away to fight on our behalf

and some of them come back in need of immediate health services and mental health services and other forms of benefits and care. the need of jobs and higher education. and all of those needs are very much and have been very much on the president's mind since he ran for the senate and ran for the president since he took office here. and while we have made significant progress in increasing the benefits to veterans and in expanding the availability of the disability benefits to veterans, and reducing veterans homelessness in expanding access to higher education, there is certainly more work to be done. but the president talked about today that it's worth noting is we need to make sure that we have achievable goals set when it comes to appropriate waiting times for those seeking appointments through the va. that process needs to be

evaluated because as the president said if there are goals set that are unrealistic and that creates an incentive for the folks to hide truthful waiting times or cook the books to use that phrase, that is a problem because it obscures problem that needs to be fixed. >> cooking of the books until coming you know -- >> you heard it from the president today so i will refer you to what he said. >> what about the criticism of the management style? is he too detached from some of the nuts and bolts of running the government and administration -- >> [inaudible] >> -- and the healthcare website now that it's -- >> if you look at how the president handles a challenge like the website and handles this challenge, he responds by demanding action, demanding that americans who are counting on benefits and services -- whether

it is a functioning website or benefits through the va -- that they are taken care of. and you saw that with the efforts that were taken to fix the website and with the efforts that are already underway to investigate the problems and allegations that have arisen here with regards to the waiting times for appointments at the facilities around the country. and he expects results and he holds people accountable. and when we see whether or not some of these allegations prove to be true, he will insist that misconduct, mismanagement can be met with consequences. >> when the president says i need people on the frontlines to tell me that the folks withheld information, is he saying that

he was specifically unaware of the double booking allegations were that there would be more of a weeks time -- >> he was referring to the allegation that the folks covered up the long wait times and so, you know, cooked the books which is the phrase that people are using. and his point was as i noted earlier that if there are goals set when it comes to what the weeks time should be where the maximum wait time should be and those are unachievable for whatever reason, sure there are that capacity that the medical facility that ought to be noted at the top. it shouldn't be that folks coming you know, the truth should be covered up in order to meet an objective because the goal isn't to meet an objective, the goal is to serve the veterans. so that is the point that he was

making. >> to follow up and just to make sure, he was establishing that he had been given any new or additional work authority on the challenge to see patients -- >> i am not going to parse his words and i certainly refer you to the va for discussions about, you know, secretary shinseki and information he knows. the president spoke to us very directly on his point that i just made. >> to follow up on a separate question. how did the president react to how democrats did on the primary returns? >> i haven't spoken to him about that. yes sir, welcome to the front row. >> [inaudible] given the president's highly regarded for general shinseki, why wasn't he appear with him today? other times he talk broad cabint secretaries with him. >> in this room i can trigger an occasion cabinet secretaries have come out with him.

i'm not saying they haven't come up the president came out to make a statement about the va and take a few questions about this current situation. he met, obviously, at some length with secretary shinseki on this issue, and i think he spoke to his view of general shinseki's long and courageous service to the country and to the veterans. >> so, the veterans and people that work for the va for the president also met with today shouldn't take anything from the fact that shinseki was not out here with him? >> my guess is that the veterans care most about knowing what happened and knowing that the commander in chief is insisting on results with these inquiries and accountability one once we w exactly what happened and who is responsible for any misconduct. that is what most veterans, especially those who acquire both benefits and require disability benefits care of.

>> on the house bill, the group that represents people in the executive levels of the government is considered that the due process could be put out the past year by the house bill. is that one of your concerns? >> i don't have a list of concerns. we share the overall goal which is empowering the secretary to be able to hold folks accountable. there are tools already that allow for folks to be held accountable, and to the president has conveyed to the secretary that he expects the secretary to make maximum use out of the existing tools, and i think that you have seen for example in the phoenix office of the folks that have been put on administrative leave have been put on the exercise of some of those authorities that already do exist. yes? >> i just want to get your response on the criticism on why

does president obama way to address the situation only to ask the veterans for more time [inaudible] -- your reaction to that? >> to the head of the national republican committee on the issue. >> about what is your reaction that he offered words and no action to fix the problem? >> i think there is sometimes an expectation and emphasis in washington on rhetoric as opposed to action. the president when he first heard about these specific allegations with regards to the phoenix facility directed immediately secretary shinseki to launch a review. he reported to secretary shinseki's request for an independent investigation by the inspector general. he then dispatched one of his most trusted advisors to the va to an effect as an additional set of eyes and ears on his behalf as well as brainpower as part of the review that the

