what are the milestones? what are they hoping to achieve? i could have argued this either way. 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 a way as possible. that simply would not be possible leaving it to the republicans. that's why i'm appointing my distinguished colleagues here today to serve on the select committee. i'm so proud of them. and congressman cummings will be the ranking member. he is the ranking member member on the committee of oversight and government reform. congressman adam smith, ranking member of the armed services committee has agreed to serve. congressman adam schiff,

committee on appropriations, subcommittee on state and foreign operations. very important in this discussion and member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. congresswoman linda sanchez, committee of ways and means and subcommittee of oversight. congresswoman tammy duckworth erving on committee of oversight and government reform. we will do right by the families of the victims. two families said don't take us down this path again. why is this being done? we hope we can shine a light on where our focus should be preventing benghazi from ever happening again. i told a the speaker in a phone call i just had with him that i'm hopeful that ranking member cummings and the chairman can

come to some better terms on how we proceed and it is with that hope and his great leadership that i present the chairman, our ranking member on this committee, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, madam 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 who we lost in libya, but also for the american people. i do not believe a select committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and review of more than 25,000 pages of documents. many of the so-called unanswered questions republicans have been

raising recently have already been answered in these previous reports. i also do not believe the select committee rules proposed by the speaker are fair, open or designed to conduct a neutral eason, fact-based inquiry. despite these challenges i have agreed to participate for two reasons. 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. nd in that role, i have seen firsthand how abusive the republicans have been during this investigation. they've issued unilateral subpoenas. they have made unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence to

back them up and they have released selective excerpts of documents and transcripts that destroyed the truth. in some instances, when they had exculpatory evidence right at hand. they falsely accused secretary of state of misleading congress about reducing security in benghazi. according to the "washington ost," fact checker gave four pinnochios. secondly, the family members of chris stevens have pleaded publicly for this not to be politicized. 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 it to the families of ambassador stevens and the other brave americans

who lost their precious lives to bring some minimal level of balance to this process and to check false claims wherever they may arise. in short, ladies and gentlemen, i believe we need someone in that room to simply defend the truth. defend the truth. and that is why i have agreed to serve. let me just close by saying rather than fundraising off of the murders of these four brave americans and i must tell you i find that diss pickable. i believe the best way is to bring their killers to justice and work in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all u.s. peron ell overseas. thank you.

-- personnel overseas. >> any questions? >> some members of your leadership team advised you not to do this? what ultimately was the tipping point and what caused you to say no, we are going to do this. >> mr. cummings has spelled it out very clearly the abuses that occurred in the previous issa investigation and then when the rules -- when the proposal was put forth as to how we would proceed, you would think that it would argue saying, don't go in the room, but, in fact, it said it heightened the urgency of it. it's a process that appeared to be transparent. there would be more trust in it. but since it wasn't, we need to be at the table and our committee was mixed, our members

could have lawyered it one way or another. >> the house is going to vote tomorrow on the n.s.a. reforms -- >> tomorrow i will be here at 10:45 and we'll talk about that. >> congressman schiff, you had gone on our air fox news sunday and called this a colossal waste of time yet you are standing here ready to serve on this committee. can you talk about the difference? >> this is ground that we have covered time and time again, the pertinent questions have been asked and oonsed again, i respect the decision. representative cummings said that the decision was that we need someone in that room to stand up for the truth and that will be our responsibility to make sure this does not become a select committee on talking

points and focus on the things that really matter and that is what can we do to prevent other people from being killed in the future at diplomatic posts around and the world and where are we in hunting down those are responsible. if we can help direct this committee to focus on those questions, then i think it would be very important. but regrettably, that does not seem to be the direction they're heading. nonetheless we are going to make sure this doesn't become a circus or fundraising device but instead focuses on where are we implementing the sound recommendations of the accountability review board. >> even if you weren't able to strike a agreement with the republicans, mr. cummings have you talked to him and do you think you have a better relationship with him that you can come to some kind of deal

