in 1916 and a rural school on john's island, which is off the coast of charleston. she continued her career in an urban schools in south carolina and spent most of her teaching career in south carolina. then in 1956 the state of south carolina passed ball for the state employees from the longing to be subversive organizations such as the naacp and she lost her job and her retirement and then she developed a citizenship education program to be used during the civil rights movement. >> the life of the teacher and civil rights activist. this weekend as book tv in american history tv look at history in the literary life and rolling -- raleigh north carolina.

he takes command three days before the battle on a sunday morning. he gets the headquarters to soon command from hooker come and hooker doesn't -- he's such a poor leader that he doesn't even gather one single detailed map of pennsylvania. when lee takes command, he takes and he doesn't even have a map. the u.s. senate to gaveled out for the week yesterday but when senators return monday will continue work on the immigration bill, boosting border security and workplace enforcement while tens of thousands of new high and low-skilled workers in the country and creating a 13 year

kafta citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. we will have coverage of that when the senate returns monday at two eastern on c-span2. yesterday the bipartisan policy center here in washington hosted a discussion with former republican governors jeb bush and haley barbour and assessed the comprehensive immigration package that is currently being debated in the senate. this lasts about an hour. my name is becky and by the director of immigration policy here. i would like to thank you all for coming today. we are very excited to have our two distinguished guests here, governor haley barbour and governor jeb bush to talk about immigration reform, state and local impact of the immigration reform, public and politics, whenever you will want to talk to them about. as many of you know, the bpc was

formed by howard baker, tom daschle, bob dole and george mitchell as a place for rigorous analysis, negotiations and respectful dialogue. we have multiple project sere at the bpc where we try to combine publicly balanced policymaking with strong pro-active advocacy and outreach. the task force was cochaired by governor barbour, former governor rendell, the secretary of state condoleezza rice and former secretary of hud, henry cisneros. we hope to work for the issues that still need to be resolved in this large ongoing immigration debate. we also hope to host many more of these defense like this one to foster the conversation among the key advocacy groups, policy makers, academics and hopefully congressional members on the

toughest issues and immigration reform. we look forward to receiving inside from the governors today from their unique perspectives on this issue. i will turn it over to coke will moderate today's discussion. again, thank you for being here. [applause] >> thank you very much for joining us here today. i know you hear this frequently the guests need no introduction and in this case it is true. but i will keep the introduction brief because in your folders you have their biographies and know them well. governor jeb bush served as the 43rd governor in the state of florida from 1998, to 2,007. we also have the co-author of the new book immigration wars forging a solution. he is the son of a president, the brother of the president and many of his supporters with the

exception of his mother and feed that he could hold the office himself someday. [laughter] i would like to also introduce the gentleman next to me who is very handy to have at the helm if your state ever encounter is the worst natural disaster of u.s. history, as my home state of mississippi did back in 2005. governor haley barbour has been governor for just a year. he took office in 2004 and held office as a 67 governor until 2012. before that committee was the chairman of the republican national committee from 1993 to 1997. and now obviously is busy back doing what he does best as a lobbyist and then heading up the immigration reform organization. thank you for joining us. i would like to first go to them for a brief opening statement, some opening remarks. governor bush first. >> thanks for letting me come. we are going to talk about the state and local aspects of

immigration reform, but i want to set the stage perhaps in a broad way about why embracing our immigrant experience and heritage is important for renewing america's greatness. i think our country is the only developed country, the only mature country if you will but can grow 3.5% a year for the next decade. we have abundant resources and a great talent. we have the ability to rebuild our demographic here and it right now that has eroded dramatically as the declining fertility rates. all of the societal changes tecum please make it imperative for the reform has an economic strategy for sustained growth. this is a huge opportunities. i don't view immigration as a problem i view it as embracing an opportunity to fulfil our potential as a nation.

we are with them our grasp to do it now and i think delay would be inappropriate because tepid growth, the normal economic growth in the country will not allow us to deal with the pressing problems we face. we will be overwhelmed if we do not grow economically and other elements of the growth strategy but without immigration i don't know how we can do it. >> terrorist kathleen asked us to talk about three minutes and those of you that know me i can't say hello in three minutes i'm going to limit my subject matter to stay within the bounds. jeb bush's points are the kind of things that have made me very interested in this. america is in a global battle for capital and labor. if we are going to grow an economy at the rate that he talked about, the historical rate of all of our lifetimes,

then we've got to have more labor. we not only have to have more high skilled labor like science technology engineering and math. that is critical to increase the number of h-1b visas, and at the same time to start doing a better job of raising american kids to get master's and ph.d. is an engineering and physics. but in the short term and in the new term, a lot of the leader has to come from other countries and we are so blessed our university system is a magnet for the best in the world. when a kid gets a ph.d. from mississippi state we ought to stable a green card on the diploma because if not, he is

going to go on and hire 800 people where if we let him he would much rather open amihai year 800 people. so that is i think of the is an almost universally accepted and agreed that we also have other essentials labor that is sent thd. it's an america. only 4 percent are here on the special agricultural visas because they are cumbersome bad policies. so we can't just focus on the top end. about jeb is right if we are going to grow our economy at the rate we can, we have to remember gdp growth is predicted to be multiplied by the number of

workers. i was a math major but i can figure out a number of workers stays the same as it has during this administration weary essentially the same number of people are working in the united states that were working in the united states five years ago. it's very hard to get gdp to go up at the rate that will sustain our children and grandchildren and which we can continue particularly with the energy changes in our national economy. so, i'm like jeb. i am focused on this for policy and the right policy for our economy is to have real comprehensive immigration reform. >> i've never heard it that way. i like the way you said that. >> before we talk about what, i would like to talk about why.

as we look at the measure that is moving through on immigration reform, and we will make it to the house, is it not true -- do you believe they would be considering immigration reform if it weren't for what happened in the fall, if mitt romney hadn't secured it just 27% of the hispanic vote and if the gop wasn't painting the polls with one of the fastest growing minority groups in the country? >> if we need to do the migration for the policy reasons -- but we aren't doing it now because politics. >> frankly obama didn't do it the first year he was president like he said he was going to do but this isn't a partisan argument and it shouldn't be about a partisan issue. republicans need to be for this because it's good policy, democrats need to be for this because it's good policy. it could have come up in the

last four years. it didn't. now it's come up and i think you're going to see a lot of bipartisan support evidence and the reason is not good politics. the reason good policy -- i ran a political office in the white house. reagan used to say at the end of the day good politics is good politics. you do what's right and get good results and when you get good results you get reelected so that is the reason we ought to be doing it. >> governor bush, why aren't we doing it? >> both parties have the feel and the need for political reasons to forge a consensus on good policy. nothing wrong with that. republicans i think -- i would say the canary -- if you were a pollster and didn't have a lot of knowledge of politics, but

enough and you were told his sigurd that has higher families, i year than average incomes, higher college graduation rates and they support president obama's r. dee election 75 tarincot 23, the would be surprising. asian-americans are actually the canary in the coal mined for republicans if we'd lost connectivity to the emerging voters not because of the policy so much but because we are not engaged in issues of importance to them i think we pay a price. democrats on the other hand can't keep going back to the well not promising to do things and not even trying so both parties are focused on this and when you have the window of opportunity and need to engage and i am proud of the fact that this is one little part of the policy world we have big structural problems and other things that need to get done but here is a place where the

process seems to be working and we shouldn't be political about that. we should submit the fact that our democracy can work when people build confidence and faith and don't think there's an effort to try to, you know, outdo one another and forge a consensus. i am very pleased with a gang of eight and the house and the efforts are not quite successful yet and it leaves me to believe there's a pretty good chance there's going to be an emigration law passed that will allow us to take advantage of the strengths we have as an immigration nation. >> i know what it's like when you write a book and then are surprised by the reaction sometimes that you get. i thought i had written a something a little bit differently. i wish i could change this and describe my position is that differently.

