and tell a story about their relationship with the department of veterans affairs. a veteran from hutchinson, kansas, called to tell us that he filed a claim with the v.a. it's been filed for six months. and he's still waiting for a decision. unfortunately, that is all too common. a veteran from norton, kansas, filed a claim for service shf connected due to agent orage of he has been diagnosed with cancer and is seeking treatment. he's been informed that it can take seven to eight months before they'll examine his claim. and while his cancer is not curable, it is trea treatable. and yet he has a seven-to eight-month waiting period before he can receive benefits. a vet from salina, kansas, in the central part of our state, indicates that he or she received double vaccinations before he was employed to desert storm due to his predeployment

package had been lost. he indicates he now suffers from several health conditions as a result and has been informed that the v.a. denies his benefits. a veteran from hutchinson indicated that he's been fighting with the v.a. for seven years on appeal. so he's got something pending with the v.a. they've provided him an answer that is unsatisfactory and he is appealing that decision. claims the v.a. continues to ignore the evidence he provides and intentionally attempts to drag out his appeal process. and he has difficulties finding updates on his appeal when he contacts the v.a. just someone who calls the office, asked for our help, one more example. a veteran from wichita says that his doctor -- doctors have discovered a mass on his brain. this will require an m.r.i. to determine what the mass is. the earliest appointment

available for him is on june the 30th and he, of course, as we all would be, is concerned over that long wait. so diagnosis of a brain -- a mass on the brain. don't know what it is. need an m.r.i., just what a doctor would order to get additional diagnostic information, and yet cannot get the m.r.i. until june the 30th. a veteran from junction city. junction city is a bedroom -- i shouldn't say it that way -- it's a community that is adjacent to fort riley, significant number of veterans and military retirees. this veteran indicates that he's living in a nursing home. he is 100% service-connected disability and the v.a. is currently paying for his nursing home services. he's recently been informed that his physical therapy will no longer be covered by the v.a. and they are discontinuing that payment but offered no explanation as to why. he's filed an appeal late last year and has not received either

a sponsor a status update from the v.a. since that request. a veteran from lawrence has an appeal pending with the v.a. for over a year and a half. wants our help because he's received no communication from the v.a. in more than a year. a veteran from overland park, kansas, suburbs of kansas city, he's the primary caregiver of his wife, who suffers from alzheimer's. he's had a tremendous difficulty in working with. v.a. to schedule appointments when he can be away from her to receive his treatments from the v.a. a daughter of a veteran from wichita let us know that the veteran passed away in the wichita v.a. and is concerned about the events that took place while he was in the care of the v.a. a veteran from northwest kansas, bird city, kansas, is a category 1 disabled marine veteran due to service-connected disability. indicates that he has had two heart attacks and is now paying

for stress tests out of his -- and his own medical bills out of his own pocket because the v.a. has denied him fee basis. what that means is if you're a veteran in bird city, kansas, which is in the very northwest corner of our state, access to a v.a. hospital is a long way away and that fee basis would allow you to receive that care and treatment closer to home with a doctor from your hometown or in the neighborhood, in a hospital that's in your hometown or in the neighborhood. my point, mr. president, is that the people that are most deserving of our care and attention are not receiving that care and attention necessary from a department of veterans affairs that is in place to provide the services and benefits earned and promised to those veterans. this is not anything that is out

of the ordinary. this report is something i read every week and the reports that i conveyed to my colleagues here on the floor of the united states senate are not unusual. i suppose what's unusual is that the number is increasing. what used to be a shorter list of problems with the v.a. has grown over time to be a longer and longer list. mr. president, what i've been asking for is a plan by the department of veterans affairs, from its top leadership, secretary shinseki, to explain to me, to us, to the american people, to veterans what it is the department of veterans affairs is going to do to meet the needs of these and other veterans across our country. as i've indicated on the senate floor before on this topic, if we are incapable of caring for our veterans today, how are we capable of doing it as more and more veterans return, more and

more military men and women return and become veterans from our wars in iraq and afghanistan? when the physical and mental circumstances those veterans find themselves in are even more difficult and challenging. and, of course, we have a -- an aging veteran population in world war ii and now vietnam veterans who most likely will be needing more care and treatment from the department of veterans affairs. what we need is the leadership necessary to meet the needs of these veterans and a commitment that the status quo is unacceptable, that the bureaucratic culture of the veterans department is not something that's going to remain. that there is going to be a concerted effort to make certain that the department meets the needs of those who served and sacrificed for our country. again, who other than those who served our country would we expect to be at the top of the

list, to receive the most timely care, to receive the highest quality of care than those who served our nation? it seems to me that as these issues are raised, we have a department of veterans affairs that is doing damage control. what we need is a department of veterans affairs that reduces the damage being done to the veterans, the men and women who served our country in kansas and across our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we proceed as a body to calendar number 379. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 379, s. 2086, a bill to address current emergency shortages of propane and other heating -- home heating fuels and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of the following items, which are post office naming bills, that's calendar number 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, we do those en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent the bills be read a third time, passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on table and there be no intervening action or debate on any one of the five. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 421. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 381, senate resolution 421 expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the senate for the acts of heroism and military achievement by members of the united states armed forces who participated in the june 6, 1944 amphibious landing at normandy, france and commending them for leadership and valor in an operation that helped bring an end to world war ii.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 444. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 445 recognizing the importance of cancer research and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 454. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 454, recognizing that cardiovascular disease continues to be an overwhelming threat to women's health and importance of

providing basic preventative heart screenings to women wherever they seek primary care. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, may 22, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved and the morning business deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date be athe time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in morning business until 1:45 with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and republicans the final 30 minutes. that is the second 30 minutes. and the final 10 minutes equally divided and controlled between senators leahy and paul or their designees with senator leahy controlling the final five minutes. that at 1:45 the senate vote on

confirmation of the barron nomination. further, upon disposition of the barron nomination the senate resume consideration in legislative session -- i'm sorry, resume legislative session and pursuant to the previous order the chair lay before the senate the message with respect to the conchtsz with h.r. 3080, there be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form with all other provision remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be two roll call votes at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00

mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today in opposition to the killing of american citizens without trials. i risi rise today to say that te is no legal precedent for killing american citizens not

involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a president is not worthy of being placed one step away from the supreme court. it isn't about just seeing the baron memos. some seem to be placated by the fact that, oh, they can read these memos. i believe it's about what the memos themselves say. i believe the barron memos, at their very core, disrespect the bill of rights. the bill of rights isn't so much for the american idol winner. the bill of rights isn't so much for the prom queen or the high school football quarterback. the bill of rights is especially for the least popular among us. the bill of rights is especially for minorities. whether you are a minority by the virtue of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. the bill of rights is especially for unpopular people and

