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. ..

>> i just met with secretary shinseki and rub neighbors who i took really assigned to work with secretary senseki at the va and we focus on two issues the allegations of misconduct and veterans affairs facilities and a the 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 and every step of their service. in and the moment they take their oath to win our troops prepare to deploy to afghanistan where they put their lives on the line for our security to the bedside as our wounded warriors fight to recover from terrible injuries. the most searing moments of my presidency 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 have done their duty and they ask nothing more than this

country does ours. that we uphold our sacred trust to all who have served. so when i hear allegations of misconduct, any misconduct whether it's allegations of va staff covering up long wait times are 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 is 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 already been put on administrative leave. i know that people are angry and want -- i sympathize with that but we have to let the investigators to their job and get to the bottom of what happened. our veterans deserve to know the facts and their families deserve to know the facts. once we know the facts i assure you if there is misconduct it will be punished. secondly i want to know the full scope of this problem. that is why i have ordered secretary shinseki to investigate. today he updated me on his review which is looking not just the phoenix facility but also the va facilities across the nation and i expect preliminary results from that review next week. third, i have directed rob neighbors to conduct a broader review of the veterans health

administration the part of the va that delivers health care to our veterans and rob is going to phoenix today. keep in mind though even if we have 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 is not a new developments development. it's been a problem for decades and it's been compounded by more than a decade of war. that is why when i came into office i said we would systematically worked to fix these problems and we have been working really hard to address them. my attitude is for folks who have been fighting on the battlefield they should not have to fight a bureaucracy at home to get the care that they have earned. so the presumption has always been we have 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 the va can up their game and i expect that full report from rob next month. number four,, i said i expect everyone involved to work with congress which has an important oversight role to play. i welcome congress as a partner in our efforts. not just to adjust the current controversies but to make sure we are 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 their 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 in phoenix and other facilities all of us weather 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 and its 21st century which is not an easy task. we have made progress over the last five years. we have made historic investments in our veterans. we have boosted va funding to record levels and we have created consistency to advanced appropriations so that veterans organizations knew their money would be there regardless of political wrangling and watching 10. 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 with post-traumatic stress and mental health issues dramatic brain injury to get treatment and improving care for women's matters. 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 have/that backlog by half. of course we are not going to let up because it's still too high. we are going to keep at it until we eliminate the backlog once and for all. meanwhile we are also reducing homelessness among our veterans. we are helping veterans and their families more than a million so far pursue their education under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. we are stepping up efforts to help our newest veterans get the skills and the training to find jobs when they come home and along with michele and joe biden joining forces we have 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 they have 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 and as our newest veterans are coming home to demands on the va are going to grow so we are 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 have 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 first of all. >> thank you mr. president. as you said this is a part of your presidency you ran on this issue. why was it allowed to get to this stage where you actually had potentially 40 veterans who died while waiting for treatment

under extreme circumstances? >> well we have to find out first of all what exactly happened and i don't 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 wait times generally with the ig indicated so far at least as the wait times were for folks who may have had chronic conditions that were seeking their next appointment that but may have already receives service that was not necessarily a situation where they were for calling for emergency services. the ig indicated that he did not see a link between the wait and them actually dying. 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 some of these wait times. there has been a large influx of new veterans coming in. we have got a population of veterans that is also aging as part of the baby boom population and we have got to make sure that the scheduling system, the access to the system that all those things are in sync. there are parts of the va health care system that have performed well and what we have seen is for example satisfaction rates in many facilities with respect to many providers has been high but what we are seeing is that in terms of how folks get scheduled, how they get in the system there are still too many problems. i'm going to get a complete report from it. it is not as a consequence people not caring about the problem but there are 85 million appointments scheduled among

veterans during the course of the year. that's a lot of appointments and that means we have got to have a system that is built in order to be able to take those folks in and a smooth fashion, that they know what to expect, that it's reliable and it means the va has to set standards that it can meet. and if they can't be need them right now than it's going to have to set realistic goals about how they improve the system overall. >> does this ultimately lie on general shinseki? >> the responsibility and things ultimately rest with me as the president and commander in chief. eric shinseki has been a great soldier. he himself is a disabled veteran and nobody cares more about our veterans than eric shinseki. so if you ask me how do i think

rick shinseki has performed overall i would say i'm homelessness on 9/11 g.i. bill on working with us to reduce the backlog across-the-board he has put his heart and soul into this thing and he is taking it seriously. i've said to rick and i said it to him today i want to see you know, what the results of these reports are and there's going to be accountability. 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 health care facilities. so i know he cares about it deeply and he has been a great public servant and a great 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 from reuters. >> thank you sir. has secretary shinseki offered to resign? were you caught by surprise by these allegations? >> rick shinseki i think serves this country because he cares deeply about veterans and he cares about their mission and i know that rick's attitude is if he does not think he can do a good job on this and if he thinks he has let our veterans down then i'm sure that he is 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 am going to do everything in my power using the resources of the white house to help that process of getting to the bottom of what happened and fix fix it. but i'm also going to be waiting to see what the results of all

this review process yields. i don't yet know how systemic this is. i don't yet know whether a lot of other facilities have been cooking the books or is this just an episodic problem? we know that essentially wait times have been a problem for decades and all kinds of circumstances with respect to the va. getting benefits and getting health care etc.. some facilities do better than others. a couple of years ago the veterans affairs set a goal of 14 days for wait times. what is not yet clear to me is whether enough tools were given to make sure that those goals were actually met and i won't

know until the full report is put forward as to whether there was enough management follow up to ensure that those folks on the front lines who were doing the scheduling have the capacity to meet those goals, if they were being evaluated for many goals that were unrealistic and they couldn't meet a cut there weren't enough doctors or the systems were in place or what have you. we need to find out who's responsible or setting up those guidelines so they are going to be a lot of questions that we have to answer. in the meantime what i have said to rick today is let's not wait for the report retrospectively to reach out immediately to veterans who are currently waiting for appointments to make sure that they are getting better service. that's something that we can initiate right now. we don't have to wait to find out if there was misconduct to dig in and make sure that we are upping our game and all of our various facilities.