looking at the reaction to your book is their anything you do differently or change? are you surprised by the reaction clacks >> i'm not surprised to be i think everything is viewed from a political lens rather than a policy point of view so people critical of my book haven't read that. i just assumed that maybe they would actually understand the substance of the proposition before they were critical but i'm not surprised by it. we are living in a hyper partisan, hyper political world. the book that we broke has a set that is being discussed in the senate and the house, so i feel good about that. we can probably get it at a deep discount on amazon. >> this is totally off topic,

but we wrote the book we wrote here's the problem coming here are some elements that are in the challenge they are significant. here's some life experiences of immigrants to put the human context around like this is important and the last chapter was here or recommendations. the publishers said no, no you have to put the recommendations in the first chapter, which i thought why i read books from the beginning to the end but apparently now in america and in the world of twitter you have to have it at once and get to the conclusion first. so our book if you don't have time to read a full block the book will give you the set of recommendations in chapter 1. >> about the path to citizenship you wouldn't change anything about that. it is an undeserving reward for conduct we cannot afford to encourage >> if we end up with a law that

takes 13 years where people have to do the same thing we recommended in the book where you have to learn english and pay a fine, you cannot access federal government transfer payments and it takes 13 years, i think that satisfies the concern of having the right balance between the respect for law and embracing our immigrant heritage. >> you argue for self deportation, do you not? >> no. >> the second issue at hand is my guess is a majority of people that hopefully will get legalized status they will not even apply for citizenship. if the bill was an extra example of that, the majority didn't apply for citizenship. i think it totally misreads with the aspirations are for a whole lot of people. they come here from the shadows

and want to be treated with dignity and respect they don't necessarily want to be citizens. they want to work hard to pay for the needs of their families and many of them want to come back to their families. i know that sounds like a crazy idea that people don't always leave their country of origin because they hate them. they leave because they have no other option. and so the proposal but we had that we made was geared towards a consensus. in september when we were writing this book i had no idea that we would be as far along as we are. but i don't find either one of those incompatible. they solve the problems. >> was a good start. i think the fact that it is bipartisan and they worked hard on it i don't think is what will

ultimately pass to i think the senate is likely to commend itself to the house will pass a bill that won't be the same and it may be quite different in some ways from the senate to bill and whether the past several small bills and in gross them and decide to pass one bill that is likely in the house. they have substantial differences that will have to be worked out. i am hopeful in this congress that the immigration reform law will put into effect immediately after passage. no immigration reform is the worst outcome. if you're concerned about securing the border, keep it

what we have now and then we will have another 10 million illegal immigrants coming into the country in the next ten to 20 years. immigration reform is the critical element needed for border security to finally enforce the visas expiration date. you know, 34% of the people in this country illegally entered the country illegally. they came here on visas, it expired and they stayed. no administration is to do anything about that. if you will do something about that and want a secure border, much less if you on the kind of economic growth that our country is capable of to maintain our leadership role in the world, then immigration reform is essential, and not having it is going to lead to more bad

results to read some governor bush i was wondering if you are concerned about the amendment. harry reid has called a poison pill. the detail is just a couple measures to require 100% monitoring capability and the 90% apprehension rate along the southern border before granting of full citizenship but just simple legal status we estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. >> i'm not going to comment on the sausage. its work in progress. and the only comment would be that it's encouraging the sausage is being made rather than talked about. our democracy doesn't work when we are chirping on the sidelines. it works when people are engaged in good faith to try to find a consensus. i would say that a key element of border security obviously controlling the border better is an essential element of it but creating a legal system of immigration is a key element of

border security. i think the fact is if you make the legal immigration easier with less cost and came and risk, then illegal immigration you will not have as much illegal immigration. and our legal immigration system is broken. one of the elements that was controversial in the recommendation that is embraced in the senate bill and likely in the house bill. something along the lines of this house and minor children, the senate bill has minor children espoused. but whatever the case a u.s, a few narrow it down and open the door for economic immigrants and you can create a guest worker program that is robust and expand the h-1b visas and create additional visas that are economically driven both on the

high end and the low end of the income scale. there has to be a system. is like 165 years. unless we have a massive change in life science for the life expectancy is dramatically changed, that isn't aligned. and so creating the system of openness to become legal is critical. >> let me make the point about we need more of the people that come in legally because of the work and what they can do for our economy. that is where the need is he's very right on that. i think that is also fair to

understand after there were people who were concerned that we are going to be serious about more security. he will tell you what is the principal failure? he said the first thing we are going to do is secure the border, and we never did. so, i can understand -- i am not one to try to get into the senator's or anybody else's amendment but it is understandable that this time the american people want to have some certainty that we are going to have border security and we are going to do the better enforced visas because the last time they just took the government at its word and i don't think they are prepared to do that. >> fool me once, shame on you, will meet twice, shame on me. >> governor, i know the measure is moving through the senate right now, and eventually and we expect it to be taken out by the

house. but even if the reform makes it through the senate, everyone thinks it will be an uphill battle in the house and i think there's an interesting analysis that cannot recently in the cook political report that found while the electorate is growing increasingly diverse, the average republican district is getting wider and wider. how do you persuade the house lawmakers to vote for immigration reform, particularly when there are so many of their constituents that don't want it. a recent washington report found that 60% of the legalization opponents said they would not support a ken candidate for the status for undocumented immigrants. how do you sell it to them? >> we have a lot of polls pitting its kind of like streetcars. if you miss one there will be another one along in ten minutes and a totally different

direction. but the question, let's just take this at face value. those districts are largely rural and have a huge dependency on agriculture. agriculture in america has a huge dependency on immigrant labor. i was talking about california p - mississippi is a substantial agricultural state. believe it or not the number one commodity is chicken. we have processed $2.5 billion a year worth of poultry. you can go to a chicken processing plant anywhere in mississippi and if you can find somebody on the floor that speaks english i will give you 100 bucks. they are all here for work. they are willing to do nasty, dirty work wear every day they come home covered in blood and

guts and veins and feet and feathers. >> okay, we got it. [laughter] >> i will tell you how bad it is. there is this idea that it is a myth that there are jobs americans won't take. in mississippi, we have a very advanced corrections department. our recidivism rate is 27%. one of the reasons is when they get to a certain security level we let them work and they can work in the area and get paid. the state the cost of incarceration and they get the rest for the savings account. one of the institutions, the inmates will stay for two days. they would rather be in the penitentiary and then work in a chicken plant. that is the truth. and so those congressmen that you are talking about half a

huge constituencies who are dependent on this labor. a big part of their economy will have constituents saying to them, this man, please vote for immigration reform so we don't have to have people here il legally so we can get labor to build the economy and for the families of your district. there's going to be a lot of that and other examples one after another. >> did you have any thoughts? >> polling shows there's broad support for the reforms that are being discussed in the congress right now. the implication of the question is every decision is made purely for the political self-interest, and there's probably you survived by being cognizant of the fact you can't go way out of the mainstream of your district. i think the district isn't as out of whack with what we are

doing right now. and again i haven't seen the poll that you brought up but i was on the other street car going the other way i guess. you change the conversation from the question of illegal immigration and move it to how do you create an economic strategy of growth and the whole dynamic of the conversation changes. so my advice to the members of congress, and i gave humble advice this morning at 7:40 or 8:00 it was just that, change the conversation to hell do we restore a more greatness as a nation by sustained economic growth. if you tell me we can do this with an older population that is less productive where our fertility rates -- unless you tell me every one of our kids and grandkids is going to have four or five kids, promise me that, then there is no way that we can have based on the simple math that was brought up of the

labor output on productivity lebling to the economic activity that we can grow over a sustained period of time. ..