unpopular ideas and unpopular religions. it is easy to argue for trials for prom queens. it is easy to argue for trials for the high school quarterback or the american idol winner. it is hard to argue for trials for traitors and for people who'd wish to harm our fellow americans. but a mature freedom defends the defenseless, allows trials for the guilty, protects even speech of the most despicable nature. after 9/11, we all recoiled in horror at the massacre of thousands of innocent americans. we fought a war to tell other countries that we would not put up with this, that we would not allow this to happen again. as our soldiers began to return from afghanistan, i asked them to explain in their own words what they had fought for, and to a soldier they would tell me

they fought for the american way; they fought to defend the constitution and they fought for our bill of rights. i think it's a disservice to their sacrifice not to have an open and full-throated public debate about whether an american citizen should get a trial before they are killed. let me be perfectly clear. i'm not referring to anybody involved in a battlefield, anybody shooting against our soldiers, anybody involved in combat gets no due process. what we're talking about is the extraordinary concept of killing american citizens who are overseas but not involved in combat. it doesn't mean that they're not potentially and probably are bad people, but we're talking about doing it with no accusation, no trial no charge, no jury. the nomination before us is about killing americans not involved in combat.

the nominee david barron has i s written a defense of executions of american citizens not involved in combat. make no mistake, these memos do not limit drone executions to one man. these memos become historic precedent for killing americans abroad. some have argued that releasing these memos is sufficient for his nomination. this is not a debate about transparency. this is a debate about whether or not american citizens, not involved in combat, are guaranteed due process. realize that during the bush 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 his party will

vote for a nominee that advocates the killing of american citizens without trial. how far have we come? how far have we gone? we were once talking about can detaining american citizens and objecting that they would get no trial, no now we are condoning killing american citizens without a trial. before president obama's first election, told "the boston globe," no, i reject the bush administration's claim that the president has plenary authority under the constitution to detain american citizens without charges as unlawful combatants. but now not only has he signed legislation to detain american citizens without trial, but he is now approving of killing american citizens without a trial. where o. wherwhere o'where has e

obama gone? david barron puts forward memos that justifies killing american citizens without a trial. i can't tell you what he wrote in the memos. the president forbids it. i. barron did not write or cite any legal case to justify killing an american without a trial. because no such legal precedent exists. it has never been adjudicated. no court has ever looked at this. there has been no public debate because it has been held secret from the american people. barron creates out of whole cloth a defense for executing american citizens without trial. the cases he cites, which i am forbidden from talking about, which i am forbidden 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 barron memo, the argument against what barron proposes should be no secret and should be obvious to anyone who looks at this issue. no court has ever decided such a case. so barron's secret defense of drone executions relies on cases which, upon critical analysis, have no pertinence to the case at hand. am i the only one who thinks that something so unprecedented as an assassination of an american citizen, that this should not be discussed, that we should discuss this in light of day? am i the only one that thinks that the question of such magnitude should be decided in the open by the supreme court? barron's arguments for the extra judicial killing of american citizens challenges over 1,000 years of jurisprudence. trials based on the presumption of innocence are an ancient

right. the romans wrote that the burp n of proof son he who asserts that you are guilty, not on he who denies. the burden son the government. we describe this principle as the principle being considered innocent until guilty. this is a profound concept. this is not something we should quietly acquiesce to having it run roughshod on or diluted and eventually destroyed. in many nations the presumption of innocence is a legal righ rio the accused even in the trial. in america we go one step in america we go one step in america we go one step further to protect the accused. we place the burden of proof on the prosecution. we provide enough compelling evidence to a jury, not to one person who works with the president, not to a bunch of people and secret, but to a

public jerry the evidence must be presented to all but then we go even further to protect the possibility of innocents. we require that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. we set a very high bar for conviction, and an extremely high bar for execution. even during all of the most appropriate things, we still sometimes have got been wrong and executed people after a jury trial mistakenly, erroneously. but now we're talking about not even having the protection of a trial tamale accusations. are we comfortable killing american citizens, no matter how awful or heinous the crime accused of, are we comfortable telling them based upon the accusations and the jury has reviewed? innocent until proven guilty, the concept of tat -- concept is tested.

we are being tested. the consensus is that the accused is very likely guilty. in this case in all likelihood guilty. the evidence appears to be overwhelming. yet, why can't we do the american thing, have a public trial, accused them, and convicted in a court. it is more difficult to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty -- guilty when the accused is on popular. the principle of innocent until proven guilty is more difficult when the accused is charged with treason. the bill of rights is easy. it is easy to defend what we liked the speech or sympathize with the defendant. defending the right of trial for people beefier or dislike is more difficult. it is extremely hard, but we have to defend the bill of rights, or it will slip away from us.

is easy. presumption of innocence is, however, much harder when a citizen practices a minority religion, when the citizenry is not -- resides in a foreign land or sympathizes with the enemy. yet our history is replete with the accounts of heroes and defended the defenseless, and popular, sometimes guilty. we remember john adams when he defended the british soldiers, the ones that were guilty of the boston massacre. we remember fondly people who defend the unpopular, even when they end up being declared guilty because that is something we take pride in. you remember john quincy adams when he defended the slaves who took over on the sod. remember fondly the defender of

the unpopular when he represented susan b. anthony who voted illegally as a moment. we remember fondly eugene debs, who defended himself was accused of being against the draft and world war one and was given ten years in prison. we defend the unpopular. that is what the bill of rights is especially important for. we remember fondly clarence darrow and defended the unpopular. we remember fondly thurgood a partial it offended the unpopular when he convinced the supreme court to strike down regulation. -- segregation. where would we be without these champions? where would we be if without applying the bill of rights to those we don't like, don't associate with, who we actually think are guilty? where would the unpopular be without the protection of the bill of rights? one can almost argue that the right to trial is more precious

the more unpopular the defendant we cannot, and we should not abandon this cherished principle now, critics will argue that these are evil people who plot to kill americans. i do not dispute that. my first instinct is, like most americans, to want immediate punishment. i cannot stand the thought of americans who consult with an advocate violence against americans. want to punish those americans who are traitors, but i am also conscious of what these traders have betrayed. these traders are betraying a country that holds dear the precept that we are innocent until proven guilty. aren't we, in a way, be trained our country's principles when we relinquish this right to a trial by jury? the maxim that we are innocent until proven guilty is, in some ways, like our first amendment