you know, i do think it's important not just with respect to rick a bet to the va generally to say that every single day that are people are working in the va who do outstanding work and put everything they have got into making sure that our veterans get the care benefits and services that they need. and so i do want to close by sending a message out there that there are millions of veterans who are getting really good service from the va who are getting really good treatment from the va. i know because i get letters from veterans sometimes asking me to write letters of commendation or praise to a doctor or a nurse or a facility that could have given them better treatment.

and so this is a big system with a lot of really good people in it who care about our veterans deeply. we have seen the improvemeimproveme nts on a whole range of issues like homelessness, like starting to clear the backlog up, like making sure that folks who previously weren't even eligible for disability because there was a mental health issue or because there was an agent orange issue are finally able to get those services. i don't want us to lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of folks in the va who are doing a really taub working really hard at it. that is not on the other hand excuse the possibility that number one we weren't doing a good enough job in terms of providing access to folks who need unemployment for chronic conditions. number two it never excuses the possibility that somebody was trying to manipulate the data in order to look better or make

their facility look better. it is critical to make sure that we have good information in order to make good decisions. i want people on the front lines 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 the problem. do not pretend the problem doesn't exist. if you can't get wait times down to 14 days right now i want you to let folks up the chain nose of do we can solve the problem. do we need more doctors? do we need a new system in order to make sure that scheduling and coordination is more effective and more smooth. is there more follow-up? that is the thing that right now most concerns me about the report, the possibility that folks intentionally withheld information that would have helped us fix a problem.

there is not a problem out there that is not fixable. it can't always be fixed as quickly as everybody would like a typically we can chip away at these problems. we have seen this with the backlog. we have seen it with veterans homelessness. we have seen it with the post-9/11 g.i. bill. initially there were problems with it. they got fixed and outs operating fairly smoothly so problems can be fixed but folks have to let the people that they are reporting to know that there is a problem in order for us to fix fix it. [inaudible] >> my attitude is listen if somebody has mismanaged or engaged in misconduct not only do i not want them -- i want this them punish so that is what we are hopefully going to find out from the ig report as well as the audits that are taking place. all right? thank you very much.

after the president's remarks senate minority leader mitch mcconnell issued a statement saying in part unfortunately so far i have 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 the accountability for treating our veterans like second and third rate citizens? >> what i'm trying to say is that fraud kills. and it's nonpartisan fraud and we have got to do something about it. we don't have unlimited budgets. money gets wasted on a building that's never going to be used as

money that could've could have helped her afghans and it could have helped people here in united states. we are seeing this again and again and again. i'm very proud to work for this administration and i think it's important that people realize inspector generals are independent but it's important that the people see that the government does care and there are a lot of people. there are people in the state and at the pentagon who care about wasting money. see house minority leader nancy pelosi announced today the five democrats she's appointed a special house committee investigating the 2012 benghazi attacks. congressman elijah cummings will

be the top democrat on the committee. the other democratic members are adam smith, adam schiff linda sanchez and tammy.worth. here's a 20 minute announcement. speak that afternoon. what happened in benghazi on september 11, 2012 with a tragedy for the families and loved ones are those who lost their lives, for america's diplomatic corps and for all americans. unfortunately the republican obsession with benghazi is not in done about the victims or their families or our country.

we had hoped that the house republicans leaders would not go down the path of forming a select committee. we have already been there. eight reviews have been conducted in the house and senate, 25,000 documents released, millions of taxpayer dollars spent. it was not necessary to put the families or our country through this partisan exercise once again. over the past two weeks we have engaged in good faith discussions with speaker boehner on the standards of the select committee. we had hoped for a level of fairness and transparency and balance, especially considering the subject matter. we were not able to reach a new agreement. regrettably the republican approach has not prevented the acceptable and repeated abuses committed by chairman issa in any meaningful way. that is all the more reason for democrats to participate in the committee, to be there to fight

for fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on. what is the purpose of this investigation? what is the timetable? what are the milestones? what are they hoping to achieve? i could have argued why give any validity to this effort but i do think it is important for the american people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced way as possible. that simply would not be possible leaving it to the republicans. that is why i'm appointing my distinguished colleagues here today to serve on the select committee. i'm so proud of them and all that they do for the american people in the congress of the

united states and for their constituents at home. congressman elijah cummings will be the ranking member. he is the ranking member on the committee on oversight and government reform. congressman adam smith ranking member on the armed services committee has agreed to serve. congressman adam schiff on the appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations very important in this discussion and as a member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. congressman linda sanchez on the committee of ways & means and subcommittee of oversight congresswoman tammy duckworth serving on the armed services committee and the committee on government oversight and government reform. mr. cummings committee. with their leadership and persistence to do right by the families of the victims and by the way to families have communicated with us saying don't take us down this path again. why is this being done in?

we hope that we can shine a light on where our focus should he, preventing a tragedy like benghazi from ever happening again. i told the speaker and a phonecall that i just had with him that i am hopeful that ranking member cummings and chairman gowdy can come to some better terms on how we proceed and it's with that hope and his great leadership that i present the chairman are ranking member of this committee mr. cummings. >> thank you very much met him leader and i too agree with you that we must be in pursuit of fairness and transparency not only for the families of these great americans whom we lost but also for the american people.