and be in the room? >> certainly hopeful. talked to gowdy briefly yesterday and 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's what we are asking for. it's a 7-5 split as you well know, so they have the votes. and one of the reasons we wanted that is because we believe that the consultation would be significant in there have been things to move that process along so we count have to go that far. i don't know what's going to happen with regard to mr. gowdy. everything that i have seen from

him and i do consider him a great prosecutor, and i have prosecutor mode in our committee, but as far as this committee is concerned, we have to go in and be finders of the fact and go in neutral and don't need to be making accusations before we get in the room to hear the facts. i don't know what's going to happen, but the one thing he said to me he is hopeful that we would be able to have a situation where there would be fairness and i'm going to hold him to that and all of us are that.to hold him to and the last thing, one of the reasons why the leader was so concerned about that and i was, too, is we had 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. >> i agree with my colleagues and this is a committee that should not have been formed. it has been investigated eight times but since the republicans chose to form it, 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 isry greetable because is regret tabble because of congress' credibility and we don't have a lot of that. oversight is incredibly important. when something like this happen, congress has an obligation to ask the right questions and conduct proper oversight and that's not what the republicans have done. they have made it partisan and

political and undermined our ability to do our job as a congress. the commission is formed. we have to serve on it. i think to make the best comments possible, we can't let the republicans run the show, but i will tell you at this point i'm highly skeptical even when you look at the members they have appointed, they are lacking inexperience on national security or foreign policy matters for the most part. so what is the purpose here? and you read stories how they are fundraising off of this. this is a partisan political process. we hope as my colleague from california pointed out, the shift would be to talk about the issues that matter. right now, it does not look good. >> i would like to make one clarification here on the subject of subpoenas and also access to witnesses and documents and the rest, an element to your question. at first they said they were going to call this one and that

one, we don't think sk of state hillary clinton or john kerry need our help in the room. we know they are professionals, triots, articulate spokespersons. my concern is who are these other people they are going to call. and when it was not guaranteed that we would have access to who they were and sufficient time in advance to prepare to even be able to make a judgment about who they were, that really argued in favor of saying, let's not worry about the the hill ari clintons and the john kerries, they can fend for thems but make sure there is not an exploitation of information because we had not had access.

to your point, we at first said to the speaker we wanted an evenly divided committee, we think that would have the most strength and most credibility. he said no. and then he said -- we said, how about give a democratic vote for a subpoena, a letter that steny and i wrote to the speaker so that legitimatizes the call for a subpoena. he said no. then we said what mr. cummings and mr. smith have said. if there is a subpoena, there should be consultation and if that consultation does not produce concurrence, there shouldn't be a vote of the committee. it means that they have the votes, 7-5, to pass what they have. but that vote would have to take place in a business meeting which is in open session and that's what they are afraid of.

i come book to the word transparency. transparency, fairness balance and all of this. i would like to -- hear from your view. we are proud from our entire committee, we think we have strength this terms of knowledge and understanding of what the challenges are and also shall we y experienced leaders in the congress. >> i'm congresswoman linda sanchez. i serve on the ways and means committee and ethics committee. as somebody who is in a position to have to be a trier of fact and take in evidence and make decisions based on what the your leaderws, when 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 sitting and trying to get at the facts leaving politics out of the room is going to be the challenge for this committee. and we are here to try to make sure we are looking at the facts, not just making up allegations. so i'm honored to be asked to serve and i'm honored and illing to do it. >> tammy duckworth i represent llinois' 8th district. i too am honored to be asked to serve my country in this way having been a freshman on oversight and government reform and watched representative cummings put forward for the truth and greater transparency. i sat in committee where the

testimony of admiral mullen, on whether or not there were capacity for military aircraft to make it to benghazi in time. questioning his judgment as a military commander. so i'm proud to et 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 they are put in jeopardy as they carry out their nation's business around the world and i'm proud to serve on this committee. > thank you all very much. >> the house is in recess and