do not, are not prepared to accept the low level of economic growth that we've had in recent years. last three years, the economy grew 2.4%, 1.8%, 2.1%. after the last recession when pete domenici was still in the senate, in the 80s, an even deeper recession in terms of unemployment, the economy grew 4.5%, 7.4%, 7.1%. americans are not willing to

accept 2% growth as the new normal and this is part of the equation for getting us back to the kind of growth that we're used to, that we can have and frankly the kids and grandkids deserve. >> governor barbour, are you concerned about the heritage foundation report that came out a couple months ago, that study claiming immigration reform will cost the u.s. $6.3 billion over the -- 6.3 trillion dollars over next 60 years? you and others criticized it not taking into account benefits from immigration reform. how do you plan to fight that going forward because it has already been mentioned on the floor? >> of course everybody knows it was a political document and it was designed to be a political document. there is a reason we don't expect the government to make predictions about spending and taxes for more than 10 years used by the

congressional budget. the idea that we'll predict 50 years in the future to precision within a few tens of millions of dollars it silly. we can't do that. and people know you can't do that. but it is also so obviously a political document, that, is now, starting to be compared to other people's studies which have very different results. now, the heritage foundation has been an ally of mine from when i was chairman of the party, when i was governor of mississippi, they helped us with lots and lots of things and, you know, my wife doesn't agree with me on everything, so the foundation doesn't agree with me on this isn't any kind of a big deal with me. but the fact of the matter is, it is a political document. it is not a serious piece of work. i mean, after, you don't fire people who just do your top, top study, you know your most important

political document. you, next week fire the guy that did it if everything is going peachy keen. >> yes you do, governor. want me to comment on that? >> i want to ask you one more thing. the republican national committee in march came out with a very strong report, saying we must embrace and challenge european comprehensive immigration reform, if we do not our party's appeal to continue to shrink to core constituencies only. implication that the republican party will go the way of the dinosaurs. what will have to the republican party and presidential candidates like yourself if it doesn't get through congress this time? if republicans are seen as being responsible for not massing -- passing immigration reform what happens to your party? >> i think the system will be blamed, not one party or the other if both parties are engaged. that's why i'm pleased rather than say no, for

principled reasons, but say no to what might be proposed by democrats, the old school way has been applied here, which is, people of good faith, quietly gone about their business to forge consensus, to be submitted to regular order way of judiciary committee. now it's on the floor of the senate. the house will have a version, their version of that. and it validates the civic books. we were starting to worry we would have to republish all the civics books in america because the process totally ignored what they had written about how the thing was supposed to work. so i don't think that the political aspects of this, because of engagement. because of engagement i think we're in pretty good shape. it would be hard to imagine if republicans in the house pass a bill and, and it doesn't, you can't forge con ses news the conference committee for whatever reason, that someone could be blamed politically. i'm sure there will be efforts to try but i think

making good-faith effort, with sincerity and believing in the other side's views, you know, can, you can have a conversation about them is very helpful in that regard. >> governor barbour? >> i would say the biggest issue you're bringing up, if it doesn't pass, the news media already decided it is the republicans fault. if it fails because of border securities, because the democrats say that's a poison pill, is that the word you used a while ago? >> harry reid. >> harry reid said that. >> left, liberal media is prepared to say it is republicans fault. the fact of the matter there are a lost republicans want immigration reform as much as anybody else. to predetermine today if it fails it is the republican's fault? that is something we have to work on to try it see what happens. hopefully we'll get a bill and we'll get a bill pass both houses. that the president signs. if we don't, republicans have to make sure that if,

they try to support a bill that they couldn't get passed, because the senate wouldn't take it or president wouldn't sign it or name 100 things, that there isn't just a predisposition, no matter what the facts are, well, it was the republican's fault. >> i would say that, transfer from the heritage foundation report to the political world -- >> we'll leave this discussion at this point. you can see in its entirety on our website, c-span.org. live to the white house briefing room for today's briefing with reporters. this is deputy press secretary josh earnest. >> we will provide you a preview of the president's visit to europe next week, both the g8 summit and the visit to early billion any. in order to efficiently use your time today, what i am going to suggest is that both my colleagues will stay here with me through the course of the briefing.

as we call on you, regardless of the topic of your question, one. three of us will handle your questions. so then, i think we'll keep things moving and get us in and out of here in pretty efficient fashion. with that, let me introduce my two colleagues. the first, many of you know, deputy national security advisor ben rhodes. then to my right is caroline atkinson. she is the senior director for international economic issues at the, on the national security staff and just as importantly, she will also be the sherpa for the g8 meeting for the president next week. both of them will have opening remarks. then i will call on you for your questions and we'll go from there. ben, you want to get us started?. >> sure. i will just start by running through our schedule and giving a bit of a preview what we hope to accomplish at these different stops. we will be arriving in northern ireland on monday morning and the event that

we're having in belfast is a speech from the president at the belfast waterfront convention center. this is the president's first opportunity to address at length the very important support that the united states has provided to the peace process in northern ireland over the years and to the development of the economy and society in northern ireland. so he will have a chance here to speak to students. we engaged with the leaders of northern ireland each year on st. patrick's day and welcome their efforts to carry forward reconciliation efforts in northern ireland. in the speech the president will have a chance to talk about young people in northern ireland have to advance those efforts so that the hard-earned peace that has been achieved in northern ireland is translated into a lasting, peaceful society and also into greater economic opportunity for the people of northern ireland. following the president's speech in belfast, he will move to lochern where the g8 is being held. caroline can preview for you the different plenary

sessions but the first plenary session will begin that afternoon around 4:45 local time. and then, following the first plenary session the president will have a bilateral meeting with president putin of russia. this is the first bilateral meeting the two leaders will have held since los cabos, the g20 last year. they have a broad agenda to discuss. that will include the situation in syria. that will include afghanistan where russia cooperated with us securing our transit routes for our troops an promoting stability in the region it. will include nuclear weapons, arms control, missile defense and the security issues that we very regularly discuss with russia. we'll also discuss issues related to counterterrorism cooperation as well as deepening our economic and commercial ties between our two nations. following that bilateral meeting there will be a chance for leaders to make statements at the conclusion of that meeting. there will be a leaders-only working dinner. this is the dinner that

focuses on foreign policy at the g8. the other sessions caroline can walk you through. i would anticipate a very wide-ranging conversation at the dipper. afghanistan will certainly be a subject. a lot of our key partners in afghan policy will be represented at the dinner. as we approach our milestone transitioning lead responsibility for security to the afghans they can discuss the transition underway in afghanistan as well as our plans supporting the afghan government after 2014. they will clearly discuss the situation in syria to include the most recent chemical weapons assessment we provided. the efforts underway to support boeth the opposition and a political settlement within the country. i think they will discuss more broadly the transitions underway in the middle east and north africa. g8 has been a great venue for that. that will include the types of support we can provide to security forces in countries like libya working to

establish institutions of the state and that i believe they will cover some other foreign policy issues and iran and our on going efforts related to the iranian nuclear program are certainly likely to come up. i should add the president has been consulting with g8 partners in the run-up to this meeting. he spoke to prime minister abe the other night. both about the upcoming g8 and his recent consultations with the chinese leader. he will be doing a the president will with the quint counterparts, that includes the united king many do, france, germany and italy. the five of them will have a opportunity to discuss the agenda for the g8 in advance of the meeting? [inaudible] >> today. videoconference. forgive me jargon. that will conclude the first day. the second day is plenary sessions of the g8. i will leave it to caroline to walk you through the different plenary sessions on the second day. i would only add as is often