secretary is undertaking and as a part of a separate and broad review that mr. neighbors himself is undertaken. and as you heard from him today, he understands and sympathizes with and shares the desire for the swift reckoning. but he also believes that it is important to gather all of the facts first. he wants the facts gathered quickly and he expects pulmonary results from secretary shinseki next week on his review. and then he will go forward. so, i think that's the kind of action that folks expect. but i'm glad the rnc directors weighed in. >> the president said an issue he's been talking about quite some time going back to when he first ran for president in 2008. does he feel on some level that he let the voters don't? >> the president feels there is a sacred trust as commander in chief to ensure that we are doing everything we can to

assist our veterans, and as he said when he stood before you in this room and at this podium, ultimately he absolutely feels responsible when there are indications that we are not as an administration and veterans affairs department doing as well as we could be or should be by our veterans. that's why he wanted investigated and that's why he wants those who participated in the misconduct to be held accountable if in fact that is what has happened. that is his focus. his focus has also been since before he took hi this office on increasing the benefits to the veterans on launching programs that ensure that the veterans are getting when they come back from fighting for us opportunities to pursue higher education that they wouldn't otherwise have come if they are -- if they come back from iraq and afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder that they can make a claim for

disability benefits without having the foundation of their plan ever questioned and that is an approach that he feels is necessary with regards to the vietnam war veterans when it came to a gentle range. these are new things that have happened, new policies that have been instituted on the policies that earnethat turned the rightd benefits that happened. and that have access to them for the first time. so that has been his focus and will continue to be his focus. he's also been focused on reducing veterans homelessness for joy think is a shame for all of us in the country when we have seen those that have fought and bled for us to come home and face even greater obstacles than the general population to get more. we shouldn't tolerate that, and he doesn't and that is why he has made sure that we reduce veterans homelessness. >> finally, one of the ideas that has been discussed in dealing with the broader problem is allowing the veterans to seek help outside of the va for

whatever reason the help is being delayed. is that something that the president would consider? >> i would have to take that question. i think that is more of a question for the va when it comes to policies and access they have to the benefits into what it means. i mean i certainly think it is an interesting fact i heard earlier today about the access to medicaid for example that some veterans would have in some states without that expansion of medicaid had been denied by the governors and legislatures and benefits -- veterans would have access to medicaid in many of these states if their income level qualifies but they hear being denied those benefits because the states chose not to come have chosen not to expand medicaid under the affordable care act. yes ma'am. >> [inaudible] to be related to another nuclear

attack. what is the u.s. reaction about north korea's plan -- >> as i said on a couple of occasions, any violation of the united nations security council resolutions would be viewed very dimly by the united states and our allies and partners around the world and in the region. and we certainly take the provocations that north korea systematically engaged in very seriously. >> why don't we talk about the president focus on the joblessness and other problems that suffered throughout his administration. but he was told or his team was told during the transition to the wait times were unreliable. did he look into that? did someone in the white house look into that? >> i think that you heard the te

president of the united states -- and you were sitting there as i recall, talk about the fact that the issue of the veterans having to wait for too long in some cases that some facilities around the country for access to health benefits and services of medical facilities have been with us for a long time. and it is a challenge that has been exacerbated by the fact that we have so many more veterans now and so many that need the benefit of veterans medical facilities provide and doctors provide. >> is that different than saying the wait times are unreliable? >> i know that documents you are referring to. i don't know the specifics. what i can say is from the president and down, we acknowledge there were issues that the president talked about at the va when he came to serve the highest service possible to the veterans. that's why he made a commitment

to increase our funding for the va and to increase and expand access to benefits for the veterans. but as the president said earlier today, there is more work to do, and it is intolerable in his view that if it is proven true that individuals may have engaged in a misconduct covered up the wait times or falsified reports, in a way that exacerbated the problems by keeping from the managers and senior officials at the va for the facts about the wait times if that impact was to be true. >> on another subject, the marines in mexico, what is the president's first on this come is it getting to the state department to get him back, have they talked to the president personally about it? >> i will take the question. i haven't had that discussion.