which presumes that speech is okay. it is easy to predict it -- project complementaries beach. it is easy to protect speech you agree with. it is harder to protect speech you and war. the first amendment is not so much about protecting speech that is easily agree to. it is about tolerating speech that is an abomination. likewise, the fourth, fifth, the sixth amendment are not so much about protecting majorities of thought, religion, or ethnicity. to process is about protecting everyone, especially minorities. unpopular opinions change from generation to generation. while today it may be burger- wearing muslims, it has at times in the yarmulkes- wearing jews. it has at times been japanese-americans. it is not beyond belief that some day in evangelical

christians to be a persecuted minority. the process of determining guilt or innocence is an incredibly important and difficult one. even with a jury, justice is not always easily discovered. one needs only to watch the jurors deliberate in 12 angry men to understand finding justice even with a jury is not always straightforward. today virtually every one sympathizes with tom robinson who is unfairly accused in to kill a mockingbird because the reader knows that robinson is innocent because the reader knows his accusation was based upon race. it is a slam-dunk, easy for all of us to believe he should get a trial. it is easy to object to vigilante justice when you know that the accused is innocent, when the mob a tense and extrajudicial execution, we stand with adequate -- at this

pitch, with the rule of law. but what of an american citizen who by all appearances is guilty what of an american citizen who by all appearances is a trader who we all agree deserves punishment? are we strong enough as the country to believe still that this person should get a tryout? do we have the courage to denounce drone execution as nothing more than sophisticated vigilantism? how can it be anything but? due process cannot exist in secret. checks and balances cannot exist in one branch of government, whether it be upon the advice of one lawyer or 10,000 lawyers. if they all work for one man, the president, how can it be anything but a verdict outside the law? a verdict that could conceivably be subject to the emotions of prejudice and fear.

a verdict that could be wrong. this president, but of all of the presidents, should the fear allowing so much power to gravitate to one man. it is admittedly hard to defend the right to trial for an american citizen who becomes a traitors. but we must. if we cannot defend the rights of trial for the most heinous crimes, and where will this slippery slope lead us? the bravest of american jurisprudence is that everyone gets his or her day in court, no matter of -- no matter how despicable the crime they are accused of. critics say, how will we try these americans? para overseas. he won't come home. the constitution holds the answer. if -- they should be tried for treason. they should be tried in absentia an independent legal defense that does not work for the

government. if found guilty, the method of punishment is not the issue. the issue is and always has been the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence, and the guarantee of due process to everyone. for these reasons, i cannot support the nomination. even if the administration releases a dozen memos to my cannot support them. the debate is not about partisan politics. i have supported many of the president's nominees. debate is not about transparency it is about the substance of the memos. i cannot and will not support a lifetime appointment of someone who believes it is okay to kill an american citizen not involved in combat without trial. now, some will argue and say the president yesterday now has changed his mind. he will release these memos to the public.

if that is true, why don't we wait on the vote and let the public read the memos -- memos? why don't we have a full full-throated debate about this and see what the public thinks about the right to trial by jury when you think that's something we have had for over a thousand years deserves a bit of debate? when you think we would take time and realize this is not the position of the administration, but the position of that administration now that is relenting to the second circuit court. they are releasing this memo under arrest. my guess is they are releasing this memo because they need and a few more votes and will release these to the public or promise to release. they will not be released. the memos justifying the catalyst -- killing of american radicals will not take place before the vote. is this really, this could cast aside the whole concept of presumption of innocence, the

whole concept and an accusation is different than a conviction. there has been much discussion of what do processes. and, as we have looked at this debate, there are some really valid questions and good writing on this. congress leaders have written extensively on this and writes about the lawyer who enabled extrajudicial killing of an american. he asked the question, should the constitution be entrusted to a man -- and this is essentially what happened to -- the circuit court, appellate court judge, the constitution will be entrusted to him. adjusted to a man who thinks that americans can be killed without due process? in this amendment is very clear. no person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime unless upon the present nor indictment of a grand jury. it does not say in except for our present and of an accusation by the executive branch without

trial. it says, nor shall any person -- it actually says, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. the question is, what is due process? you would think that this would be very clear and there would not be much dispute over due process. when you listen to some of these descriptions, we actually now have the administration -- and this is the description about above the bush and obama administration. if the core of the distortion of the war on terror under both bush and obama is the orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. realize that what we are talking about. they're is a big difference between an accusation and the conviction. if you want to realize how important this is, there are senators on the other side of the aisle who have called

senators on this side of the aisle terrorists on multiple occasions. who are we potentially going after with these directives killings? people that are either senior operatives of al qaeda -- of course, there are no cards. but we are also going after people who are associated with terrorism. the definition of terrorism cent on some occasions we have been accused of terrorism by the other side can be somewhat loose the brought of justice put out a memo describing some of the characteristics of people who might be terrorists which might along you if you're traveling overseas, people missing fingers , stains on clothing, people who change the color of their hair, people who have multiple weapons in our house, people who have more than seven days' worth of food in their house. these are people you should be suspicious of, according to the government, might be terrorists, and our people you should talk to inform the government about.

if these are the definitions of someone who might be a terrorist, wouldn't we kind of want to have a lawyer before the acquisition becomes a conviction ? when we talk about convictions, we talk about the conviction or the bar for a conviction being beyond a reasonable doubt. you can pretty much think -- you can be and a jury pool, and if you think someone kills someone, a inclination, suspicion, you are supposed to be so convinced it is beyond a reasonable doubt. in these memos they're is a different standard. what the standard is from the person who we will now be a pointing to a lifetime appointment one step below the supreme court, the standard is, an assassination is justified when an informed, high-level official of the u.s. government has determined the targeted individual poses an imminent

threat of violent attack against the united states. so we are not talking about beyond a reasonable doubt anymore. that standard is gone. we are talking about an informed , named, high-level official, in secret , deciding in imminent attack is going to occur. the interesting thing about an imminent attack is, we really don't go by the plane wording of what you think would be in it anymore. the memo expressly states that it is inventing a broader concept of eminence that is typically not used. specifically, the president's assassination power does not require the u.s. have clear evidence a specific attack will take place in the immediate future. you wonder about a definition of eminence that no longer includes a word immediate. the aclu jimmie l. jabber and

also plan greenwald explains the memo redefines the word imminent in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning. when we talk about due process, it is important to understand where due process can occur. it has to occur in the open, and an adversarial process. if you don't have a lawyer on your side you is your advocate, you cannot have it due process. due process cannot occur in secret, but it also cannot occur in one branch of government. this is a fundamental misconception of the president. the president believes with regard to privacy in the fourth amendment or to killing american citizens and with regard to the fifth amendment that if you have some lawyers review this process that that is due process. this is appalling because it has nothing to do with due process and can in no way be seen as to

process. some have said, well, this is a judicial opinion. people have also said is with regard to the end is a spying case, 15 judges approved of it. the memo that was written by david baron has recounted by mr. greenwald is not a judicial opinion written by anyone independent of the president. they have justified, and the memo argues, that due process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedian steven colbert mocked this and wrote or presented, trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper, scissors.