i do not believe a select committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and a review of more than 25,000 pages of documents. many of the so-called unanswered questions have been raised recently have already been answered in these three district courts. i also do not believe a select committee rules proposed by the speaker are fair opened or designed to induct a neutral reason fact-based environment. despite these challenges i have agreed to participate for two reasons and i want to thank my colleagues who have also agreed to participate. first as you know i served as the ranking member on the oversight committee for the past three years. and in that role i have seen

first-hand how abusive the republicans have been during this investigation. they have issued unilateral subpoenas. they have made unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence to back them up and they have released selected excerpts of documents and transcripts that distort the truth. in some instances when they had the skull but tory evidence right in hand. the secretary of state misleading congress about reducing security in benghazi. a claim fact check claims for pinocchio's. second family members had pleaded publicly for this not to be lit led to size.

let me read to you their words and i quote. what chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes end of quote. so i feel that i owe to the families of ambassador stevens and the other brave americans who lost their precious lives to bring minimal levels of balance to this process and to check for for -- whenever they may arise. in short ladies and gentlemen i believe we need someone in that room to simply defend the truth, defend the truth. that is why i have agreed to serve. let me just close by saying that rather than fund-raising off of the murders of these four brave

americans and i must tell you i thought that despicable, i think the best way to honor these men is to bring their killers to justice and work in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all u.s. personnel overseas. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. any questions? yes sir treated. >> you some very senior members of the leadership team advised not to do this. what ultimately was the tipping point? what caused you to decide we need to do this? >> while i believe that mr. cummings has spelled out very clearly. the abuses that occurred in the previous isa investigation and then when the rules of the proposal were put forth as to how we would perceive you would think that would argue saying

don't go in the room but in fact he said it heightens the urgency of it. and so it's a process to be fair and transparent there would be more trust in it but since there wasn't we need to be at the table. our committee was mixed. our members as i said we couldn't have lawyered it one way or another. >> the house is going to vote tomorrow on the nsa reforms creates the we are just going to focus on this and tomorrow i will be here at 10:45 to talk about that. >> this question is actually comment. you had gone on air advising a couple of weeks ago calling this a colossal waste of time and you are standing here today ready to serve on this committee. >> i still think that this is

ground that we have covered time and time again. the pertinent questions have been asked and answered again but i respect the decision that has been made. i think elijah cummings said it quite well. the decision was ultimately made that we need someone in that room to stand up for the truth and that will be our responsibility to make sure that this does not become talking points that we focus instead on the things that really matter. and that is what can we do to prevent other people from being killed in the future in diplomatic posts around the world and where are we in hunting down those who are responsible? those are important responsibilities and if we can help direct this committee to focus on those questions than i think it will be very important. but regrettably it does not seem to be the direction they are heading. nonetheless we are going to do our best to make sure this doesn't become a circus or continue to be a fund-raising device but instead the focus is on where are we in implementing the recommendations the very

sound recommendations of the accountability review boards. >> mr. gowdy can unilaterally subpoena witnesses. mr. cummings have you talked to him and you think you have a relationship with him that you can come to some kind of -- that can be consulted beforehand? >> i talk to gowdy very briefly yesterday and you know, we basically wanted to be in a position where we were consulted with regard to subpoenas and if there was disagreement we were asking that it be brought to a vote of the committee. and that is what we were asking for. of course it's a 7-5 split as you know so they have the votes

in one of the reasons why we wanted that is because we believe that the conversation would be very significant and it may have been things we could have done to move that process along so we didn't have to go that far but the fact is i don't know what's going to happen with regard to mr. gowdy. everything that i've seen from him and i do consider him a great prosecutor and i have seen him in a prosecutorial mode on our committee. i think as far as this committee is concerned i think we have to go in and be finders of the facts. i think we have to go in neutral. i don't think we need to be making accusations before we even get in the room to hear the facts. and so you know i don't know what's going to happen but the one thing he did say to me is he is hopeful that we will be able to have a situation where there

would be fairness. i'm going to hold him to that and all of us are going to hold them to that. and the last thing one of the reasons why the leader was so concerned about that and i was too is because we have situations where in the oversight committee where we were not consulted at all with regard to subpoenas and that's a very very serious responsibility and we think the minority should be included in that process. >> just quickly i agree with my colleague. this is a committee that should not have been formed. it's a then investigated a-10's the sensor publicans chose to format i think we have to participate to do our best to bring out the correct arguments. at this point it appears that this is a purely partisan and political effort and that is regrettable because my biggest concern here is the blow to

congress's credibility. we don't have a lot of that left as you are aware. oversight of things like this is incredibly important. when something like this happens congress has an obligation to ask the right questions, to conduct proper oversight and from the very beginning this is not what the republicans have done on this issue. they have made a partisan and political and undermine their ability to do our jobs as a congress. now when the commission is formed we have to serve on it and to make the best comments possible. we can't let republicans run the show but i will tell you at this point i am highly skeptical even when you look at the members they pointed to the committee, they are lacking in experience on national security and foreign-policy matters for the most part so what is the purpose here? you read stories about how their fund-raising off of this. this is a partisan political process. we hope as our colleague from california pointed out to shift

to at least be somewhat useful to talk about the issues that matter but right now it does not look good. thank you. >> i would like to make one clarification here on the subject of subpoena and also access to witnesses and documents and the rest. especially relevant to your question. at first his was the idea that they're going to call this one in that one. we don't think secretary hillary clinton our secretary john kerry or the others need our help in the room. we know that they are professionals, patriots, articulate spokespersons for what they have done and for our country. they concerned that i had is who are these other people that they are going to call and when it was not guarantee that we would have access to who they were and sufficient time in advance to prepare or to even be able to make a judgment about who they were and that really argued in favor of saying let's not worry