>> [inaudible] -- pentagon advisory panel recommendations that the u.s. development on the rockets to launch military satellites that it would cost up to 1.5 billion to do that. is that an effort to the white house is likely to get behind? >> i haven't seen that recommendation. i know that they are in the context of ukraine and the sanctions and discussions and some statements were made with regards to the space program, but i haven't seen that recommendation. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think i'm principle that we announced our support for the billion-dollar programs. >> what is the status of the review of the practices that the secretary is sitting at? >> is ongoing as i understand it. i would refer you to them. >> is the white house reviewed in this or is it partitioned? >> the president asked the

secretary johnson to conduct the review. the president is very focused as he spoke about the need to ensure that we are enforcing our law in a way that is as humane as possible and that it takes into consideration some of the issues and concerns that are associated with families being separated, for example, on the matter of deportations. but for the action on the review that is being undertaken by the secretary and the dhs. >> and the action will come first and it will come back to the white house or will the white house have any input cracks spin it as a general matter, we have input on the various issues, but the result itself is being conducted by secretary johnson and i would refer to you to the updates on them. john? >> the president said that there is going to be accountability. [inaudible] >> if the allegations that have been proven made are proven true, he expects people to be

held accountable. and how they are held accountable will obviously be determined. but if they are proven true, pretty much it sticks to the faith that the allegations need to be proven true before folks were punished for conduct. but if they are proven true and if people are covered up in the wait times and engaged in other kinds of misconduct that they ought to be held accountable and will be. >> in his support for the president shinseki he seemed less confident that he's going to see some results as the -- >> the manager expects results from the people that he appoints to the high office, and tv leaves as he cited by secretary shinseki has poured his energy and his heart into his work on behalf of the veterans, and just as he did when he served so

admirably in the military and the president noted the progress that has occurred in terms of the veterans homelessness disability claims and expansion of education benefits for the veterans because of the work in general shinseki has done. but when it comes to this matter, the president wants to see the review and he wants to know what happens if you want to understand the management decisions that surrounded these issues and whether or not there was a misconduct or mismanagement. >> is secretary shinseki on thin ice? if it doesn't show satisfactory answers are his days numbered? >> i think everyone in the high office in the administration serves for the president. >> was the president referred to the report and said that the indication didn't seem to be the link between the wait times and i veterans actually dying is he

referring to the testimony last week or does he have new information? >> i believe he was referring to the testimony that we had last week and others reported on but again, this is independent ig investigation. and the public testimony that he gave preliminarily as he got down the list. he hadn't seen the link but as the president said, you know, that needs to be further investigated. we don't have the final results will be and we want those results. and even if it turns out there is no direct link established, that doesn't excuse some of the other conduct that has been alleged. if they covered up the wait times and falsified documents and records, those are serious offenses and there should be accountability for them. >> the last question is what was

the president's reluctance in speaking out? dystopias emerged and he was asked and talked about it, but since then, the american legion called for shinseki to re-sign. that was about two weeks ago. there have been story after story. what was the president's reluctance -- >> the president was focused on getting things done. when he learned of the allegations in the phoenix office, he made it clear to the secretary and to the public in a news conference and those answers he wanted to get to the bottom of it. he endorsed a recommendation to have the independent inspector general conduct his own investigation into these allegations. he dispatched his very trusted and senior advisor to the va to add capacity to that effort in reviewing what happened and providing information back to the president so that he could make judgments about the accountability. so, i think that his record

demonstrates his commitment to the veterans. veterans. and what you heard from him today reflects the passion that he feels on this issue. >> what was the reluctance that he got on this? does he want to wait for the investigations to be done? does he think they are counterproductive -- the story has been a big story. it's been on the front burner for at least a couple of weeks now. and the president hasn't come out. obviously he feels very passionate about it today. why didn't we hear that from him before today? back you heard from him today. you heard from him on his trip and he's taken actions on the interim. and he eagerly awaits the results of in the review that the secretary shinseki has been initiating entity investigation of the independent ig. >> gerrit? sorry, i just talked to abc -- of course i will get to you but

i didn't want to go abc, abc. think about how the other acronyms would feel. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> there you go. that's why you're next. >> when we are talking about the longform review that nabors says in respecting that report back next one, is that something that rob nabors or someone at the white house could have done, and after the transition or after the memo surfaced in 2010, why is this being done now especially in conjunction with this controversy as opposed to having just been done earlier on the white house review? >> when the president came into office, he appointed by secretary general shinseki to the post at the veterans affairs department. he was confirmed obviously by the senate to hold that post and he said he had been tackling some of the many challenges that the veterans face and that the va faced and servicing the