who cares? due process just means their is a process, right? if the current process is, first of the president meets with his advisers, decides who they are going to kill, and kills them. it is actually called terrorist tuesday with flash cards and power point presentation. a colleague of david -- david barron writes that there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by some secret internal process within the executive branch. so for those of my colleagues who will come on down here today and just stamp of approval on someone who i believe this respect the bill of rights, realize that other professors, the esteemed colleagues disagree and you cannot have due process by secret internal process within the executive branch. those who say the memos are not secret, are we going to be

promised from now on that this will be a public debate and there will be some form of due process? no, i suspect next time an american is still there will be done in secret by the executive branch because that is the new norm. you have voted for someone who has made this a historic precedent. in secret by one branch of the administration without representation based upon an accusation. we have gone from you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to an accusation being enough for an execution. i am horrified that this is where we are. to my colleagues to my would say that to make an honest judgment you should look at this nomination as if it came from the opposite party i can promise you, this would absolutely be my opinion, a decision, particularly in most popular decision to take the

country, that i would oppose this. what i would ask my democrat colleagues is to look deep within their soul, to look deep within their psyche and say, how would i vote if this were a bush nominee? if this were a bush nominee that had a written legal opinions justifying torture in 2007, 2006, 2005, how would i have voted? i think 90 percent would have voted against and would vote now against. this has become a partisan, and this party has become too partisan. there was a time when there were great believers in the constitution in this body, and we have degenerated into a party of partisanship. there was a time when the filibuster could have stopped this nomination. there was a time in which there would have had to have been compromised the mainstream legal a fact because those on either stream would be excluded from holding office.

the people who have argued so forcefully for majority vote, for not having the filibuster are the ones who are responsible now for allowing this nomination to go forward. this nomination would not go forward for it not for the elimination of the filibuster some say the filibuster was x to of obstructionism. the filibuster was also and in many cases about trying to prevent extremists from getting on the bench. we will now allow someone who has an extreme point of view, someone who has questioned whether or not guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, someone who now says that an accusation is enough for the death penalty. that person may say only if you are overseas. well, some consolation of you are a traveler. .. and hard and examine this nomination objectively, as if this were a nomination from the president of the oppose sit party. we need to ask our sel our selfr

bill of rights? we need to ask our he was also, it is hampletd we need to examine. it is hard when you know swung is guilty, when you have now seen the evidence and you feel this person deserves punishment. i sympathize with that and think that this person did deserve punishment. but i also sympathize so greatly with the concept of having a jury trial, so greatly that an accusation is different than a conviction that i can't allow this to go forward without some objection. i hope this body will consider this and i hope this body will reconsider this nomination, and at the appropriate time i will offer a consen unanimous consens agreement, this unanimous consent request will be to delay the david barron memo, to delay the david barron nomination until the public has a chance to read this memo. read this memo. to delay the david barron

nomination until republicans have had a chance to read this memo and i will return an appropriate time and i will offer that is unanimous consent. thank you mr. president. >> madam president it wasn't very long ago when the senator from kentucky and i were here on the floor talking about drones previously and i just want to make sure that it's understood that senator paul's passion, his intellectual rigor and his devotion to these issues of liberty and security which he and i have worked on together now for a number of years is much appreciated. and i want to calm for a few minutes and especially talk about what senator paul and i have discussed in the past and

that is how vigorous oversight particularly vigorous oversight over the intelligence field needs to get more attention. it's not something you can minimize. it goes right to the heart of the values that the senator from kentucky and i and others have talked about and that is that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. the senator from kentucky and i often joke about how the senate would benefit from ben franklin caucus and of course ben franklin you know famously said in effect anybody who gives up their liberty to security really doesn't deserve either so the senator from kentucky and i certainly have some disagreements from time to time on that particular judicial nomination but i think them for

the time this morning and i thank him for the opportunity that we have had over the years to make the case about how important these issues are. the american people ought to insist, ought to insist that their elected officials put in place policies that ensure that we have both liberty and security and i thank him for that and will just have some brief remarks this morning madam president. of course the senate is going to be voting today on the nomination of david barron to serve as the judge for the first judicial circuit. his nomination has been endorsed by a wide variety of americans including respected jurists from across the political spectrum. mr. subtwo has received particularly vocal endorsements some from some of our country's most prominent civil rights groups. of course the aspect of this

record that has perhaps received the closest scrutiny in recent weeks is his authorship of the legal opinion regarding the president's authority to use military force against an individual who was both a u.s. citizen and a senior leader of al qaeda. madam president i am quite familiar with this particular memo. the executive branch first acknowledged its existence three years ago in response to a question i asked at an open hearing of the senate select committee on intelligence. i followed up by working with my colleagues and pressing the executive branch to provide this memo to the intelligence committee. this was of course the administration made this memo available to all members of the senate. an and executive branch officials have now said that they will provide this memo to the american people as well. madam president this isn't my

view clearly a very constructive step and i'm going to vote yes on mr. barron's nomination. i do want to take a minute to outline that this whole matter is about much more than a single memo. it really drives home madam president how incredibly important vigorous congressional oversight is. that is of course the mission of the intelligence committee and it really is the mission of all of us in its classic work on democratic government. woodrow wilson wrote the conducting oversight was one of the most important functions of the congress. he says just did -- suggested that it might be more important than passing legislation. woodrow wilson wrote a quote is the proper duty of the representative body to look

diligently into every affair government and to talk much about what it sees. he added congress must examine the disposition of the executive branch and scrutinize and sift them by every form of discussion. woodrow wilson said if the congress fails in this duty than the american people would remain ignorant and i quote here of the very affairs which it is most important that they understand. woodrow wilson might not have been able to anticipate the size and scale of the modern national security apparatus but i wanted to say this morning his words are just as true today as they were a century ago. as the elected representatives of nearly 4 million americans i have spent years now working

from this area that all of us here in the senate have an obligation to understand how the executive branch is determining the president's -- military force against americans who have taken up arms against their nation. i have long believed it's my obligation to make sure that those that i'm honored to represent in all across oregon understand that as well. i believe that every american has the right to know that their government -- the case in question as i said before i believe that the president's decision to authorize a military strike in those particular circumstances was legitimate and it was lawful i have detailed my views on this case in a letter to the attorney general that is posted on my web site. so i agree with the conclusion that mr. barron reached in what

is now certainly become a famous memo. to be clear while i agree with the conclusion madam president this is not a memo that i would have written. it contains what in effect are some i guess analytical leaps that i would not endorse. it jumps to several conclusions and certainly leaves a number of important questions unanswered. and i'm hopeful that making this memo public will help generate the public treasure that is needed to get those additional questions answered. i am talking here about fundamental questions like how much evidence does the president need to determine that a particular american is a legitimate target for military action? or can the president strike an american anywhere in the world?