expected back at 5:00 eastern time. our live coverage will continue then. votes coming up on veterans' department management authority and on the rules for debate on a couple of bills, the defense department programs and policy p bill and the n.s.a. collection bill. final votes are expected for the defense programs and n.s.a. phone records measures. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about efforts in the house to pass that bill. our reporter talks about why the judicial nomination of david barron has met opposition in the senate and the outcome. >> both the house and senate taking up national security issues this week. the house working on a bill that would reform the n.s.a. surveillance program. we are joined by a reporter for "congressional quarterly."

tell us about this bill. >> it follows the white house plan and a plan backed by lawmakers to say the government can no longer store or collect data on its phone and leave that information with the phone companies and queery it for investigations as long as it gets approval by the fisa courts. >> closed door changes to phone surveillance alarm privacy advocates. what are they concerned about? marked up in committees house judiciary committee and house intelligence committee. and the version that showed up with the house rules committee this week had some pretty significant changes, one of them had to deal with the specific selection terms and this is essentially when the government goes to the courts and says this is the piece we want to get information from people related to the specific term. the original bill essentially gave examples of what those terms would be that said, it

could be my phone number, could be my address, but with the bill has more broad language and privacy groups are worried that this would be much more mass collection instead of going to the court saying we want rob's phone number, privacy groups say it could be an entire area code, zip code, everything associated with that particular piece of information. >> our viewers got a chance to watch some of those markups with the two committees. who should we look for when the debate comes to the house floor? who is leading it? >> you will hear from bob goodlatte, the judiciary committee chairman. you could also hear from leaders of the intelligence committee. this bill started -- representative sensenbrenner. this is his bill. you saw a compromise that added some things that representative

goodlatte wanted including an emergency provision that would allow for the government to ask for data quicker if there is an emergency situation and this is the provision that seemed to win some of the intelligence committee members over. >> when it comes to final passage, this n.s.a. issue overall attracts a lot of bipartisan support and opposition, doesn't it? >> yes, it does. one of the issues that's going to happen now is where you see the senate going with this and senator leahy who authored companion legislation to this bill is expressing some disappointment about the changes and the compromises that were made to it. >> let's turn to the senate next. they are dealing with national security and the nomination of david barron. the senate advanced his nomination by 5 -43 vote and the headline here, barron nears

confirmation with that advancement vote. what's the issue, though? why was there opposition to david barron? >> the role he played in authoring a memo that lace out the administration's justification for drone strikes abroad, the drone strikes used against terrorism suspect. that has been a very controversial tactic. rand paul who has been a persistent critic on the administration has been the loudest vote in this debate. >> circling back to the white house and to the n.s.a. surveillance issue. they want david barron's nomination to pass. what is the bill in the house? >> they endorsed it and said the compromise language that appeared this week seems to have emerged after a closed-door meeting between white house officials and house leaders. you.b, thank

follow his reporting on twitter. thanks for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> again, the house is in recess until about 5:00 eastern time. live coverage continuing then here on c-span. votes coming up on veterans department management authority and the rules for debate on two bills, the defense department programs' bill and the n.s.a. phone records collection bill and a number of amendments to the defense programs bill that had been postponed. until the house gets back at 5:00 eastern time, today's white house briefing with spokesman ay carney. >> thanks for being here. obviously you heard from the president earlier today. some of you will be heading over to hear from him again as he

welcomes the superbowl champions seattle seahawks. as we proceed, folks need to get up and go, i understand. i have no announcements to make so i'll go straight to questions. >> on the v.a. issue, the house is expected to vote on a bill that would give the secretary more authority to fire people, et cetera. and you said the last couple of days the white house has some concerns with this bill. can you say what those concerns are? >> i don't know the specifics. 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, the president has, to make sure that he is making maximum use of all the tools available to him to hold folks accountable. i know that -- discussing with