the case at these meetings we would anticipate the president will have the opportunity to see other leaders on the margins of the g8 throughout the course of the day. then, we will fly to germany on tuesday night and spend the night in berlin. this visit, i think reinforces how critical the u.s.-german relationship is both as a part of the transatlantic partnership and also in terms of our deep bilateral ties. we would expect the agenda throughout the course of the meetings in germany to focus on both economic and security issues. i will get to that a little bit when i get to our meeting with chancellor merkel. but the president will begin the day with a meeting with the president of germany. following that he will go to the chancellorry for the bilateral meeting with chancellor merkel. he and chancellor merkel have developed a very close working relationship since the beginning of 2009. they have worked through a number of delicate crises together both economic and security. i anticipate they will discuss the ongoing situation in the eurozone

and the global economy. they will discuss the trade negotiations associated with a potential transatlantic trade investment partnership. they will discuss the situation in afghanistan where germany reman a stalwart ally and continues to contribute to the mission there, as well as again, how nato can provide support beyond 2014. i would also anticipate they will discuss syria, iran and middle east peace as issues that we regularly consult closely with the germans on. following the bilateral meeting there will be a press conference. then they will have a private lunch together at the chancellorry. following lunch the president will give remarks at the brandenburg gate. this is historic site for the german people and for u.s. presidents. it comes on the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's speech which was not at the brandenburg gate but at the height of the cold war when west berlin

was under considerable siege. it is also again, notable in one respect in that it is the eastern side of the gate that the president will be speaking on, something that would have been impossible 5 years ago. given the progress that's been made in germany, given the fall of beryl line wall and reunification of the country, it is a true symbol of the partnership we forged together. i would expect the president to hit on broad themes in that speech associated with the shared history of the transatlantic alliance, how far we've come together with germany and our other allies but the need to take that same spirit of cooperation and activism that led us to work together through the cold war and apply that to the challenges that we face today. whether it's nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, our efforts again to promote human dignity and democratic values around the world, some of the significant security challenges that we face, i think you will see the president cover essentially the agenda that the transatlantic alliance has here in the 21st

century. we can talk more about that if you would like. following their remarks at the brandenburg gate the president will meet with the leader of the social democratic party, mr. steinbook as principal opposition leader in the country. that night he will be hosted at a dinner and reception by chancellor merkel and that will conclude the state visit to the germany. before i turn it over to caroline, i would also note that the first lady and saw shaand malia will be joining president obama's trips. they will, come to belfast where they were attend the president's remarks to local students there. then the first lady and the girls will travel to dublin, ireland. this is i think an important signal to send given how close the united states and ireland are. that she's able to visit there. they were invited to visit the last time that the president was in ireland and

this will be an opportunity for the first lady and the girls to accept that hospitality. they will tour trinity college which is ireland's oldest university in dublin where she will be able to explore the archives that they have gathered, that document the obama's irish ancestry well-known to you all. later in the day, she will meet with the staff and families of our embassy in dublin. she will join some irish youth for a river dance performance at the historic theater. she will be joined by the wife the tisha and the wife of the president of ireland who will also join that event with her. they will rejoin the president in berlin and the independent event that they will have is on june 19th. the first lady will visit the memorial to the murdered jews of europe where she will tour the wall park with chancellor merkel's husband,

dr. sauer. mrs. obama will visit the reichstag before visiting with the dinner with chancellor merkel. i will turn it over to caroline and we'll take your questions. >> thank you very much, ben. this will be president obama's fifth g8 summit. as you know, g8 members account for for 50% of the world's global gdp. they also include some of our closest allies and partners. last year when president obama hosted the g8 at camp david he returned it to a small, intimate action oriented event with just those few leaders together. one example of the actions that we did then was the launch of the new alliance for food security and nutrition. that is now up to $3.7 billion in private sector pledges and we've expanded from the original three african countries that were announced and joined the g8

last year to nine countries and more are ready to join this year. prime minister cameron said he wanted to take a similar approach of candid conversations amongst a small group of leaders at lockhern. that is bit of the background and atmospherics. the first session of the summit will be on the global economy on monday afternoon. the contest of that discussion changed over a lot the past year. in europe, for example, financial tensions have eased considerably but large parts of europe remain in recession and unemployment in some countries is at record highs. in the u.s. our recovery is underway. we successfully avoided the fiscal cliff and our budget deficit is declining rapidly but of course we have more work to do to create jobs. as of camp david we expect the g8 leaders will express a consensus that growth and jobs are a top priority.

as an about mentioned there will then be the working dinner just amongst leaders. and on tuesday morning there will be another leaders-only session to discuss a range of issues around counterterrorism. that will be followed by a session on trade, tax and transparency issues in the g8 countries themselves. that discussion this year will underscore some of the president's most important economic priorities. on trade, the summit will take place just as we're concluding our consultation period here with congress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. on taxes we expect the g8 to make important progress on the issues both of illegal tax evasion and the kind of legal tax avoidance that companies, when they use countries loopholes, manage to shift their profits to no, or low-tax jurisdictions.

international tax has been an important piece of president obama's agenda since he ran for president in 2008. in 2009 he proposed legislation to crack down on illegal tax evasion by increasing disclosure requirements for individuals and financial institutions. congress passed tacta in 2010. since then the treasury department is working with using the tools to engage in with other governments to ensure tax evasion is detected and punished. at lock hern we'll use this standard. we'll work at the g8 with prime minister cameron and the others to improve the ability much taxing authorities and law enforcement to identify the real people behind shell companies that are sometimes set up and facilitate the hiding of, of tax liabilities.

increasing transparency around company ownership, what is called beneficial ownership will help to prosecute illegal evasion and other illicit activity, money laundering, terrorist financing and so on. in addition to the efforts to combat tax evasion, illegal tax evasion the president has been focused on international efforts to reduce what is illegal tax avoidance, when companies use legally loopholes that exist in our laws and other laws to reduce their tax liability. tax avoid -- avoidance is as much about countries and country rules as it is about companies because the loopholes that the companies use are the result of the rules that countries set. last year in february president obama laid out a detailed framework for business tax reform which included proposals to take this problem today. and g8 summit will provide an opportunity to highlight the need to remove tax

incentives that encourage companies to shift profits around, and instead, replace those incentives with ones that will encourage the creation of jobs and investment at home. and there is work underway in the g20, the broader grouping beyond the g8 and the e -- oecd to think through these issues and prevent a race to the bottom with tax policy. we want to avoid tax competition turning into a lose-lose proposition where companies lose revenue making inefficient decisions shifting profits to lower taxes rather than where it is most productive for them to invest and produce. the next session on tuesday is a working lawn lunch which will include africans and other leaders and hid of international organizations to talk about the developments aspects of u.k.

agenda and these tax transparency issues. we have putting transparency on the sector through dodd frank. the united states is the first to require companies to disclose payments they make to countries in the extracted sector. we welcome the steps taken yesterday by the e.u. to adopt very similar legislation in announcements from canada they will also seeking to work to a line with these standards. this is an area where the g8 can be at its best and where it rises to the a challenge and take action we can do in our own countries to raise standards around the world and insure everybody is competing on a level playing field. the final session on tuesday will be a short session just to conclude to bringing the g8 together. perhaps talk about next year's agenda. and let me just say that these summits are important, both because they set the agenda on going collaborative work, foreign policy and the global

economy and they also allow leaders to highlight and discuss candidly among themselves important issues and press for action. thank you very much. >> thank you, ben and caroline. sounds like it will be a very busy three days next week. with that, we will go ahead to open it up for questions. jim, we'll give you the first question, we want to hop around today. so people in the back, start thinking of your questions. >> thanks, josh. thanks to both of you for doing this. ben, on syria, will decisions, you guys haven't talked specifically about what the military issues are but will decisions on military support depend in part on the outcome of the talks that the president will have with g8 leaders? and given the position that the pretty much and the british have staked out is there an expectation they might accelerate their decision-making on any military support that they might provide? >> well, thanks, jim.