about again hillary clinton and john kerry. they can fend for themselves but let's make sure that there is not an exploitation of information because we have not had access to these other people they would call. to your point deidre we had first said to the speaker we wanted evenly divided committee. we think that would have the most strength in the most credibility. he said no. and if we said well then why not give a democratic vote for a subpoena a letter that steny hoyer and i wrote to the speaker we might not have a democratic vote so that legitimizes the call for a subpoena. he said no. so then we said what mr. cummings just said and what mr. smith said, if there's going to be a subpoena there should be consultation and if that's consultation does not produce

concurrence than if it's controvercontrover sial than there should be a vote of the committee. it doesn't say nine boats, a vote of the committee. it means that they have the votes 7-5 in the committee to pass what they have but that vote would have to take place in a business meeting which is an open session and that is what i think they are afraid of. so i come back to the word transparency. transparency, fairness balance in all of this. i would like steve to hear from either of you before we go. >> we are very proud of our entire committee. we think we have strength in terms of knowledge and understanding of what the challenges and also shall we say experience leaders at hearings in congress. >> thank you. i'm congresswoman linda sanchez. i serve on the ways & means committee and the ethics committee so as somebody who is

in a position to have to be a try or a fact in take an evidence and make decisions based on what the evidence shows when your leader asks you to serve your country on a select committee it makes sense to be in that room and we have a lot of respect for the colleagues that stand behind me. they are outstanding members. they are thorough members and i think sitting and trying to get out the facts leaving politics out of the room is going to be a challenge for this committee and we are here to try to make sure that we are looking at the facts and not just making up allegatioallegatio ns. i'm honored to be asked to serve and i'm ready and willing to do it. >> tammy duckworth and i realize realize -- illinois eighth district.

i too am honored to be asked to serve my country in this way. having been a freshman on the oversight government reform i have watched his mr. cummings time and again in a very measured way but forward request for the truth of greater transparency. i have said in committee where the testimony of admiral mullen a man with over 30 years of military experience and whether or not there was capacity for military aircraft to make it to benghazi and time was questioned by someone with no military experience questioning his judgment as a military commander. so i'm proud to get to be on this committee and i'm going to stand for the truth. i'm going to start from square one. i want to make sure no american diplomat and no american life no american servicemembers put in the same kind of jeopardy where we don't have the resources veritech them as they carry out this nation's business around the world and buried out to serve on this committee. >> thank you all very much.

[inaudible conversations]

>> he some people in the movement decided to take the cause cost to the united states supreme court and that is really what i chose to write about. i'm really gratified that "the new york times" called me -- cause it is stunningly intimate story. that is what i set out to do. i was fascinated. i wanted to know what would it feel like to be in a major civil rights litigation case one that was incredibly high-profile and controversial and what did that feel like? what was the judge thinking as he was considering the evidence. the judge as it turns out

himself to be. what does it feel like? i guess ultimately what i really wanted to portray is what does it feel like to want something that everybody else has but be told he can't have that? >> the u.s. senate voted thursday to advance the nomination of david barron to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit.

mr. barron is written legal memos justifying the use of unmanned aerial drones to kill american terrorists overseas. next senator rand paul explains his opposition to the nomination while senator ron wyden defends mr. barron. this is 45 minutes. see i rise today in opposition to the killing of american citizens without trials. i rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the president has the power to kill an american citizen not involved in combat and without a trial. i rise today to say that there is no legal precedence for killing american citizens not involved in combat and that any nominee who rubberstamps and grants such power to a president is not worth the of being placed one step away from the supreme court. it isn't about just seeing the beran 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 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 traders and people who 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 have fought for and to a 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 it's a disservice to their sacrifice not to have an open in 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 the battlefield. anybody shooting against our soldiers, anybody involved in combat get snowed 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 them probably are bad people. that we are 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 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 precedence 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 gone? how far have we gone? we were once talking about detaining american citizens in objecting that they would get no accusation no trial.

now we are condoning killing american citizens without a trial. during president obama's first election he told the "boston globe", no, i reject the bush of administrations claim that the president has plenary 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 but he is now approving of killing american citizens without a trial. where oh where has candidate obama gone? president obama puts forward david barron his memos justify killing americans without a trial. i can't tell you what he wrote in the memos. the president forbids it. i can tell you what barron did not write. he did not 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 sacred from the american people. it 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 today are unrelated to the issue of killing american citizens because no such cases have ever occurred. we 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 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 defensive

drone executions rise in cases which upon critical analysis have no pertinent to the case at hand. and mi the only one that 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? it might be 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 a thousand years of jurisprudence. trials based on the perception of innocents are an ancient rite the romans wrote that the burden of proof is on he who declares, he who asserts that you are guilty not on he who denies. the burden is on 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 deluded and eventually destroyed. in many nations the presumption of innocence is a legal right to the accused even in the trial. in america we go one step further to protect the accused. we place the burden of proof on the prosecution. we require the government to collect and present enough compelling evidence to a jury, not to one person who works for the president, not to bunch of people in secret but to a public jury the evidence must be presented. but then we go even further to protect the possibility of innocence. we require that the accused is guilty beyond 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 and even during all of the most appropriate things we still sometimes have gotten it wrong and executed people after jury trials mistakenly, erroneously. but now we are talking about not even have in the protection of a trial. we are talking about only accusations. are we comfortable killing american citizens no matter how awful her heinous the crime they are accused of? are we comfortable killing them based on accusations that no jury has reviewed? innocent until proven guilty the concept is tested. we aren't being tested. it is cut contested that the accused is likely guilty in this case. the traitor is all likelihood guilty. the evidence appears to be overwhelming and yet why can't we do the american thing and have a public trial and accuse

them and convict them in a quart? it is more difficult to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty when the accused is unpopular or hated. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is more difficult when the accused is charged with treason. the bill of rights is easy. it's easy to defend what we like in a speech or sympathize with a defendant. defending the right for people we fear or dislike is more difficult. it's extremely hard but we have to defend the bill of rights or it will slip away from us. it's easy to support a trial for someone who looks like you. for someone who has the same color skin or someone who has the same religion. it's easy. presumption of innocence is however much harder when the citizen practices a minority religion, when the citizen

resides in a foreign land or sympathizes with the enemy. yet our history is replete with examples of heroes who defended the defenseless, who defended the unpopular who sometimes defended the guilty. we remember john adams when he defended the british soldiers, the once over guilty of the boston massacre. we remember fondly people who defend the unpopular even when the end of being declared guilty because that's something we take pride in our system. we remember his son john quincy adams when he defended the slaves that took over the amistad. we remember fondly henry seldon who defended the unpopular when he represented susan b. anthony who voted illegally as a woman. we remember fondly eugene debs who defended himself when he was accused of being against the draft and against world war i and was given 10 years in prison. we defend the unpopular.