congress this legislation and concerns that we have with it. they are relatively small, vis-a-vis the broader goal which is to make sure there is an ability to hold folks accountable. >> i have another question. any reaction to the report that peaker pelosi is considering filling the committee? >> we defer to the leader and our view has always been and not just our view but our practice that it is appropriate to have legitimate congressional oversight. we've 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 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 n.r.c.c. is telling its candidates to campaign on this issue and raising funds off of it. in terms of democratic participation, we certainly defer to the leader. >> concerns that the white house has -- would it be fair to say that the white house is leaning towards -- >> i think we want to work with congress on the specific concerns. i know it is moving in one house of the congress now.

i just don't have an itemization of some of the issues. we do share the goal of the bill and of the bipartisan desire for the secretary of veterans affairs to have the power to hold people accountable. [inaudible] >> i have the particulars of his schedule. chief of staff meeting up on the hill on a variety of issues. i don't have a preview. >> you say rob nabors is going to help secretary shinseki with the review. hat is that? >> rob at the president's request and secretary's request and with the strong endorsement

of the president has moved over to the v.a. on a temporary assignment. he is assisting in the review of the allegations surrounding phoenix facility and other facilities and he is also at the president's request conducting a broader review of the veterans health administration that provides health benefits to veterans to assess its overall operations to ensure so we can find very specifically what's working and what's not and through that effort, find ways to improve services and improve capacities. >> did secretary shinseki offer his resignation this morning? >> i wasn't in the meeting. i think the president spoke very clearly about his high regard for general shinseki, his service to his nation, the fact

that he is a disabled war veteran and his commitment to our veterans, which is fierce and powerful. he noted that general shinseki has dedicated his energy and ssion to to reduce homelessness and expand education and to tackle the backlog in disability claims even as we expanded the universe of veterans who have a claim on disability benefits. i don't have a specific readout of the meeting. >> is it the president was the ng open some space for possibility there might need to be a change at the top? >> 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. the president himself spoke to this and i think that he made clear that he's troubled by the allegations and that if those allegations prove to be true, any misconduct, cooking of the books or gaming of the system, hiding wait times, for example, should be punished, that there should be consequences. so he made that clear to will ry shinseki and he await the results of the secretary's review and preliminary results next week and of course the independent inspector general's investigation. >> we went through yesterday and the day before, was he caught

off guard or surprised by the allegations of the hiding of the wait times, the concealing of the wait times? >> i think the president made clear that the issue of problems in the v.a. with access to health benefits have been with us as a country for a long time and has been exacerbated by the fact that we are at the back end of more than decade-long period of war, where we have seen a significant increase in our veterans and the number of veterans who need disability benefits and health services. and that has been a challenge for the v.a. 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 in 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 the president and since he took office here. 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 higher education, there is certainly more work to be done. what the president spoke about today and worth noting, we need

to make sure that we have achievable goals set when it comes to appropriate waiting times for those seeking appointments through the v.a. that process needs to be evaluated because the president said if there are goals set that are unrealistic and creates an incentive for folks to hide truthful waiting times or cook the books, to use that phrase, that's a problem, because it object secures a problem that needs to be fixed. >> you haven't heard about the cooking of the books -- >> you heard from the president today. >> what about this, this criticism of his management style. is he too detached from some of the nuts and bolts of running the administration? health care web site, now this. >> 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 who are counting on benefits and services, whether it's a functioning web site or benefits to the v.a., that they are taken 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 to -- that are already under way to investigate the problems that -- and allegations that have arisen here with regards to waiting time for appointments at facilities around the country. he expects results and holds people accountable. and when we see whether or not some of these allegations are proved to be true, he will insist that misconduct, mismanagement be met with consequences. -- hen the president says