what does it mean to say that capture must be in seasonable and exactly what other limits and boundaries apply to this authority flex mr. barron wasn't asked to answer these questions but in my view madam president it is vitally important that the american people get answers to those questions. those questions in my view are essential to understanding how american's constitutional rights will be protected in the age of the 21st century warfare and i'm saying this morning i am going to stay at it and tell the american people get answers to those questions. now in addition to getting detailed public answers to these matters another important step will be for the congress to review the other justice department memos regarding the president's authority to use military force outside of an active war zone. clearly the most important memos on this topic are the ones that

the congress has now seen regarding the use of lethal force against americans but it's going to be important for the senate to review the memos on other aspects of this authority as well. the past few years have shown that when the public is allowed to see and debate how our government interprets the law it has lead to meaningful changes in terms of ensuring that there are additional detections for privacy and civil liberties without sacrificing our country's security in a dangerous time. it's unfortunate that it took mr. barron's nomination for the justice department to make these memos public. i will say here that it's been frustrating over the past few years to see the justice department's resistance in providing congress with memos that outlined the executive branch's official understanding

of the law. when mr. barron was the head of the office of legal counsel i believe that congressional requests to see particular classified memos and legal opinions were appropriately granted. in the years however since mr. barron moved on from that position congressional requests to see memo sent opinions have frequently been stonewalled and i use that word specifically madam president, frequently stumble. the executive branch often makes the argument that these memos constitute confidential pre-decisional legal advice to the president. here is the problem with that argument. the president has to be able to get confidential legal advice before he makes a decision that once a decision has been made and a legal memo from the justice department has been sent to the agencies that will carry out the president's decision

that memo is no longer pre-decisional advice. it is the governments official legal basis for actual acts of war and as such in my view it is entirely unacceptable to withhold it from the congress. the congress has the power to declare war and congress votes on whether to continue funding wars so it's vital for the congress to understand what the executive ranch believes the president's war powers actually are and that classic work that i have discussed from woodrow wilson adam president -- woodrow wilson said in a quote is even more important to know how the houses being built than to know how the plans of the architects were conceived. and as a former basketball player i often say that sections of the playbook for combating terrorism will often need to be secret but the rulebook that the

united states follows should always be available to the american people and all of the american people. our military intelligence agencies often need to conduct secret operations but they never should be placed in the position of relying on secret law. so i'm very pleased this morning that we know that the executive branch is going to provide a memo to the american people and i believe that this construct that step must lead to additional steps that are equally important. this episode is an object lesson in how the united states congress can use the levers that it has two fulfill one of the most important functions of government and as my colleagues and i engage in our perennial

discussions about how to make congress more functional i hope this is an experience that we will remember. madam president i yield the floor.

>> i read something one time and it stated that in the south he was looked at as a hero and when you have any time of crisis or people are always looking for someone that they can look up to. you have a person here who staged a blockade. he devastated union commerce. people in the free world or the other parts of the world if you will you have to understand commerce back then was shifts. so the feeds that simms did on the high seas he captured the imagination of the people in england and france and everywhere. people were constantly writing about him but if you were from up north you hated him. just like anybody you are going to label him if you hate him the lowest name that you can think of which they did.

he was a very honorable man and he hated that his name was being used in a way that was not being honorable to him or his family. the united states government and all governments frowned upon this because okay you are disturbing the ability to fight a war. you are also disturbing the commerce and sounds countered with that. he said he was doing -- by the united states during the war of 1812 and especially during the american revolution. there were people since the government could not pay these people they made them if you will privateer, private individuals who would go out and start commerce or disrupt the british fleet and that's exactly what they did.

>> president obama met today with veterans affairs secretary eric shinseki. afterward he told reporters that va officials would be held accountable for patient backlogs va medical centers. after the president's remarks the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell issued a statement saying in part, unfortunately so far i've yet to hear from the president that he is treating the va crisis with the seriousness it deserves. house speaker john boehner also issued a statement saying quote we all share the american people's outrage about the horrors at the va, outrage the president belatedly echoed today. but what about accountability for treating our veterans like second and third rate citizens?

the problems that va medical centers were also a topic at today's white house briefing. press secretary jay carney talked about why the president sent his deputy chief of staff to the va medical center in phoenix. the white house briefing is about 45 minutes. >> hello everyone. thanks for being here. obviously you heard from the president earlier today. some of you will be headed over to hear from him again as he welcomes the super bowl champions the seattle seahawks so as we proceed if folks need to get up and going to stand. i have no announcements to make sliwa go straight to questions. darlene. >> on the va issued the house later today posted a bill that would give the secretary more authority to hire people etc..

you have said in the past couple of days at that the white house has had some concerns on the details of this bill. can you say what those concerns are? >> i don't know the specifics. i know the goal of empowering the secretary to be able to hold folks accountable is one that we share and we have also directed the secretary and the president has to map to make sure that he is making maximum use of the tools already available to him to hold folks accountable. i know that we are discussing with congress this legislation and the concerns we have with it they are relatively small. vis-à-vis the broader goal which is to make sure that there is an ability to hold folks accountable. >> i have one other question. is there any reaction to the

reports that speaker pelosi is considering filling the five spots on the benghazi committee? >> we defer to the leader and our view has always been and it has been not just our view but our practice that it is appropriate to have legitimate congressional oversight. we have provided thousands and thousands of pages of documents countless hours of testimony and interviews. in a series of investigations by a series of committees into this issue, so it is certainly legitimate to suspect at least that this new pursuit, this new investigation by house republicans into this matter might not be divorced from politics.

you might reach that conclusion when you hear as you all have reported that the nrcc is telling its candidates to campaign on this issue and is raising funds off of it. but in terms of democratic participation we certainly defer to them. >> to go back to the va will for one second he said the concerns the white house has a relatively small so would it be fair to say than that the white house is leaning toward supporting that bill? >> again i think we want to work with congress on this specific concern. i know that it's moving in one house of the congress now. i just don't have a time for some of the issues. we do share a goal of the bill and the bipartisan desire for the secretary of veterans affairs to have the power to hold people accountable.