first of all, the decisions we have made are already -- so the president's decision to increase support for the syrian opposition including the supreme mill terri council. the principle fighting force on the ground we're working with, those are decisions we made over the course of last several weeks particularly as our assessment of chemical weapons use firmed up and as we saw the deteriorating situation in general with outside actors like iran and hezbollah getting involved. this has been a steady increase for us. we increased boat size and scope of our assistance, the political opposition to the and smc and we decided to take an additional step forward in providing dramatically increased assistance to the smc going forward. at the same time, this is a fluid situation. so it is necessary for him to consult with all the leaders of the g8 about both our chemical weapons

assessment and types of support we are providing to the opposition. with the french and british, they have shared our positions generally on syria. they have been a part of the core group of essentially 11 countries in the middle east and in europe that worked together to strengthen syrian opposition. i will leave it to them to make their own announcements. they did of course lift the emboring gotha was in place that prevented arms flowing from the european union into syria but i think he will be discussing with those leaders what the best way forward is. you will hear from them what their plans are. thus far they have been important partners, the french and british in particular in sharing information and intelligence related to chemical weapons. we'll continue to do that going forward. we note prime minister cameron's constructive statement today welcoming our assessment but this will be an ongoing dialogue between the president and his fellow leaders. >> you said the president is making decisions over the past couple weeks.

are fighters on the ground already seeing some of this sort of -- >> well, first of all, again, upward trajectory of assistance in general. and they have already seen certain types of assistance that has reached into syria. examples of that might be, what we traditionally call, mre's, meals ready to eat and medical kits. but the traditional types of assistance we'll provide to them going forward, it obviously takes time from decisions for that assistance to reach people in syria. given the way in which we implement our assistance programs, i can't give you a specific timeline or itemized list of what that assistance is and when it will get there, but suffice to say, what we've been able to do by developing a relationship with the smc as wells with the syrian opposition coalition over the course of the last six

months or so, is to develop relationships, it find individuals, for instance, like the general of the smc who we're focusing this assistance towards, that is important because it allows you to get assistance into the hands of those who need it but allows you to have protections to keep, give assistance to those we don't want to receive material on this, which has been the most extremist element of opposition. >> you mentioned cameron's support, not so much from the russians and foreign minister, said that, you're citing intelligence data that doesn't look too convincing. what does that say about establishing the level of trust that you need at the beginning of the g8 meetings with putin's presence there and in the bilateral where this will come up? >> we've had differences with russia on syria, and, all i would say with respect to the chemical weapons

assessment we briefed to them, we have a broad range of evidence associated with the multiple incidents of chemical weapons use that we assess took place. that includes, open source reporting, it includes intelligence reporting. it includes the accounts of individuals. it also includes physiological samples of sarin that we've obtained from within syria. so, we assess with a high confidence that sarin has been used. frankly, the regime maintains custody of these weapons. so both because of our own intelligence assessment and because of the fact that we believed that the regime has maintained possession of its chemical weapons arsenal, leads us to a very firm conclusion that any use of chemical weapons would have been by the regime. at the same time we still continue to discuss with the rugses -- russians whether there is way to bring he willments of the regime to a political assessment there are no illusions that will be easy. we have a difference with the russians with the fact

we believe bashar assad has to leave power as part of that process. we'll continue those talks. fraugesly the type of relationship with the russians even with strong disagreements in some areas we want to work on issues where we have convergeance of and issues of security, counterterrorism and issue in afghanistan. >> jeff. >> following up on that, do you expect that president putin will move at all on the syrian position as a result of this bi are. at? and do you have anymore details you share with us today or will the president share details with the g8 leaders who will no doubt ask about the extent of the military support that you will be providing. i have a question for caroline as well. >> sure. on president putin, i would, i would hesitate to, you know, characterize his views. he is very good at doing that. i think, you know, what, i

think what we would say with respect to the russian position on syria generally is that, what russia articulate to us, and publicly, is that they don't want to see a downward spiral. they don't want to see chaotic and unstable situation in the region. they don't want to see extremest elements gaining a foothold in syria. the point we made to russia is, the current course which assad is not being appropriately pressured to step down from power by those who continue to support him in the international community is bringing about those very outcomes. it is in russia's to put pressure on assad to come to the table in a way that relinquishes his power and standing in syria. we don't see any scenario where he restores his legitimacy to lead the country. so we're fundamentally making an interest-based argument to the russians they can best protect their

interests being part of a political settlement that is real and enables the transition away from assad's rule but preserves some elements of the institutions of the state, preserves some elements of the regime but again, respects the rights of the syrian people and brings in the opposition who we believe speaks for the majority of the country. >> and on -- >> you know i think the president will definitely be discussing the types of aid and assistance we provide into syria. again in particular the countries that work with us on that, are european allies and the french and the british have been the most prominent in that regard. so, i think he will be discussing it broadly. he will also have opportunities to see the leaders on the marge begins of these meetings as well. i should have added we fully anticipate all the chance for him to spend time with prime minister cameron before the g8. it may not be a formal bilat but we expect them to have some time together. he will be having those

discussions. given the nature of the assistance and, you know how we provide assistance generally in situations like this, it is, not an instance where we can be specific about every single aspect of what we're doing. i think the general point we made is to indicate because of actions we've seen taken including chemical weapons use. we decided to take the step increasing both size and scope of assistance including to the military council. >> this is for caroline. on corporate tax avoidance, what sort of concrete or substantive outcomes could you expect from those discussions with the g8? >> i think g8 leaders will give a political push to the importance of work ongoing on this, and just to mention here today in the u.s., the president has championed proposals to insure companies can not shift their profits to places where there is no taxation. for example, with, with proposal for a minimum tax on foreign earnings, that is

part of his white paper. and we need to have a comprehensive solution. what we really want to see all of the g8 countries agreeing that there are a number of different measures. this is an important goal for them all to, work towards. and we should be rewarding incentives for companies to invest and create jobs here at home where it makes sense for them to do that and make their productive decisions here. >> we have -- . .

race to the bottom and that is an important problem because all of these, requires to go home and kate individual actions ourselves but having that collective commitment to work on these issues is important. >> is that the system? why would you have the effort for the distinction, because of the opposition that is under ground?

and why is it that the 160 images to begin changes is not an legacy of that? >> the second question first. we have clearly been opposition to what is taking place for two years. the use of conventional force against civilians led us to say assad had to sit down and to recognize whether or not is a legitimate percentage we can deal with for the syrian people and mobilize international response. the use of chemical weapons violates unclear international norms. for decade the international community has sought to strengthen a norm against this type of weapon, given its potential, given the type of weapon of mass destruction that it is and the effect we have seen when it has been used in past history. it is not just on to the united states but the international

community generally. with respect to our timing we have been driven by our intelligence assessments, and even the incidents we have established high confidence about most of those we talking about things that have taken place in the last several months in 2013. in terms of the time from april essentially what we had was an initial intelligence assessment. in the present direction was to continue to investigate additional information so that we could raise our confidence level. that was not a high confidence assessment and we didn't feel we had enough information to reach that high degree of confidence. what has been done in the course of the last several weeks is we have been able to keep together a broader information picture so you are able to take for instance an assessment of

chemical weapons use, received reports from individuals who were if there on the ground and able to review archaeological samples that were collected at these sites, able to review what was reported from social media and other things that speak to the use of chemical weapons in an area and to review our own intelligence which obviously covers a range of different things and piecing together that information the intelligence community is able to increase its confidence levelland that led to the announcement yesterday, driven by the firming up of this assessment which they asked for after the announcement we made in april and we share that with the french and british and we have been in touch on these assessments over the course of the last couple months and together we want to focus on what each country knows about what has happened in syria but we also want this information to