that's what the bill of rights is especially important for. we remember fondly clarence darrow who defended the unpopular in the scopes monkey trial. we remember thurgood marshall who defended the unpopular when he struck down segregation. where would we be without these champions? where would we be without applying the bill of rights to those we don't like and those we don't associate with and those we believe 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 than more unpopular the defended. we cannot and we should not abandon this cherished principle. critics will argue that these are people who plot to kill americans. i don't dispute that. my first instinct is like most americans to recoil in horror

and want immediate punishment for. herz. i can't stand the thought of americans who consort with an advocate violence against americans. i want to punish those americans who are. herz but i'm also conscious of what these traitors have betrayed. these traders are betraying it country that holds dear the precept of innocents until guilty. .. ech you agree with. it is harder to protect speech you abhor. the first amendment is not so much about protecting speech that is easily agreed to. it is about tolerating speech that is an abomination.

likewise, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendments are not so much about protecting majorities of thought, religion or ethnicity. due process is about protecting everyone, especially minorities. unpopular opinions change from generation to generation. while >> >> and. >> and he did with the jury just this is not always easily discovered. only to watch the jurors

deliberate to understand friday justice even with a jury is not always straightforward. today virtually everyone synthesizes with tom robinson to was unfairly accused in the book "to kill a mockingbird" because they know he is innocent because the accusation was based on race. it is a slam down call for everybody to belief. is easy to object to vigilante justice when you know, the accused is innocent and of mob at attempts in judicial execution beastie and but what about american citizens is guilty? what about the american citizen who is a trader in deserves punishment? horary strong enough to believe still that this

person should get a trial? do we have the courage to denounce execution as nothing more than sophisticated vigilanteism? how could it be anything but? checks and balances cannot exist in one branch of government. whether upon it advice of one player or 10,000 if they all work for one man, the president, how can it be anything better verdict outside the of law that could conceivably be subject to the emotion and fear? this president above all other presidents, should not allow power to gravitate to one man. it is hard to defend the right to a trial for an american citizen who becomes

a trader who appears to be aiding and abetting the enemy. but if we cannot give a trial for the most heinous crimes then where will the slippery slope lead as? jurisprudence is that everyone gets his or her day in court to the matter how despicable the crime accused. how to retry these americans overseas? they will not come home the constitution holds the answer they should be tried for alleged treason if they refuse to come home they should be tried in absentia and given the right to a legal defense. the independent legal event that does not work for the government. if the method of punishment is not the issue of italy's has been the right to to a trial the presumption of innocence and a guarantee of due process. for these reasons i cannot support the nomination even

if they release a dozen memos i cannot support him because the debate is not about partisan politics i have supported not any of his nominees it is not about transparency but the substance of the memos. i cannot and will not support an appointment of someone who believes it is okay to kill an american citizen not involved in combat without a trial. some will argue to state the president now has changed his mind and will release the memos to the public then let's wait widely havel full throated debates let's see what the public thinks when he think something that over a thousand years deserves debate? with the degree we take the

time to realize this is not the position of the administration but now that is relenting to a the verdict to the second circuit court they released this memo under giraffes and my guess is because they need a few more votes than they will by releasing these to the public or promising to they will not be released and they will not be released before the vote takes place. so the question is is it really transparency good enough for you do cast aside the presumption of innocence? that the accusations is better than the conviction? there has spent much discussion of what to process is. as we have looked at this debate there are valid questions.

having written extensively on this to writes about of lawyer that had extra edition killing of an american should it be entrusted to a man it will be entrusted to him and his six americans can be killed without due process? they say it is very clear no person shall answer for infamous crime unless of the indictment of a grand jury does not say with the accusation of the executive branch without a trial says nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. the question is what is to process?

you would think this would be pretty clear without much dispute. but when you listen to some of these descriptions we now have the administration that writing this about both the bush in the obama administration that court is the orwellian practice to equate government accusation of terrorism with proof of guilt to realize of the talk about there is a big difference between the accusation and a conviction. if you want to realize how important senators on the other side of the aisle call them terrorists on multiple occasions. who are we going after with these directives? either senior operatives of the al qaeda there is no membership card so that is

debatable but those associated with terrorism of. that definition it could be somewhat loose the bureau of justice put out a memo to discuss the characteristics of those that might be a terrorist people missing thinkers, stains on clothing , changed the color of their hair, multiple weapons in the house more than seven days' worth of food in the house these are people you should be suspicious of who might be terrorists and you should talk to to inform the government about these people. of this is the definition of someone who might be a terrorist wouldn't we want a lawyer before that accusation becomes a conviction? >> when we talk about

convictions we talk about the bar being beyond a reasonable doubt. as you can pretty much sync in a jury pool someone killed someone the you are supposed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that in these memos there is a different standard realize what that is that now we have the of lifetime appointment that the assassination is justified when he informed high-level officials has determined the targeted individual poses the imminent threat of a violent attack against the united states. so no longer beyond a reasonable doubt we talk about an informed unnamed high-level officials deciding the attack is going to over.