>> can you tell us how many he is meeting with? >> i don't have the particulars of his schedule. the chief of staff is up on the hill of luck meeting with folks on a variety of issues so i don't have a preview of any meetings he has had today. >> secondly you have been saying that -- is going to help secretary shinseki with this review but today the president said they're going to do a broader expanded interview. what led to that? >> rob at the presence president's request or rather the secretary's request with a strong endorsement of the president has moved over to the va on a temporary assignment. he is assisting in the near-term review of the allegations surrounding the phoenix facility and other facilities. he is also the presence request conducting a broader review of the veterans health administration that provides health benefits to veterans to

assess its overall operations to ensure so that we can find very specifically what's working and what is not and through that effort find ways to improve services and improve capacities. jim. >> did secretary shinseki offer his racket -- resignation this morning? >> i was not in the meeting and i think the president spoke very clearly about his high regard for general shinseki and disservice to the nation. the fact that he himself is a disabled war veteran and his commitment to our veterans which is fierce and powerful. he noted that generals since jackie -- shinseki has dedicated his passion to reduce veterans homelessness and expand access to higher education and to

tackle the backlog in disability claims even as we have expanded the universe of veterans who have a claim on disability benefits. so i would point you to what the president said about that. i don't have a specific readout of the meeting. >> looking at what the president said was it a fair lead to say he was leaving open space for the possibility that there might need to be a change at the top at the department of veterans affairs? >> is a fair reading if you look exactly at what the president said that he wants to see these inquiries completed and to find out exactly what happened and to hold accountable anyone that he feels is responsible for mismanagement or misconduct. so the president himself spoke to this and i think he made clear that he is troubled by the

allegations and that if those allegations prove to be chewed that any misconduct any cooking of the books or gaming of the system or hiding wait times for example should be punished, that there should be consequences. so he made that clear to secretary shinseki and he awaits the results of both the secretary's review and they will have preliminary results next week as well as of course the independent inspector general's investigation. >> yesterday and i think the day before and i will try again was he caught off guard or surprised by the allegations of the hiding of the wait times and the concealing of the wait times? >> i think the president made clear that the issue of problems in the va with access to health benefits has been with us as a country for a long time and has been exacerbated by the fact that we are at the backend of a

more than decade-long. macrofor. we have seen a significant increase in the number of veterans that need disability benefits and health services. that has been a challenge for the va for a long long time. certainly for the past decade or more. so that's as he said today the president said today that's not a new issue. it is part of a broader challenge that we as a nation confront when we for national security reasons dispatch americans to countries a long way away to fight on our behalf and some of them come back and need of immediate health services in need of mental health services and other forms of benefits and care.

in need of jobs, in need of 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 president since he took office here and while we have made significant progress in increasing benefits to veterans and expanding the availability of disability benefits to veterans and in reducing veterans homelessness and expanding access to higher education there is certainly more work to be done here at what the president talked about today that is worth noting is we need to make sure that we have achievable goals that when it comes to appropriate waiting times for those seeking appointments to the va. that process needs to be evaluated because as the president said if there are goals that that are unrealistic and that creates an incentive for folks to hide the truth for

waiting times or cooked the books to use that phrase, that's a problem because it scares a problem that needs to be fixed. >> cooking the books? >> you heard from the president today so i will refer you to what he said. >> what about this criticism of the mismanagement style. is he too attached from some of the nuts and bolts of running the government running an administration? did it catch them off guard and to help your web site and now this? >> i think if you look at how the president handles a challenge like the web site and handles this challenge, he responds by demanding action, demanding that americans are counting on benefits and services whether it's a functioning web site or benefits through the va that they are taking care of and you saw that with the efforts that were

undertaken to fix the web site and you have seen that 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 facilities around the country and he expects results in the holds people accountable. and when we see whether or not some of these allegations prove to be true he will insist that misconduct and mismanagement will be met with consequences. alexis. >> when the president said -- to tell tell me or rick that this is the problem and went on to talk about the health information. is he saying that specific we shinseki was specifically unaware of the allegations or

there were these long wait times >> he was referring to the allegations that folks get covered up long wait times and so cooked the books which is a phrase that folks are using and his point was that as i noted earlier that if there are goals set when it comes to what the ideal way time should be in the maximum wait time should be those are unachievable for whatever reason, shortage of doctors or capacity of a medical facility. ..

and information that he knows. i mean, the president spoke to this very directly. his point was the one i just made. >> of follow-up on a separate question. how does the president react to help democrats did in the primary for returns? >> i have not spoken with him about that. yes, sir? >> given the president's high regard for general shinseki, why wasn't he there when he has brought other cabinet secretaries are within? >> in this room i cannot remember an occasion where cabinet members have come out with him. the president came out here to make a statement about the va and to take a few questions about this current situation. he matched, obviously, at some length with secretary shinseki on this issue, and i think he

spoke to his view of it general shinseki long and courageous service to this country and our veterans. >> veterans and people who work within the va, the president had a message for them today, they should not take anything from the fact that shinseki was not out here with him? >> my guess is that veterans care most about what happens and that there commander in chief is insisting upon results with these inquiries and accountability, once we know exactly what happened and you is responsible for any misconduct. i think that is what most veterans, especially those who require health benefits or require disability benefits care about. >> the group that represents people in the executive levels of government is concerned that due process could be put out to pasture by this house bill.

is that one of your concerns? >> i do not have a list of the concerns. we share the overall goal, which is in powering the secretary to be able to hold folks accountable. there are tools available already that allow for folks to be held accountable. the president has conveyed to the secretary that he expects the secretary to make maximum use of existing tools. i think you have seen, for example, in the phoenix office that folks to have been put on administrative leave as an example of the exercise of some of those authorities that already do exist. yes? >> response to the criticism. [inaudible question] why did president obama wait to address the situation. [inaudible question] >> the head of the republican national committee on this issue