the united nations and today ambassador rice drafted a letter detailing some of the incidents we have been focused on and seeking to push this into the un as well because the u.n. investigation has been frustrated and the un and the security council discuss issues like the use of these. >> can you talk anymore than you have about what is going to be sent to the rebel read council, the timing, house in -- as you know government sources board together fighting around aleppo. will it reach the rebels in time? >> let me start about what we are trying to achieve year because that is the best way to answer your question. we believe that the supreme military council deserves our

support. what we want to do with our assistance is strengthen their effectiveness have better treatment capabilities and pursuing effect within syria, extracting cohesion because it is a difficult situation when you have plating scattered across the country. we want to connect them to us but also to our other partners providing mike jordan and saudi arabia and turkey, and receive assistance in a timely manner. those other types of objectives we harris seeking, that there president has made. again, i am not going to be able to say here is the specific list of every type of item we are delivering into syria. we want to be responsive to the requests that have been made by

the s m c consistent with our own national interests so we will seek to be responsive with that very important caveat and we will seek to get assistance in a timely way and we already established five months to do that so we already have huge amounts of humanitarian assistance in the country in significant amounts of non-lethal types of assistance and even assistance for military uses as i mentioned on medical and the food side so these guidelines exist to provide assistance to the s emcee and that will allow us to rent our assistance. >> you can say on our p gs, heavier weapons in weeks, months, years? >> on the first question i completely understand the interest but we won't get to that level of detail about the type of assistance we provide

publicly. in terms of time lines this has been, we have established these timeline so i think you should see this as a continuance so there is already material that has been flowing into the opposition and that will continue to be the case in the weeks to come. we don't anticipate this is something that is far in the future. this is part of the continual of assistance we provided because we have been dealing directly with the s m c and this gets to the timing issue as well. we have relationships today in syria we didn't have six months ago. it gives us greater certainty not just to get stuck into the country but also that we can put it in a right hand someone is not falling into the hands of the extremists. >> give us a better understanding. how does the provision of small arms given that most troubles have small arms, how does that convince bashar al assad not to use chemical weapons again?

>> i am not going to get into a detailed description of different types of assistance. >> what i say is first of all, as a general matter we want the opposition to be as strong as possible because frankly for the reason they are faced with a regime that has shown no restraint in the actions they have taken against them and because of the fact we have seen increased involvement from iran and hezbollah. we believe we can make a difference. it is not just the united states providing assistance in syria. we have a number of arab partners who are also focused on providing assistance. turkey has been a partner as well. we believe we have a coalition of countries that is prepared to support the syrian opposition. this will improve their

capabilities and effectiveness within syria. at the same time they need to strengthen their cohesion so they can function in different parts of the country. we have seen the fighting in aleppo in the north, we need to make sure they are able to firm up their position and be coordinated across the country. >> given the fact they have fallen behind throughout the country as we are reporting on the ground, is it a mistake for the u.s. and other allies not to take action at this level two years ago? >> what we have seen in the last two years is momentum has ebbed and flowed with in syria and at any given time you can assess that either the regime or the opposition has some initiative. as a general matter bashar al assad has been rejected by we will be significant majority of his people and that is not a genie you can put back in the

bottle. we don't think there is any way for the syrian regime to prevail in this conflict in a way that obtains security for them because the leader of syria has no agenda for his people. in terms, so on the momentum question ultimately we still believe there is not a scenario we can foresee where bashar al assad can remain power in a country that so clearly rejects his rule and international community that broadly reject his rule even as he has some basis of support. in terms of the time line, these are not the types of steps we have taken to increase our support for the opposition. not steps the president takes lightly for a variety of reasons. number one, because we need to know that there is a cohesive and coherent opposition to work with. year ago the opposition was not nearly advanced in terms of having a political entity like

the ssc that was broadly representative of the syrian people. there was not an organized entities like the snc, supreme military council on the ground, we have more disparate groups across the country, that type of organized opposition was not in existence. as i said we have been able to develop our own opposition relations and seek to do things to isolate the more extremist elements of that opposition. we are doing this for a variety of reasons including the fact there needs to be a consequence for a regime that uses chemical weapons and the opposition on the ground needs additional support given the dire situation of being faced with a regime that uses chemical weapons and has this type of support as well. >> and what keeps them from taking control? what measures are in place to keep the business regime from

that? >> that is another reason to make sure we are supporting a more moderate opposition. i know there is a big focus understandably on the military side of things which our military assistance runs the gamut to the types of assistance that allows the opposition to provide some humanitarian basic services for the syrian people but we want to strengthen individuals within syria that are more moderate such that we are isolating extremists and this is a point we made to other countries in the region, and providing support to focus that support towards the more moderate opposition and seek to isolate extremists who could present a security challenge even after bashar al assad is removed. >> there has been an outcry in some countries that are represented at the g-8 about the intelligence programs that were disclosed a week or so. what is the president going to tell the other leaders about the

telephone records keeping -- that has been undertaken by the nsa and the web searches? >> he will discuss with the other leaders the importance of these programs in terms of counterterrorism efforts. the constraints and safeguards we place on these programs so that they have oversight against potential abuses. all of these countries at the g-8 are important counterterrorism partners and together we worked with them on an intelligence and security relationship to foil terrorist attacks in the united states and in europe and russia shares significant counterterrorism interests as well. that speak to the fact that terrorism is a global threat. if you look at a country like germany, we all remember of course that that was one area of staging for 9/11 hijackers.

you don't have the ability to share information. we are going to remove a tool that is essential to our shared security but we understand like the united states countries in europe have significant interests in privacy and civil liberties so we want to hear questions about an exchange about these programs and other counterterrorism programs that we pursue in the united states and in partnership. >> and the reality, looking forward speaking to what was in stable in 2008 to disappoint the bill. >> yes. we understood when we attended in 2008 when we went to berlin that the brandon brigade is a sight of particular resonance to the german people and it is a site that has been reserved for heads of state and we accepted

that judgment. at the same time we could not have received a warmer welcome in berlin generally, in the vicinity of the area but this is particularly meaningful. anytime u.s. president is able to stand at the bryn brigade or not heart of berlin is an opportunity for him to speak not just to the role of germany in the united states and germany but essentially the role of the west and the free world and we had challenges in the cold war and the message is going to be that just because the threat is not the immediately apparent with the law and barbwire doesn't mean we don't have work to do together but angela merkel extended this invitation. when she was here with a state visit the president hosted for her and was honored to receive in preparation for the trip, the government of germany and the city of berlin could not have been more hospitable in

arranging what will be a very powerful event there in the heart of berlin where we have not just the brigade but also the new american embassy that has been built, in neutral government buildings that symbolize the openness of germany as well so he is looking forward to it. >> german internet users with bigger targets of the n s a program. and what kind of impact will that have on the success of germany? >> we understand the significant german interest in privacy and civil liberties. the point we all make is in addition to the safeguards against abuse is this is not a program that is intended to target individuals for what they are doing other than to uncover terrorist plots and exit to terrorism. our point is this focus very

specifically on one goal which is how do we disrupt terrorist activity? how do we mitigate security threats to us in germany? it is the discussion that i have with the chancellor and will address publicly. >> negotiations for partnership, any topics like media industry in europe? >> we have made clear we are very much in support of a broad and comprehensive negotiation but both sides have sensitivity, we are watching very closely what happens in europe. there's a lot of strong support in germany, and a comprehensive agreement. and what we are looking to see,

and it would lead to an ambitious agreement. >> the question, the russian area behind your decision to expand military aid, that you see if it is still possible the balance of power underground at the peace conference. >> as a general matter the best way to resolve the situation is through political sentiment and geneva is the one framework that exists for political sentiment and that is just common sense given you are either going to have an agreement between the two sides work you are going to have military conflict that continues until one side wins so we went to channel our efforts in support of that negotiation but we fully understand that there are huge obstacles to that particularly given the activities of the regime and