services to the veterans. what the specific review around the obligations associated in the phoenix facility and now other facilities is meant to do at the broad review is meant to do is to assess where we are now giving these allegations and what needs to be done to improve areas where we are not performing, where the va is not performing at the highest level and to build upon those areas where there have been success and improvements. >> when we talk about the chinese cybercrime, what the united states anticipating retaliatory accusations made by countries including china when it comes to cybercrime? >> while, on that specific question, on a cyber issue i think that retaliation specifically would be inappropriate. the individuals charged -- and i would refer you to the department of justice, they were

charged with violations of the law and should absolutely face those charges. this is not a political situation. it is a firmly held belief and matter of law that individuals should not and cannot reveal trade secrets and there shouldn'shouldbe government unar attacks of trade secrets for the benefit of the state-run companies. >> especially by charging the military officials in another country of the military officials of the u.s. services were charged with a cooperate in that kind of investigation or prosecution? >> it depends on what they are charged with. what these individuals are charged with our practices that we do not engage in. we do not in the united states engage in intelligence gathering. it is a benefit for the

individual companies or businesses to help the bottom line. we don't provide into the gents in order to benefit, to give them an advantage in the marketplace or to improve their bottom line. that is an activity that is -- that this country does not engage in. >> thank you very much. the president of russia says that the u.s. satellite intelligence should be able to show the russian forces pulling away from the ukrainian border. is that what the united states is seeing? i think the last time you said you had seen no movement. as the presence of the forces impacting what you expected in terms of the election this weekend of the president election? >> we have seen some indications of activity on the border but it is too early to conclude that those with the activity indicate they withdraw from the border. should this be the beginning of a withdraw, we would welcome such an effort. but there is a caveat to that.

we have seen in the past some movement in the battalions that you still have a huge and unprecedented presence of the russian troops on the ukrainian border, which can only serve to intimidate and destabilize ukraine in the run-up to this very important election. so the answer to the second question is absolutely. we firmly believe that the deployment of the russian troops right on the border is meant to intimidate and to potentially meant to lead to the incursion across the board are. we welcome any indication that russia has trust in a different path. but we don't want to assume that the fact that there is activity on the border means that withdrawal will take place. >> is president obama opened to any kind of conversation when they are open to weeks from now? >> we do not anticipate any bilateral mediums at normandy.

the leaders are at normandy to commemorate the heroic battles that took place as a part of d-day that eventually led to the end of the world war ii. i do not anticipate a bilateral meeting and certainly not one scheduled. steve? >> i want to ask about the convention that has been essentially five months since -- 2.7 million people cut off from their benefit. [inaudible] and going nowhere. do you have any reaction to it? >> we continue to call on the congress to provide emergency benefits to americans who are looking for work. as much as they did repeatedly at the earlier stages of the

recovery and during the previous administration. it's a shame because these are folks out there looking for work and need assistance to pay their rent and feed their families and i think that any economist can there find that assistance has a direct and positive benefit to the economy and an immediate method to the economy because the unemployment insistence -- on unemployment insurance is assistance that immediately gets funneled back into the economy and helps create jobs and drive growth. so we continue to call on the congress to take action. >> the president has called for pressure house republicans. why hasn't the president picked up the phone and called the speaker runner and asked him what it would take to get the bill on the floor? >> we do not report all the details of every conversation the president has with leaders

in congress. i think it's a novel supposition that speaker boehner noticeably call him and ask for. >> the speaker has said repeatedly basically everything that he has been asked the question that he is awaiting for the white house and the president to make a new offer on jobs before he go consider an extension and he hasn't gotten one. >> well, it is our view that these are benefits that ought to be extended to americans coming to millions of americans in need oof income and there is an economic benefit to it. we do not view it as a cynical trading exercise to achieve some of the ideological objectives. steve? >> they just named the democratic members --