>> but what is your reaction? no action to actually fix the problem. >> the president focuses on action and not words. i think there is sometimes an expectation and and this is in washington on rhetoric as opposed to action. the president, when he first heard about these statistics -- specific allegations with regard to the phoenix facility directed immediately secretary shinseki to launch a review. he supported the secretary's request for independent investigation by the inspector general. he then dispatched one of his most trusted advisers to the va to be an additional eyes and ears on his behalf as well as brainpower as part of the review that secretary shinseki is undertaking and as part of a separate review, a bar review being undertaken. as you heard from him today, he understands and sympathizes with

and shares a desire for a swift reckoning, but he also believes that it is important to gather all the facts first. and he wants those facts gathered quickly. as he noted, he expects preliminary results from secretary shinseki next week on his review, and then he will move forward. i think that is the kind of action that folks expect, but i am glad that the are in see directors will again. [inaudible question] >> does he feel on some level he is that these budgets down? >> the president feels it is a sacred trust as commander-in-chief to ensure we're doing everything we can to assist veterans. as he said before when he stood before you at this podium, ultimately he absolutely feels responsible when there are indications that we are not, as

an administration, as a veterans affairs department, doing as well as we could or should be by our veterans which is why he wants an investigation and those who participated in this conduct to be held accountable, if, in fact, that is what happened. that is his focus. his focus has also been since he took office and before he took office on increasing benefits to veterans, launching programs that ensure that our veterans are getting when they come back from fighting fronts opportunities to pursue higher education that it would not otherwise have. that 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 a foundation of their claim counted or questioned and is in approach he believes is necessary. with regard to our vietnam war

veterans with exposure to agent orange -- again, the aren't -- these are new things, they have earned the right to these benefits and have access to them for the first time. that has been his focus and will continue to be is focused. he has been focused on reducing veteran homelessness which is a shame for all of us in this country when we see those who have fought and bled for us come home and face even greater obstacles in the general population. we should not tolerate that, and he does not. that is why he has made sure we reduced veteran homelessness. >> finally, one of the ideas that has been discussed when dealing with the briar problem is allowing veterans to seat held outside -- help of side of the va for whatever reason. is that something that president obama would consider? >> i would have to it -- that is more a question for the va when it comes to policies and

benefits that veterans have and through what means they would have. 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. the expansion of medicaid has been denied by governors and legislators. veterans would have access to medicaid in many of the state's if their income level qualifies, but they are being denied those benefits because those states have chosen not to expand medicaid under the affordable care act. yes, ma'am? [inaudible question] >> what is the direction about north korean threat to? >> as i have said, i think, on a

couple of occasions, and in violation of united nations security council resolutions would be viewed very dimly by the united states, our allies and partners around the world and in the region. and we certainly take the provocations by north korea very seriously. >> he talked about the president's focus on ptsd and joblessness and other problems that are being suffered. we are told he was told during the transition that the va wait times were unreliable. did he look into that? did someone in the white house look into that? >> i think you heard the president of the united states -- you were sitting there, i recall -- talk about the fact that the issue of veterans having to wait too long, in some cases at some facilities around the country for access to health

benefits and services at medical facilities, has been with us a long time and is a challenge that has been exacerbated by the fact that we have so many more veterans now and so many more than need the benefits that veterans' medical facilities provided doctors provide. >> saying the va wait times were unreliable. >> i know the documents you are referring to. i don't know the specifics. what i can say is, from the president on down, we acknowledge there were significant challenges. the president talked about it as a candidate at the va when it came to providing the highest level of service possible to veterans. that is why he has made it a commitment as a candidate and president to increase funding for the va and increase and expand access to benefits for our veterans. but as the president said

earlier today, there is more work to do, and it is intolerable, in his view, that, if proven true, that individuals may have engaged in misconduct, covered up wait times or falsified reports in a way that exacerbated existing problems by keeping from managers and senior officials at the va the facts about wait times, if, in fact, that is true. >> on another subject, jailed in mexico, what is the president's personal involvement in this? the state department, talked to the president personally about it? >> i have not had that discussion. >> wondering how the pentagon advisory panel recommendation that the u.s. develop its own rocket to launch military satellites. russia's.

it would cost. [inaudible question] is that effort he is likely to get behind? >> i have not seen that recommendation. within the context of ukraine and sanctions and the discussions and some statements made with regard to the space program, but i have not seen that recommendation. >> is something the president -- >> i don't think on principle we announce our support for billion dollar programs. >> what is the status of the review of deportation practices like secretary kerry is doing? >> it is ongoing, as i understand it. >> can you explain at all? >> i defer you feel. >> is a white house involved in this review at all? >> the white house -- the president asked secretary johnson to conduct the review. the president is very focused, as he spoke about, on the need to ensure that we are enforcing our laws in a way that is as humane as possible and that

takes into consideration some of the issues and concerns that are associated with families being separated, for example, on the matter of deportations. but the action on the review is being undertaken by the secretary in the hs. [inaudible question] will the white house have any input? >> well, as a general matter, we have input on various issues, but the review itself is being conducted by secretary johnson. and i would refer you to them for updates on timing. >> the president said there is going to be accountability. does that mean -- >> if the allegations that have been made proved true, but he expects people to be held accountable and how they are held accountable will obviously be determined. if they proved true, he pretty much sticks to the faith of

allegations need to be proven true before folks are punished for conduct. but if they are proven true, then if people covered up wait times, engaged in other kinds of misconduct, they ought to be held accountable and will be. >> wavering in his support for secretary shinseki? the confidence -- >> the president expects results from the people that he appoints to high office. he believes, as he cited, that secretary shinseki has poured his energy and his heart into his work on behalf of veterans, just as he did when he served so admirably in the military. the president noted the progress that has occurred in terms of veterans homelessness and reduction of the disability

claims and expansion of education benefits for our veterans because of the work that general shinseki has done. but when it comes to this matter, the president wants to see the review and know what happened and understand the management decisions that surrounded these issues and whether or not there was misconduct or mismanagement. >> secretary shinseki on thin ice here? satisfactory answers soon? are his days numbered? >> i think everyone in high office serves at the pleasure of the president. >> does the president referred to the ig report and said that the ig indicated there did not seem to be a link between the wait times and veterans actually dying. was he referring to testimony last week, or does he have given permission? >> i believe he was referring to the testimony last week. again, this is independent ig investigation, and the public

testimony preliminarily as far as he got down the list of 40, as i understand it. he had not seen a link. but as the president said, you know, that's needs to be further investigated. we do not know what the final results will be, and we want those results. even if it turns out that there is no direct link established, that does not excuse some of the other conduct that has been alleged. if that proves to be true, if folks covered up wait times, if they falsified documents and records, you know, those are serious offenses, and there should be accountability for them. >> what was the president's reluctance and speaking out? these stories first started emerging a month ago. he was asked a question, but since then, you know, the

american legion called for shinseki to resign about two weeks ago. there has been story after story. what was the president's reluctance -- >> the president is focused on getting things done, john. when he first learned of these allegations, he made clear to secretary shinseki and the public through the news conference and those answers that he wanted to get to the bottom of it. he endorsed the recommendation by secretary shinseki to have the independent inspector general conduct his own investigation into these allegations. he dispatched his very trusted and senior adviser to the va and capacity to reviewing what happened and providing information back to the president said that he can make judgments about accountability. so i think that his record demonstrates, his commitment to our veterans. what you heard from his today reflects the passion he feels on this issue. >> what was the reluctance?

wait for these investigations to be done? >> the actions that he took. >> and not gone to -- the story has been a big story, front burner for a least a couple of weeks now. the president has not come out. obviously very passionate about it. why did we not hear that from him before today? >> all i can say is, you heard from him today. you heard from him on his foreign trip, and he has taken actions in the interim and eagerly read -- eagerly awaits the results of the review that secretary shinseki has initiated and the independent investigation of the ig. sorry. of course. i will get to you. i did not want to go a, b, c, a, b, c. think how the other acronyms would feel? [laughter] there you go. that is why your next.