[inaudible] that this is a problem and folks withheld information, would you shinsekihe and general were unaware of the double bookings or more wait time? >> allege that -- allegations that folks cooked the books. and his point was that if -- as i noted earlier if there are goals set when it comes to what the ideal wait time should be and those are unachievable, whether a shortage of doctors or whatever, that should be noted at the top, it shouldn't be that folks feel, you know, the truth

should be covered up in order to meet some objective because the goal isn't to meet an objective, the goal is to serve our veterans. that's the point he was making. >> just to follow up, he was tablishing that they weren't given any additional authority on what they already understood to be a challenge? >> i certainly refer you to the v.a. about discussions about secretary shinseki and information he knows. the president spoke to this very directly. his point was the one i just made. >> follow up on a separate question. how did the president react how democrats did in the primary? >> i haven't spoken to him about that. >> welcome to the front row. >> given the president's high regard for general shinseki, why

wasn't he out with him here today? >> in this room, i can't remember an occasion when cabinet secretaries have come out with him. president came out here to make a statement about the v.a. and take a few questions about the current situation. e met obviously with general shinseki and rob nabors and i think he spoke to his view of general shinseki's long and courageous service to his country and his service to our veterans. >> veterans and people who work for the v.a., the president also had a message and shouldn't take anything from the fact that shinseki weren't with him? >> veterans care most of about what happens and that the commander in chief is insisting on results with these inquiries and accountability once we know

exactly what happened and who's responsible for any misconduct. i know that's what most veterans, especially those who require health benefits, require disability benefits care about. >> on the house bill, jay, 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 don't have a list of the concerns. we share the overall goal here, which is empowering the secretary to be able to hold folks accountable. there are tools available already that allow for folks to be held accountable and the president has conveyed to the secretary that he expects the secretary to make maximum use of existing tools and i think you have seen for example in the phoenix office, folks who have been put on administrative leave

have an example of the exercise of some of those authorities that already do exist. [inaudible] >> why does president obama wait to address this situation? your reaction to that? >> head of the national republican committee. >> no action to actually fix the problem. >> focused on action and not words and sometimes there is an expectation and emphasis in washington on rhetoric as opposed to action. the president when he first heard about these specific allegations with regards to the phoenix facility directed immediately secretary shinseki to launch a review. he supported secretary shinseki's request for an independent investigation by the

inspector general and dispatched rob nabors to the v.a., an additional set of eyes and ears on his behalf as part of the review that secretary shinseki is undertaking and a broader review that rob is undertaking. and as you heard from him today, he understands and sympathesizes 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. so i think that's the kind of action that folks expect but i'm glad the r.n.c. director has weighed in. >> the president said this is an issue he has been talking about

for quite sometime since 2008. does he feel that he let veterans down? >> he feels there is a sacred trust to ensure we are doing everything we can to assist our veterans. and what he said in this room and at this podium, 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 can be or should be by our veterans. that's why he wants those who participated in this misconduct to be held accountable. that's his focus. before he took this office on increasing benefits to our veterans on launching programs that ensure that our veterans are getting when they come back from fighting for us,

opportunities to pursue higher education that they wouldn't otherwise have, that if they come back from iraq and afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, that they can make a claim for disability benefits without having foundation of their claim doubted or questioned. and that's an approach that he believes is necessary with regards to our vietnam war veterans when it came to exposure of agent original. these are new policies -- agent orange. these are new policies for veterans that have earned. that has been his focus. he has been focused on reducing veterans' homelessness and it's a shame when those who have fought and bled for us and come home and face greater obstacle. we should not tolerate that and he doesn't and made sure we

reduce veterans' homelessness. >> one of the ideas that has been discussed dealing with the broader problem is allowing veterans to speak outside of the .a. for whatever reason. that's something president obama would consider? >> i would have to take the question. that's a question for the v.a. when it comes to policies and benefits that veterans have to access to those benefits and what means they would have. it's an interesting fact that i heard earlier today about the access to medicaid for example that some veterans would have in some states and that expansion of medicaid has been denied by governors and legislatures and benefits -- veterans would have access to medicaid in many of these states if their income level qualifies but being denied those benefits because those