the interesting thing about the imminent attack we don't go the played wording of limited to any more the memo expressly states inventing a broader concept of the minutes typically not use. the president's assassination power does not require the u.s. has clear evidence that is specific attack will take place in the immediate future so you were about eminence that no longer includes the word immediate. the aclu explains sen memo redefines the word imminent in the way that deprives the word of the ordinary meeting. -- meaning. to talk about to process it is important to understand where it can occur it has to

occur in the open in the adversarial process if you don't have a lawyer on your side who is your advocate you cannot have to process it cannot occur in secret but also not in one branch of government it is a fundamental misconception. the president believes with regard to privacy that if he has some lawyers review the process it is to process it is appalling it has nothing to do was due process and can no way be seen that way. some have said this is a judicial oath begin to a3 has justified the president sash's people also said this with regard to this spying case of 15 judges approve the majority of them were

secrets of the fisa court that is not due process as well but also the memo written in by a david barron is not a judicial opinion it was not written by anybody independent of the president. on multiple occasions they have justified in the memo argues that to process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedienne steven colbert mach to this and wrote trial by jury. trial by fire brought papers scissors. who cares is just means there is a process. right? first president meets his advisers to decide to he will kill then kills them it is actually called terror tuesday with flash cards and power point presentation is.

a colleague of david barron writes there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by a secret internal process within the executive branch. said to those of my colleagues to come down here today to stamp of approval on someone who i believe disrespects the bill of rights realize other professors are colleagues disagree. and you cannot have to process by a secret internal process within the executive branch. if they say they're now not a secret will we be promised from now on it is a public debate and some form of due process? no. i suspect the next time it is done in secret by the executive branch because that is said to normal. you vote for someone who made a historic president how to kill americans overseas in secret by one

branch of the administration without representation based on an accusation. we have gone from proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to accusations and to be enough for the execution. i am horrified this is where we are. to my colleagues i would say that to make an honest judge letitia the get the nomination as if it came from the office of party provided promise you this would absolutely be my opinion it is not the most popular opinion to take but i would oppose this nomination is coming for a republican president but look deep within their soul to say how little i felt if it were a bush nominee? that had written legal

opinions justifying torture in 20 -- 2007, 2006, 2005, how would  voted? 90 percent would7s vote now against the nominee it has become partisan and the body has become too partisan there was a time when there were great believers in behalf to generate into a body of partisanship there was a time when the filibuster could have stopped this nomination there was a time in which there would have to be compromise there was a time we get people more to the mainstream of legal thought because they would be excluded from holding office the people live argued so forcefully for a majority vote to not have the filibuster are the ones are responsible for lolling denomination to go forward it would not if not for the elimination of the filibuster some say that was

obstructionism it was also about trying to prevent extremists from getting on the bench. we will now allow some iu has the extreme pointed you questioning whether or not guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt and that an accusation is enough for the death penalty. some consolation if you are a traveler if his only overseas. we need to think long and hard to examine this nomination of chuck to play as if this were nomination from president of the opposite party to ask ourselves how precious is the concept of the assumption of innocence? how precious are the bill of rights? also, it is hard. the new knows someone is guilty if you have seen the evidence and feel this person deserves punishment.

i sympathize in think they did but i also sympathize so greatly with the concept of having a jury trial, so greatly the accusation is different than a conviction i cannot allow this to go forward without some objection. i hope this body will consider this and will reconsider the nomination and at the appropriate time i will offer a unanimous consent disagreement the request will be to delay the david barron memo -- nomination and tell the public -- the public has a chance to do but look at the nomination. thank you mr. president. >> madam president it was not very long ago plan thus senator from kentucky and fiber here on the floor talking about drones previously.

i just want to make sure that it is understood that senator paul's passion his intellectual rigor, and devotion to liberty and security which he and i have worked on together for a number of years is much appreciated. i want to come for a few minutes especially talk what senator paul and i have discussed in the past how vigorous oversight over the intelligence field needs to get more attention. not something you can minimize vicos rate to the heart of the values the senator from kentucky and others talk about liberty

and security are not mutually exclusive. the senator from kentucky and i often joke how the senate would benefit from of ben franklin caucus. of course, he famously said anyone who gives up their liberty does not deserve either. so the senator from kentucky and i certainly have some disagreements from time to time on that judicial nominee by thing can for the time this morning and for the opportunity we have had over the years to make the case how important these issues are that the american people ought to insist, ought to insist their elected official put in place policies that ensure we have both liberty and security.

i thank him for that and i just as summer brief remarks this morning. of course, if the senate will vote today on the nomination of david barron to serve as a judge for the first judicial circuit. the nomination endorsed by a wide variety of americans including jurist from across the political spectrum. he has received a vocal endorsements from some of the country's most prominent civil rights groups. of course, the aspect of his record that perhaps has received the closest scrutiny is the authorship of a legal opinion regarding the president's authority to use military force against individual who was both a u.s. citizen and a senior leader of the al qaeda. madam president, i am quite familiar with this particular memo.

the executive branch first acknowledged this three years ago in response to a question i asked added open hearing of the senate select committee on intelligence. working with my colleagues it provides the memo to the intelligence committee the administration made this memo available to all members of the senate and the executive branch officials have said they will provide this memo to the american people as well. madam president, in my view clearly this is a constructive step and i will vote yes on mr. barron nomination. but this whole matter is much more than a single memo.