>> again, we be sure t deferrede wisdom of the leader pelosi in making decisions. we have a cooperate it substantially, and i will spare you the recitation of the documents in the committees and the interviews and the testimony. others have noted that there is the multiple investigations by multiple committees. and every one of the conspiracy theories that republicans have put forward have come undone and have never been proven. i'm not sure i anybody would believe that this committee and to this investigation would produce a different result. what it will do is consume the congress time and taxpayers money. and supposedly -- presumably because republican political leaders have endorsed it as such, to provide energy to the

republican base for the political reasons to raise money and to campaign. i don't think that's the way that most americans view that a matter like this should be addressed. >> you said before they cooperate with all legitimate oversight. what is the process and who makes the decisions and what art thou -- are about qualifiers for what is and what isn't legitimate oversight? >> it's not like a plaintiff's decision that is made. there are requests that are made and invitations offered and goes othere's also evaluated accordingly as they have been in the past. >> i wanted to take another bite at the net neutrality. you said that you are going to o look at the reviews and the rules. that was kind of interpreted, i

guess i have more faith in you -- [laughter] if you could detail exactly who would be leadin leaving that red who would entail and whether you expected to be done in the 120 day review period. >> i do not have a detailed layout of the process or how the progress is evaluated. but i can tell you the president has been clear he cannot support a future in which internet providers gatekeepers over who can determine what information consumers are able to access over the internet or switch innovative companies have a shot at success. but recognizing the challenging landscape by their stated goal of preserving the open internet and about long way to go in the regulatory process. i am not and nobody else here will -- i am not going to and nobody else will recharge the

specific path forward to achieve the president's principles. [inaudible] >> i don't think that we are going to read out the process on how we review this. they are an independent agency and the president has made clear what his views are. we recognize the challenges that the court has created in the way that the chairman and the fcc approaches these matters. the president's principles are clear. thank you all very much. >> jay carney was asked about this issue and it appears this afternoon that the democratic leader nancy pelosi will be naming five democrats to the house select committee on benghazi. adam smith of washington is the

ranking member on our services, adam schiff of california, linda sanchez and tammy kennedy army veteran and also armed services committee member. those five named to the benghazi committee. we expect to hear more from the leader pelosi in her briefing coming up in about 15 minutes. you can follow that live on c-span three and also online at c-span.org. he was asked a number of questions about this eric shinseki meeting with president obama on the continued problems of healthcare services at the va. some comments from capitol hill on the president's meeting today. mitch mcconnell, the leader in the senate saying unfortunately, so far i have yet to hear from the president that he is treating the va crisis with a seriousness that it deserves.

american trials. without i rise today to oppose the rise nomination of anyone who would argue that the president has the power to kill an american

citizen not involved in combat and withouti a trial. legal i rise today to say that there nonee killing citizens not involved ie combat and that anyr nominee who grants such portray president is not worthy of being placed one step away from the supreme court. it is end about just seeing the memos. some seem to be placated by the fact that they can read these memos. ibp is it is about what the memos themselves say. i believe that at their very core that they disrespect the bill of rights. the bill of rights is end so much for the american idol winner. the bill of rights isn't so much for the prom queen or the heist will football quarterback. it's for the least popular among us. the bill of rights is especially

for minorities. whether you are a minority by virtue of the color of your skin or by the shade of your ideology. the bill of rights is especially for unpopular people. and unpopular ideas and unpopular religions. it easy to argue for trials. it is easy to argue for the trials for the high school quarterback or the american idol winner. it is hard to argue for the trials for traders and for people that would wish to harm our fellow americans. but the mature freedom defends the defenseless. it allows trials for the guilty, protects even speech of the most despicable nature. after 9/11 we all very coiled at the americans. we fought the war to tell other countries that we wouldn't put up with this. that we wouldn't allow this to

happen again. as our soldiers began to return home from afghanistan, i asked them to explain in their own words what they had fought for. and to the soldier they would tell me that they fought for the american way. they fought to defend the constitution and they fought for our bill of rights. i think that it does a disservice to their sacrifice not to have an open and full public debate about whether an american citizen should get a trial before they are killed. let me be perfectly clear. i am not referring to anybody involved in a battlefield. anybody shooting against our soldiers. anybody involved in comba combas no due process. what we are talking about is the extraordinary concept of killing american citizens who are overseas but not involved in combat. it doesn't mean that they are not potentially and probably are bad people. but we are talking about doing

it with no accusation, no trial, no charge, new jersey. of the nomination before us is about killing americans not involved in combat. the nominee that david has written in defense of execution of american citizens not involved in combat. make no mistake of these memos do not limit the drone executions to one man. these memos become historic precedent for killing americans abroad. some have argued that releasing these is sufficient for his nomination. this is not a debate about transparency. this is about whether or not american citizens not involved in combat are guaranteed due process. realizing that during the years most of president obama's party, including the president himself argued against the detention,