given the difficulty in them sending a serious signal to a real political transition in syria and won the we believe would involve bashar al assad leaving power. our systems as a general matter is meant to accomplish a number of objectives, to send a signal to the assad regime that there is a consequence to what date did with chemical weapons and the other to strengthen the opposition. ultimately we have chosen to support them as the legitimate representative we are going to deal with in terms of the syrian people. our objective and stated national policies that bashar al assad should leave power that that should be done politically and we will support those in syria working for a post assad future. >> you mentioned the abuse policies and the sentiment for failure of the issue. does that mean you still

consider bashar al assad an interlocutor in these forces between the opposition and the regime. >> we certainly see the assad regime would have to participate in any type of negotiation. i don't think we have seen any proposal bashar al assad would come to the table as part of the process but what we would like to see in a negotiated settlement that can be achieved is not a situation in which you dissolve the institutions of the state and syria but you see bashar al assad leave power and see a governing authority come together that brings in the opposition but maintain institutions of the state, certain individuals who have been associated with the government in a government that would restore the unity to respect the rights of the people and begin to provide services so we think bashar al assad needs to leave the stage but clearly his regime is going to be a part

of any political dialogue we have in pursuit of that objective. >> a couple questions. you want to do that? you resolve for us the situation of the student loan if on the senate floor by republicans to file for what they described as a proposal in the budget on extending student loan issue that was objected to, republicans are raising a legitimate question why would the president's plan be embraced by senate democrats? where are we on this and would account for this apparent strategic fusion among democrats on the president's plan? >> there are a range of discussions ongoing between the administration and people on both sides of the aisle particularly in the senate to try to broker an agreement that will prevent student loan rates from doubling at the end of this month. there are a number of conversations that are ongoing.

i don't know that i am the best person to try to figure out the legislative mechanisms in terms of the steps being negotiated in the senate. but we made out what we think is a clear set of principles how to solve this problem and do it in a way that would appeal to both sides of the aisle. >> the point where not having the president's own plan is better? >> i don't think so. we would be happy to see our plan passed. if there are people who have to vote on that plan have their own ideas and we are willing to have conversations to broker an agreement that would reflect the interests of republicans, democrats and the administration so we have our own plan, we like our plan but there are other people who have their own ideas. we laid out some principles we would like to see. we want to make sure students have the opportunity when they retained their own to work through an agreement that would

limit their payments to 10% of disposable income and provisions that would limit the increase of the interest rates over time. we talked about locking in historically low rate so there are principles we put forward but we are open to negotiation but there's a time element here. >> the senate has to pass something. >> there's a time element of a couple weeks. >> what are your instructions to the senate democratic leadership? theoretically working for them? about the president's plan? >> we would like to see something move to the senate that abides by the principles we laid out. our plan does that but there may be other ideas. >> major concession. >> the president drew the bread line, reinforced it many times. he himself did not address this issue that the red line had been crossed yet. the president's red line, what

would you think of those who think it is not a big deal? the president is giving voice to a theoretically significant event than your own inability, the arms would be going to rebels, sells like an incremental policy change, the president not talking about himself instead of keeping this on -- >> what i'm would say to that is the situation in syria is an ongoing challenge and the president has repeated opportunities to speak to it. i am certain he will have an opportunity to speak over the course of several days traveling to europe. he himself is the one who made out the red line publicly. people have to understand this is a very fluid and dynamic situation. the situation on the ground has its own twists and turns. our own policy has been one of incrementally increase support for the opposition, efforts to pressure the assad regime that

this won't be resolved with a turn of a switch and we have made clear what our policy objectives are. we believe articulating those objectives could give an understanding of we achieve against strengthening the snc in syria and strengthening the opposition. in situations like this spelling out the underlying details or item as asian of material that may be going down is not something we do as a general matter but you confirm the expect the president will be heard on these issues repeatedly in coming days and the announcement we made yesterday reflected his guidance because he was the one who directed the intelligence community to pull this assessment and directed us. >> it is clear that it has taken a long time to get there. do you acknowledge in the conference call yesterday even though you have the open pipeline they are and have been bottled, is it worth assuming it will be a couple months before

any of this other aid arrives because the bottlenecks are real and the transit points are weak and might that not be far, far too late? >> i would not make that assumption because it is true there have been times in which we have not put assistance in as quickly as we would like but we had opportunities to get better at establishing pipelines in the country so we believe all our efforts have improved in terms of streamlining means by which we can work with neighboring states to supply assistance into syria. i think we have essentially an established pipeline, established lines of communication and assistance that allow us to take additional types of assistance and put it into that pipeline so we are comfortable and confident given the work we have done that we can throw assistance in in a

relatively timely manner. >> question for caroline atkinson. given that the german reference to cultural parameters would be negotiations and settled leading to the european union, what, if any, material impact do you anticipate these discussions will have? the framework for the agreement? do we anticipate anything coming out of this settlement that would have a real impact on the trade talks to be settled in advance? >> the timing of that, the e.u. is discussing this matter urgently, among the trade ministers. we will see if they reach an agreement ahead of the summit.

we understand of course there are sensitivities on both sides. at the summit itself trade and the value of open trade and high standards for trade agreements will be a part of the agenda but the specific trade agreements such as ppp negotiations and a number of allies include japan and canada who will be at the table and the e.u. and canada in discussions certainly on trade matters with the responsible easier counterparts because that is something leaders themselves, specifics of negotiation, leaders themselves in the normal course of the session, would not address and we don't currently have any other meetings to deal with this schedule. >> question, first of all, since

we determined that there are these chemical weapons that have been used as the united states know where they are and what steps would they take to destroy them? >> good question. we have been monitoring very closely the syrian chemical weapons stockpile. we have been doing that, so have a number of our allies. we can say with certainty that we are aware of where every chemical munitions is in the country, this is something we did lot of attention and resources to end we feel like we have a sense of both the fact that the regime controlling these chemical weapons in some sense of where they are generally. in terms of securing them, this is something that would be a priority for the united states particularly in opposed assad scenario. in the current environment they

wouldn't remain under regime control and there's a very active conflict in syria but when we look at the issues that were the results that we want the international community to be focused on syria if we can reach a resolution or get to a post assad sea area you can see intense focus from the u.s. on making sure steps are being taken to secure these chemical weapons stockpiles and this is something the international community can do. one example of that was in libya. there were chemical weapons stockpiles, not merely of the scale in syria but in the -- libya revolution, we were able to work with the relevant international bodies to assure experts got on the ground to secure those chemical weapons and begin the work of destroying them so this is something that we will be focused on in terms of monitoring and planning proposed assad scenarios least >> is it too dangerous?

because of the nature of the weapons themselves? that you could not destroy them before assad was gone? >> i will take the hypothetical in this regard -- these are dangerous weapons and the notion that you cannot destroy them if you want physically present, is an extremely challenging one given the nature of the weapons. so it would clearly be a priority, when the international community, not the united states but a lot of the expertise in the international community will have the opportunity to make this a priority. >> one follow-up, one other question, that is not from the white house but everyplace else there is lots of talk about no fighting. what is more -- is it more difficult to establish and more dangerous to establish a no-fly zone in syria than it was in libya and that is why it hasn't been done?