it drives home how incredibly important congressional oversight is that is the mission of the intelligence committee and all of us with the classic work of democratic government, wilson wrote conducting oversight was one of the most important functions of congress. that may be more important to pass legislation. with a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government in to talk much about what is sees. but to examine the assets and disposition of the executive branch choose scrutinize with every form of discussion. woodrow wilson said of congress if they feel the -- fail in this to the then the

american people will remain ignorant'' of the very affairs it is most important that they understand. woodrow wilson might not have been able to anticipate sizes and a scale of the modern national security apparatus but i wanted to say his words are just as true today as they were one century ago. as the elected representatives of 4 million americans i have spent years working from the theory that all of us have an obligation to affect the executive branch is interpreting the president's authority to use military -- military force against our nation and i have long believed it is my obligation to make sure those i am honored to

represent all across oregon realize that as well. every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. with the case in question, as i said before the president's decision to authorize the military strike in this circumstance was legitimate and lawful i had detailed my views on this case to a letter to the attorney-general posted on my website i a agree it is now famous memo. to be clear, while i agree with the conclusion this is not a memo i would have written it claims some analytical leaps i would not endorse it jumps to several

conclusions and leaves a number of important questions unanswered. and i am hopeful that making this memo public will help to generate public pressure that is needed to get those additional questions answered. i am talking about fundamental questions like how much evidence does the president need to determine if a particular american is of legitimate target? what does it mean to say that captured must be feasible? mr. barron was not asked but in my view it is vitally important to american people get answers to those

questions but to understand how the constitutional rights are protected and saying i will stay at it and tell the american people get answers to the questions. in addition to getting detailed public answers another important step is for congress to review the other memos to use military force outside of an active war zone. those that the congress denounces regarding the use of legal force but it will be important to review the memo of other aspects of this authority as well. and to see how the

government interprets the of law in terms of ensuring there are additional protections for privacy and civil liberties to in danger at a dangerous time. to take the baron -- barron nomination to make the memo public but i will say here it has been frustrating over the past few years to see the justice department resistance with memos that outlined the executive branch the official understanding lot. i believe congressional request want to see classified memos and legal opinions were appropriately granted. and as mr. barron moved on congressional request and opinions has frequently been

stonewalled. i use that word specifically stonewalled. the executive branch makes the argument to make confidential legal advice to the president. here is a problem with that argument. and before he makes the decision but one said has been made from the justice department has been sent to the agencies that will carry out the president's decision, that memo is no longer pre-decision will advice that the government's official diego basis for an actual award and as such it might you entirely unacceptable to withhold it from the congress. it has the power to declare war and whether to continue

funding a war that is vital to understand what the executive branch believes what the war powers are. and that that i just discussed from woodrow wilson who said'' it is even more important to know how the house is being built to the and to know the plans of the architect were conceived. as a former basketball player i say the rulebook that the united states follows is always available to the american people. the military intelligence agency often needs to conduct secret operations but should never be placed in the position to rely on a

secret loss. such a know him the executive br!tn/oz7=%u provide this memo to the american people and i believe this step must lead to additional steps of her equally important. this episode is a lesson in how the united states congress can use the lever that it has for one of the most important functions of government. as my colleagues and i engage with the perennial discussion how to make congress more functional, i hope this is an experience we will remember. madam president, i yield the floor.

to say that government could no longer store information on its own aunt with the query for the investigation as long as the approval by the fisa intelligence course. >>host: the headline says alarms privacy advocates what are the specifics there? >> this bill is marked up in open hearings by the house to judiciary committee and house intelligence committee. the version that showed up with the house rules committee has significant changes. one had to do with these specific selection terms when the government goes to the court to say this is the piece to get information from people related to this

term. the original bill gave examples of what they voted me. my phone number, my address but the bill has more broad language sam privacy groups say it could allow for more mass collection instead of and privacy groups said could be an entire area. >> the viewers got the of markups. and whose seeds of paul sides of the i/o? >> with said judiciary committee chairman with steve peters of the intelligence committee it started off as sensenbrenner will speak. is his bill it is a

compromise but had some savings including the emergency provision. in this is the provision is. >> with final passage with the bipartisan support and opposition. >> yes. one of the issues is where you see the senate to going with this san senator leahy who offered companion legislation already expressing disappointment with changes and the compromise that has been made to it. >>host: the senate dealing with national security with the nomination of david barron to the first circuit the senate advanced the

nomination 52 / 43 vote. what is the headline here? why was there some sense of opposition? >>guest: the role he played to author a memo justifying that lays out the administration is justification for the drone and strikes abroad targeted against counter terrorism suspects that has been very controversial tactic. rand paul who was the persistent critic has been the loudest voice of that debate. >>host: circling back to the white house from obviously there but the barron nomination to pass what about the nsa bill in the house? >> they endorsed it that the compromise language said appear this week seems to have emerged after a closed

door meeting between white house officials and house leaders. >>host: homeland security editor you can follow his reporting on twitter. they q4 joining us. >>guest: thank you for having me.

>> what i am trying to say is fried kills. non-partisan fraud. we have to do something about it. we don't have unlimited budgets and money that gets wasted on a building that will never be used it could have helped an afghan or people in the united states. you see this again and again

and icahn. i am very proud to work for this administration and i think it is important people realize i was appointed by the president and inspector general's are independent. but it is important that the government does care. those who care about wasting money.