states have chosen not to expand medicaid under the affordable are act. [inaudible] > what the u.s. reaction about a nuclear iran? united olation of nations security council resolutions would be viewed very dimly by the united states, our allies and partners around the world and in the region. we certainly take the provocations that north korea has engaged in very seriously. the president focused on ptsd and joblessness and other problems, but we are told he was told or his team was told during

the transition that the v.a.'s 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 and you were sitting there, i recall, talk about the fact that the issue of veterans having to ait 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 for a long time and it's a challenge that has been exacerbated by the fact that we have so many more veterans and so many more who need benefits that medical facilities provide. >> that's a different thing, jay, than saying the v.a.'s 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 them as a candidate at the v.a. when he came to serve providing the highest level of service possible to our veterans and made a commitment as a candidate and made a commitment as president to increase our funding for the v.a. and increase and expand access to benefits for our veterans. 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 this conduct, covered up wait times or falsified reports in a way that exacerbated existing problems by keeping from managers and senior officials at the v.a. the facts about wait times, if that, in fact, proves to be true. >> on another subject, what's

the president's personal involvement, is he getting the state department to get this guy back and taught to the president personally about that? >> i have to take the question. >> how the pentagon advisory panel's recommendations to develop its own rockets to launch military satellites. that it would cost up $1.5 billion. >> i haven't seen that recommendation. within the context of ukraine, there have been discussions and some statements made with regard to the space program, but i haven't seen that recommendation. >> something that the president would -- >> we don't announce our support for billion dollar programs. >> what's the status of the review of deportation practices?

>> it's ongoing. >> any time frame at all? >> i refer you to them. >> is the white house involved in this review at all? >> the white house -- the president asked secretary johnson to conduct a review. the president spoke about the need to ensure we are enforcing our laws in a way that is as humane as possible and takes into consideration some of the issues and concerns that are associated with families being separated, for example on the matter of deportations. but for the action on the review is being undertaken by the secretary and d.h.s. >> the -- will the white house have any input? >> as a general matter, we have input, but 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 people are going to be fired? >> if the allegations that have been made prove true, he expects people to be held accountable and how they are held accountable will be determined. but if they prove true, he pretty much sticks to the faith that allegations need to be proven true before folks are punished for conduct. but if they are proven true, if people covered up wait times, engaged in other kinds of misconduct, that they ought to be held accountable and will be. > unwaivering support for -- wavering support for general shinseki. >> the people he appoints to high office, he believes that

secretary shinseki has poured his energy and his heart in his work on behalf of veterans and just as he did when he served so admirably in the military. and the president noted the progress that has occurred in terms of veterans homelessness and reduction of the disability claims and expansion of higher education benefits because of general shinseki has done. the president wants to know what happened and understand the management decisions that surrounded these issues and whether or not there was misconduct or mismanagement. to cretary shinseki going how results and are his days numbered? >> everyone in high office

serves at the pleasure of the president. >> the president referred to the i.g. report and said the i.g. indicated there doesn't seem to be a link between the wait times and veterans actually dying. was he referring to the testimony last week or does he have new information? >> i think he was referring to the testimony last week and again, this is independent i.g. investigation and the public testimony he gave preliminarily and as far as he got down the list of 40, i understand it, he had not seen a link. but as the president said that needs to be further investigated. we don't know what the final results of that investigation will be and we want those results. and even if it turns out that there's no direct link established, that doesn't excuse some of the other conduct that's been alleged. if that proves to be true that

folks covered up wait times or falsified documents and records, those are serious offenses and there should be accountability for them. >> what was the president's remark in him speaking out? these stories started emerging a month ago and was asked the question three weeks ago, but since then the american legion called for shinseki to resign about two weeks ago. there have been story after story, what was the president's reluctance? >> the president is focused on getting things done. when he learned of the specific allegations regarding the phoenix office he made clear to secretary shinseki that he wanted to get to the bottom of it. he endorsed the recommendation by secretary shinseki to have the independent spptor general conduct his own investigation. to the tched rob nabors