>> thanks. when we are talking about the long view that he is helping with the president, expecting the report next month, is that something that someone at the white house could have done 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 been done earlier, a top-down white house review with results? >> when the president came into office he appointed secretary shinseki to the post at the veterans affairs department and was confirmed, obviously, by the senate to hold that post. under the lead of secretary shinseki they have been tackling some of the many challenges that are veterans face and the va face in providing services to veterans. what the specific review around the allegations associated with the phoenix facility and our other facilities is meant to do and the broad review is to

assess where we are now given these allegations and what needs to be done to improve areas where we are not performing, where the va is not performing at its highest level and to build upon those areas where there have been successes and improvements. >> chinese cyber crime, with the united states entertain retaliatory accusations made by countries including china when it comes to a cyber crime? >> on that specific question, on the cyber issue i think retaliation specifically would be inappropriate. the individuals charged -- and i would refer you to the department of justice for specifics -- were charged with violations of the law and should absolutely face those charges. this is not a political

tit-for-tat situation. it is our firmly held belief that it is a matter of law. individuals should not and cannot steal trade secrets, and there should not be government government-enabled cyber attack of trade secrets for the benefit of state-run companies. >> especially by charging military officials in another country, if military officials of the u.s. armed services were charged, with the united states cooperate? >> it depends upon what they were charged with. what these individuals are charged with our practices we do not engage in. we do not come in the united states, engage in intelligence gathering to benefit individual companies or businesses to help their bottom line.

that is an activity that this country does not engage in. >> thank you very much. on russia, it should be able to show russian forces pulling away from the ukraine border. is that what the united states was seeing? last time you were asked, think, you said you were seeing a movement. as the presence of russian forces there complicated or impacted what you expect in terms of the election this weekend, the presidential election? >> i can report to you that we have seen them -- seen some indications of activity on the border, but it is too early to conclude that activity indicate to withdraw from the border. should this be the beginning of a withdrawal, we would welcome such an effort, but they're is a caveat attached to that. we have seen in the past some movement. you still have a huge and unprecedented presence of russian troops on the ukrainian border, which can only serve to

intimidate and destabilize ukraine in the run-up to this very important election. the answer to your second question is absolutely. we believe it was meant to intimidate and potentially meant to lead to an incursion across the border. we welcome any indication that russia has chosen a different path, but we do not want to assume that the fact that there is some activity on the border means that a withdrawal will take place. >> is president obama open to any kind of conversation with president putin? >> we do not anticipate any bilateral meetings at normandie. leaders are assembling at normandie, -- to commemorate the heroic battles that took place there as part of d-state that eventually led to the end of the

european war, world war two. i do not anticipate a bilateral meeting, and certainly none is scheduled. >> i want to ask you about the unemployment extension. over two and a half million people have been cut off from benefits. it appears to be a dead issue in the house. going nowhere? do you have any reactions? >> well, we continue to want to provide emergency benefits to americans are looking for work, much as they did repeatedly at earlier stages of the recovery and during the previous of ministration. you know, it is a shame because these are folks who are out there looking for work and need

assistance to pay their rent and feed their families. i think any economist can verify that that assistance has a direct and positive benefit to the economy, an immediate benefit to the economy because that unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance is the assistance that immediately kits someone back into the economy and help create jobs and drive growth. we continue to call on congress to take action. >> supporters to call congress to pressure house republicans. why hasn't the president picked up the phone and called the speaker of the house and ask them what it would take to get that going? >> we do not report out the details of every conversation the president has with leaders in congress. i'd think it is a novel supposition that the speaker of the house would suddenly embrace the idea of extending

unemployment insurance that the president would just call him and ask for. >> the speaker has said repeatedly basically every time he has been asked the question, that he is waiting for the white house and president to make a new offer on jobs before he will consider. >> well, it is our view that these are benefits that ought to be extended to americans, to millions of americans who need them and there is economic benefit to it. we do not view it as a cynical trading exercise to achieve some theological objective. >> leader pelosi just named. [indiscernible] benghazi. >> again, we defer to the wisdom of leader pelosi in making decisions. we have cooperated substantially

, and i will spare you the recitation of the documents and the committees and the interviews in testimony on this matter. others have noted there have been multiple investigations by multiple committees, and every one of the conspiracy theories the republicans have put forward has come undone and has never been proven. i am not sure why anybody would believe that this is -- that this committee and this investigation would produce a different result. what it will do is consumed congress's time and taxpayer money. presumably because republican political leaders have endorsed it as such provide energy to the republican base for political reasons, you know, to raise money and campaign on. i don't think that is the way that most americans view a matter like this should be

addressed. [inaudible question] >> what are their qualifiers for what is and is not legitimate? >> there is not a blanket decision made. there are requests made and, you know, it invitation's proffered. those are all evaluated accordingly, as they have been in the past. justin, last one. >> two quick ones. the first, neutrality. i know last week you guys were going to carefully review the proposed rules. interpreted. [indiscernible] [laughter] exactly who would be leading the argue, what it would entail, and

whether you expected it to be done within 120 days so that you guys could weigh in? >> i do not have a detailed readout of the process for help progress is evaluated. i can tell you the president has been clear that he cannot support a future in which internet service providers acted -- act as gatekeepers over who can determine what information consumers are in taxes or the internet are which innovative new companies get a shot at success. recognizing the challenging and it created by the coor's, chairman wheeler's stated goal is preserving and open internet. and i am not and no one else here will. i am not going to, no one else here will prejudge a specific path for to achieve the president's principles. [laughter]

>> obviously the fcc is an independent agency. we recognize the challenges that the court has created and the way that the chairman and the fcc approaches these matters. the president's principles are clear. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up tonight on c-span2 president obama addresses the investigation into va facilities. ..