[inaudible conversations] >> this hearing will come to order. today as we meet, we have nearly 300 young girls from northern nigeria that remained boko haram kidnap victims and it has spent five weeks since they were abducted. every passing minute makes a successful rescue less likely and we meet today to ensure the united states is doing everything it can to assist in their rescue. just yesterday the house passed a resolution pressing for more aggressive action and many around the world

are just now hearing of boko haram. but savvy for communities in northern nigeria they know the death and destruction this group brings only too well and have known if for a number of years. because says boko haram has spread they have continued to burn schools as of today over 500 schools have been destroyed. for 100 teachers killed, the sporting committee members had the chance to meet with debra. a young woman who was just 15 years of age is from the same town in nigeria were the recent abductions took place. she is seated in a front-row one of of the three boko haram survivors in the united states and courageously shared heard

dramatic experience at the hands of boko haram with us this morning and her father and her brother were executed in french of her eyes for not renouncing their christian faith. her father was a pastor and their church was burned to the ground. rethink debra and her friends for traveling from rural virginia to share her traumatic story in the hopes that the world will act. we're faced with stiff challenges in northern nigeria. in the near-term to see these keros rescued and in the long term entering boko haram unable to threaten the region. this is a group says has killed thousands, thousands of nigerians to date those

whose title of the translation that western education is a sin. the mission is to carry out of war and against those to educate or empower women. with the greatest sin to them is not in treating women as chattel which they do but to win slave women which they purport to justify. but to be involved to educate or teach young women how to read and write. at this time the group boko haram has developed a vast arsenal of weapons they are the al qaeda and sylvia. -- affiliate's and have received a treating from al qaeda groups and have built up their resources without support.

that means greater terror for the people in nigeria and greater challenges for security forces. unfortunately they suffered unprofessional elements with for morale. i have been in nigeria several times. it is a struggle with the nigerian military to cope with this threat. that has led some to say that we should not get involved but it tells me otherwise that the u.s. involvement is critical. forces are well positioned to revise and assist in the search and rescue of these girls. in this role for says expertly trained to deal with hostage situations and

jungle in fireman's and with tracking could help nigerians with intelligence intelligence, planning and logistics. if some of u.s. laws would hinder such assistance they should use the waiver authority under these extraordinary circumstances. why do we care? we care about deborah, her friends and family, a girl's right to an education. human-rights and religious liberty with the largest in population. with direct security interest commanders that the pentagon have stated with boko haram is a threat to western interests and one of the highest priorities in africa.

that is critical to get the state department to designate as a terrorist organization the administration made that announcement in this room under pressure from us on this committee. to hear from pentagon of witnesses that we have in place. boko haram with heavy weapons and grenade attacks is waging a brutal war against schoolgirl's carrying backpacks and books and pencils. you cannot sit on the sidelines now i will turn to the ranking member. spin aphakia for holding this time the hearing. i would like to stink our

witnesses for being here

>> >> yet many of the funds while troops are not paid of living wage increase frustration and fueled low-level corruption. how exactly can the u.s. engage with the of military

force that last professionalism to respect human rights? how do we convince nigerian leaders they are not doing enough for makes the problem worse? weld we are focused to recover the girls to stop boko haram we need to let the broader context. years of stagnation and neglect have created this environment that terrorist groups arrive. in places where there is no support or opportunity. bay find easier to prey on the vulnerable population preaching violence and hatred. to push back and i believe that the nigerian government must address the issues of corruption to improve security forces to provide additional resources education, infrastructure, e conomic activity. age syria must take a more holistic approach against terrorism.

i look forward to hearing from how we can engage with the nigerians to do with boko haram today nigeria is regarded as a partner and the united states needs to be helpful to build an environment to force development and prosperity for our tomorrow. thank you for holding this hearing and to the witnesses and deborah for appearing here today. i yield back. >> thank you. for convening this extremely important hearing. obviously words are inadequate to express our concern and i say that collectively for though whereabouts of the abducted girls as well as the outrage to boko haram for the horrific act of aggression and violence. my good friend and colleague mentioned how boko haram is largely unknown around the

world until this infamous incident but not to chairman or the ranking member or any other member of this committee we have better raising concerns of boko haram for years especially since 2011 when they seem to transition into a more lethal stage with the bombing but also the very real problem of not being designated a foreign terrorist organization i held two hearings. i went with him and he joins us. and met with people who were victims of fire bombings you were targeted for killing by these folks and he made it very clear just how clear this would get worse used to

destroy a terrible threat. and looking forward to what the answer might be. and at that hearing it was announced i still cannot understand what the delay was when i asked the ambassador carson repeated the and why the delay? and it is never before to assist the government of nigeria but we lost precious time by not designating them a fair and -- foreign terrorist organization earlier rather than later. i yield back. >> our ranking subcommittee member is in africa so we will go to mr. sherman.

>> boko haram is one of many organizations that try to oppose a contorted version of ninth century is on. to see from north africa to the middle east and south asia. as those who claim to be affiliated to don't claim the al qaeda franchise and looking at jihad or the reverse. with the violin to extremism is not one to local for just because we are tired of its. it is succeeded at this point only by the cold war.

we have to turn off the money to groups like boko haram and i hope we get testimony says what is not being detected to go through these groups. for the governments to deal with this. i yield back. >> let's go to a former judge and subcommittee on terrorism non-proliferation and trade. >> boko haram showed as a world its evil ways when it kidnapped over 200 illnesses schoolgirl's threatening to marry them off to their fighters that taking the matter of the country as property and slaves i have seen bills of him and trafficking and other acts

this is the ultimate human rights violation but not a surprise given in to seize our laws are. unfortunately the state department did not want to designate boko haram as a foreign'' terrorist organization until 48 months after the fbi made their plea to designate the group. the state department did not make the statement before we had a joint hearing for the subcommittee on the threat of boko haram bid november november 2013. interesting timing? we should have listed them earlier but instead be worried about diplomatic relations after fighting the designation i'm curious how the state department has implemented in if anything but we do to stop this organization. do we have a plan? i yield back.

>> we are joined this morning by representatives by department of state and defense. prior to being sworn in as the undersecretary of state for democracy and human rights serving as a senior lecturer of public policy and also serving as deputy assistant secretary at the department of defense. 1983 through 1996. the extreme of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for african affairs. a career member of the senior executive service serving as deputy assistant secretary for strategy and a

recipient of the presidential rank award for her work on the 2010 quadrennial defense review. without objection the full prepared statement will be made part of the record you have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions to the witnesses horrors of mitt extra radius material for the of record. . . . .