v.a. to add capacity to that effort in reviewing what happened and providing information back to the president so he could make judgments about accountability. i think his record demonstrates his commitment to our veterans and what you heard from him today reflects the passion he feels on this issue. >> did he want to wait for these investigations to be done? >> i'm talking about the actions he took. >> this story has been a big story, been front burner for at least a couple of weeks now and the president hasn't come out -- obvious he feels passionately about it. we know that today. from him we hear it before today? >> he is very passionate and awaits the review that secretary

shinseki has undertaken and of the independent i.g. >> i just talked to abc. hink of what all the other acronyms would feel. >> go ahead. >> when we are talking about the view that rob nabors and expecting that report back 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 it being done now especially in conjunction with this controversy as opposed to have having a top-down white house review? >> when the president came into office he appointed general shinseki to the post.

he was confirmed by the senate to hold that post. and secretary shinseki's leadership, began tackling challenges that our veterans faced and v.a. faced in providing service to our veterans. what the specific review around the allegations associated with the phoenix facility and now other facilities is meant to do and assess where we are now given these allegations and what needs to be done to improve areas where we are not performing, where the v.a. is not performing and build upon those areas where there have been successes and improvements in performance. >> does the united states anticipate retaliatory accusations made by countries, including china when it comes to cyber crime? >> on that specific question.

on the cyber issue, i think that retaliation specifically would be inappropriate. the individuals charged, and i would refer you to the department of justice, were of the ith violations law and should absolutely face those charges. this is not a political tit for tat situation. it is a matter of law that individuals should not and could not field trade secrets and should not be cyber theft to the benefit of state-run companies. >> charging military filibusters in another country if military officials of the u.s. military united ged, would the

states cooperate with that prosecution? >> depends on what they are charged with. what these individuals are charged with are practices that we do not engage in. we do not in the united states engage in intelligence gathering to benefit individual companies or businesses, to help their bottom line. we don't provide information from intelligence gathering to companies in order to benefit, give them an advantage in the marketplace or improve their bottom line. that is activity this country doesn't engage in. >> the president of russia says u.s. satellite intelligence should be able to show that russian forces are pulling away from the ukraine border. last time you were asked, you said you had not seen movement. has the presence of russian forces complicated of what you expect in terms of the election this weekend, the presidential election? >> we have seen some indications of activity on the border but

too early to conclude that that activity indicates a withdrawal from the border. should this be the beginning of a withdrawal, we would welcome such an effort but there is a caveat attached. we have seen in the past of the new battalion comes in and you still have a huge and unprecedented presence of russian troops on the ukranian border which can only serve to intimidate and destabilize ukraine. the answer to your second question is absolutely. the deployment of russian troops right on the border with ukraine was meant to intimidate and incursiony lead to an across the border. we don't want to assume that there is some activity on the border means that that

withdrawal will take place. >> is president obama open to any kind of conversation with esident putin when they meet at normandy? >> we don't expect. leaders are commemorating the heroic battles that took place that was d-day and led to the end of world war ii. i don't anticipate a bilateral meeting and certainly none is scheduled. now, about 2.7 million people have been cut off from their benefits. is that a dead issue in the house since five months have passed and going nowhere. do you have any reaction to it? >> we continue to call on

congress to provide emergency benefits to americans who are looking for work much as they did repeatedly at earlier stages of the recovery and during the previous administration. . it's a shame because these are folks that are out there looking for work and need assistance to pay their rent and to feed their families. and i think any economist can verify that that assistance has a direct and positive benefit for the economy, immediate benefit to the economy because that unemployment assistance, un employment insurance is assistance that immediately gets funneled back into the economy and creates jobs and drives growth. we continue to call