not the killing, they argued against the detention of american citizens without a trial, yet now the president and the vast majority of the party will vote for a nominee that advocates the killing of american citizens without trial. how far have we come in how far have we gone? we once talked about detaining the citizens and objecting they would get no accusation and now we are condoning killing american citizens without a trial. during the president obama's first election, he told the "boston globe" know, i reject the claim that the president has authority under the constitution to detain american citizens without charges as unlawful combatants. but now as president, not only has he signed legislation to detain american citizens without trial under that he is now approving of killing american

citizens without a trial. where has the candidates gone? president obama now put forward david bea barron. i can't tell you what he wrote in the memos. the president forbids it. i can tell you what david barron did not write, killing any american without a trial because no such legal precedent exists. it has never bee been attitude dictated. no court has ever looked at the center has been no public debate because it has been held secret from the american people. barron creates a defense for executing american citizens without trial. the cases that he cites, which i am forbidden from talking about and from citing to you today are unrelated to the issue of killing american citizens because no such cases have ever

occurred. we have never debated this in public. we are going to allow this to be decided by one branch of government in secret. and yet, the argument against the amendment and against what he proposes should be no secret and should be obvious to anyone that looks at this issue read no court has ever decide to case. so, the secret execution relies on cases which upon critical analysis have no pertinent to the case at hand. am i the only one that thinks something as unprecedented as the assassination of an american citizen that this shouldn't be discussed but that we should discuss this in the light of day? by the only one that thinks the question of such magnitude should be decided in the open by the supreme court? barron's arguments for the killing of american citizens

challenges over a thousand years of jurisprudence. the trials based on the prevention of innocence or a name change right. the ancients wrote the burden of proof is on he who declares and asserts that you are guilty for not on who denies. the burden is on the government. we described this principle as the principle of being considered innocent until guilty. this is a profound concept. this is not something that we should quietly acquiesced to having it run and diluted and eventually destroyed. in many nations, the presumption is a legal right to be accused even in the trial. and the america we go one step further to protect the accused and we placed the burden of proof on the prosecution. we require the government to collect and present enough

evidence to a jury and not one person that works for the president and a bunch of people in secret but a jury the evidence must be presented but then we go even further to protect the possibility of innocent movie require that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. if reasonable doubt remains it is to be acquitted. we set a very high bar for conviction and execution and even doing all of the most appropriate things we still sometimes have gotten it wrong and have executed people after a jury trialjune the trials mista, you're obviously. but now we are talking about not even having the protection of a trial that only accusations. are we comfortable killing american citizens no matter how awful or heinous the crime they are accused of, are we comfortable killing them based on accusations that note sure he has reviewed a.

it is tested. we are being tested for that consensus is the accused is very likely guilty. in this case the trader that was killed in all likelihood is guilty. the evidence in the secret appears to be overwhelming. and yet, why can't we do the american thing and have a public trial accuse them and convict them in the court. it is innocent until proven guilty when the accused is unpopular or hated. until proven guilty it is difficult when it is without treason. the bill of rights is easy to defend when we like the speech and sympathize with the defendant. defending the people that we fear or dislike is difficult. it's extremely hard.

but we have to defend the bill obillof rights word .-full-stopy from us. it is hard to differentiate someone that looks like you war that has the same color skin or someone that has the same religion. it's easy. presumption of innocence is however much harder for the citizen practice is a minority religion when the citizen resides in the foreign land or sympathizes with the enemy. yet the history is replete with heroes that defend the defenseless in who defend the unpopular and sometimes defend the guilty. the ones that are guilty of the boston massacre every remember fondly those that remember the unpopular even when they end up being declared guilty. it's something they take pride within their system. we remember john adams when he

defended the slaves in to take over the amistad. we remember henry the defended the unpopular when he represented susan b. anthony that voted illegally. we remember eugene who defended himself when he was accused of being against the draft and was given ten years in prison. we defend the unpopular. that is what the bill of rights is especially important for. we remember clarence who defended the unpopular in the trial and we remember thurgood marshall who defended the unpopular when he convinced the courts to strike down the regulation. where would we be without these champions and without applying the bill of rights. to those that we actually think are guilty. where would it be on the popular

be without the protection of the bill of rights? one can almost argue the right to trial is more precious than more unpopular that defendant. we cannot and should not abandon this principle. critics will argue that these are evil people who plot to kill americans. i don't dispute that. my first instinct is like most americans -- senator paul from earlier today. we are going back live to the gavel with a procedural vote on the nomination. coming up shortly on c-span2 a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you. the senate is about to proceed to several votes on important nominees and i wanted to put in a s