>> yes. it is dramatically more difficult and dangerous and costly in syria for a variety of reasons. one is in the view that an opposition control huge portions of the country and you can protect those portions of the country from the air. we did not have the same types of air defense that exist within syria so in that regard it is more difficult but we also look at the advocacy. frankly in syria when you have a situation where regime forces are intermingled, block by block and cities, that is not a problem you can solve in the air so people need to understand when a no-fly zone is not a silver bullet, that is going to stop very intense and in some respects sectarian conflict taking place on the ground and so that is why we feel the best course of action is to strengthen a modern acquisition that could be able to represent

the broader syrian public. we haven't ruled out our options but people need to understand the difficulty of the options that have been presented, the fact that they don't solve the problem necessarily and have to make these decisions based on international assistance and at this point we don't believe the u.s. has a national interest in pursuing a very intense open-ended military engagement, no-fly zone in syria at this juncture. we are not ruling out contingencies but we are weighing them in a deliberate fashion. >> is this assistance, could you address briefly? could the president before to consider what is on the ground? >> the one option we basically have taken off the table is. on the ground. for a variety of reasons.

one, nobody has asked us to do so. the syrian opposition has not said that is a good idea. we don't think it is in our international interest to address u.s. troops. we need to be humble about our ability to solve the problem like syria, certainly on our own. history teaches us we don't want u.s. boots on the ground, did not necessarily going to be able to revenge violence among civilian populations. we saw that in iraq and when u.s.. are on the ground that involves us in a more dramatic way. it makes us the issue instead of the future of the country where we are. that is one contingency we are not entertaining at this point. >> hypothetical here which i know you don't like to enter hypotheticals. you had been willing to apply the kind of pressure you wanted

month-to-month or two years ago would there be a different picture? would there have been any need for the united states to provide this kind of assistance? >> they do give you a briefing when you become a national security staff person against entertaining hypotheticals, but i will entertain that, which is the tim when we think russian support could have made a difference was when we were putting resolutions for the security delta that would have imposed greater confidence on the assad regime and that was over a year ago and time and again we saw international action brought to the security council by a russian veto. that would have applied greater pressure on bashar al assad to consider whether or not to step down. i can't say whether it would have accomplished that objective but we believe the additional pressure from the international community including russia could

affect bashar al assad's calculus. that continues to be the case today but at the same time it is also iran and its world. why are iran and has a lot invested in syria? there is a bit of a sign of desperation involved. iran sees its only serious ally in the region significantly threatened. hezbollah, a force that has not gone engage beyond the borders of lebanon has devoted tremendous resources. frankly we see that as a sign of vulnerability from hezbollah and iran and it is turning the people of the region dramatically against hezbollah. if you look at the standing of hezbollah in the region in 2006 against where they are today they are beating. public support, political capital and resources in syria. i think again that is a sign of vulnerability.

>> on arming the rebels. as you know senator mccain has said over and over he wants artillery, i don't know if that is the right solution but he keeps pushing that. is that why you are not spelling out details of what arms you are sending or what age you are sending because it doesn't meet that threshold as a critical step? >> that wouldn't be why we wouldn't get into specifics. as a general matter we are not going to get into specifics about a certain type of assistance to be provided. >> whatever we do we also need to be careful, learning lessons of history that many to have a sense of where any assistance you are providing, whose hand they're falling into and what dangers may be associated with heavier weapons systems so those types of -- anytime you consider any type of issue you have to be cautious and deliberately in

your actions. >> i don't understand the lack of transparency in telling the american people here is what we are sending. if you institute and no-fly zone there needs more secrecy on some military movements but if you institute a no-fly zone there is some accountability, sending this many planes and here is how we are doing a. why is there secrecy around what you are sending? >> if you were to introduce u.s. military forces through no-fly zone activities like we saw in libya clearly those will be things we would discuss in some detail. when you get into questions of the provision of assistance to opposition groups, we are more limited in our ability to say here is the inventory of everything we are doing. i understand your question, i am sympathetic to it. what we can do is sketch out

here is the president's thinking and here are the objectives we are meeting with our assistance to strengthen the effectiveness of the snc and strengthen the cohesion, to meet the requests that have been made of us from -- those are the types of factors guiding these. >> there is a lot of reporting about the president's trip to africa. the context should be a lot of money on a trip to africa spelling a lot of money as well but in these budget times after the sequester a lot of attention on the fact the president may spin $100 million in taxpayer money, can you justify that. >> we should have -- we have not traveled to africa, we traveled significantly to asia and latin

america and several trips to europe and several trips, will take several trips to russia by the time this year is done and after the critically important region of the world we have huge interests, some of the fastest-growing economies in africa, massively growing youth population, key security and counter terrorism issues, democratic institutions that are consolidating in places like senator dole, south africa and can then the and the biggest development efforts on global health, combating hiv/aids and things that brought back support that had been focused on africa. for the united states to say we are a world leader except on this continent doesn't make sense. just as we put a premium on developing our ties emerging regions like south africa, we need to be present. i can tell you there are countries like present in africa. you have seen significant investments from china, brazil,

turkey, the u.s. would be ceding its leadership position in the world, the president of the united states was not deeply engaged in africa and that is what he is going to do in this is a substantive track and one that is -- frankly there has been great disappointment the president hasn't traveled to africa to this point of britain's southern gonna. so in senate will you have a country, and emerging democracy, situations like malaise that we want to invest in, issues like food security, development of a civil society, south africa, leading country on the continent, partners with us on every issue, some sudan to kondo to zimbabwe to the provision of our global health assistance and the democracy of the continent as we have been reminded. can't any a similarly has been a key partner in east africa, every development on food security, global health, democracy, tanzania has been

assigned are. the president won't retreat from an entire continent. in terms of the cost we don't determine the cost of the president's security. just as president bush didn't and president clinton didn't. the secret service will do what is necessary to protect the president. there will come with its own costs but we don't say we will spend x amount of money on a trip but we do know from a foreign policy perspective in some respects people believe the trip is over due and frankly it will be a great bank for our buck to be in africa because when you travel to regions like africa the don't get a lot of presidential attention you have long standing and long-running impact from the visit. >> there is a movement on capitol hill, some lawmakers and congressional staff from having to comply with the president's health care law and entity insurance exchange. does the president disagree with that? do you want to stop that?

they are trying to say we don't have to go into this but the rest of the country does. the president pledged that he would join an insurance exchange. do you want to stop this movement on the hill and the white house staff, cabinet, plan to join these exchanges? >> a lot of discussion has taken place about how to implement the affordable care act and to do so in a way that ensures that large number of americans who can take advantage for the first time of quality affordable health insurance and quality affordable health care have access to it. that is a critical domestic priority the president has laid out and something we are devoting significant resources to getting done. part of this -- >> this is part of the law as originally passed, would actually require lawmakers to participate in the exchanges.

>> there has been talk about how to implement the law as it was passed. i know this is something we are working through the implementation, there is nothing lawmakers can take advantage of that the general public can't and that is for rather obvious reasons and important principle but the important focuses on making sure millions of americans who don't have access to health care get it for the first time and create opportunities for small businesses and families who are having an exorbitant cost for their health care for tax credits that will lower the costs and we have seen how seniors to a for the prescription drugs, the opportunity of cancer screenings and health care measures for free so there are a number of benefits to implement, and the end of this year for the

marketplace -- >> it is important to travel -- and what there are instances, what are meant for the efforts. and the two where it seems the u.s. originally to engender an effort -- predetermined results. now people are saying the significant advance and the agenda, was not the only sport

to that. >> on the first question as we said yesterday we have not seen any of them that the opposition invest in chemical weapons. in fact what pcs the opposite, the regime maintained custody of these weapons. we detailed to the russians several incidents, dates associated and places associated with the incidents and multiple streams of information from intelligence but also reporting physiological evidence reporting from individuals and collaborated, to us the information picture that chemical weapons have been used by the government and the russian government about this, but with a high degree of confidence chemical weapons were used and we had physical samples that demonstrate that point. and again we don't see that the opposition has possession of these weapons but we continue

our dialogue with the russian government on this. with respect to geneva we share the goal with russia seeing a political settlement to the challenge, we have a difference with the russian government, the fact the we believe there is no solution in which bashar al assad can stay in power. that has been a longstanding disagreement we have had. we still believe given the fact that everybody has of preference and peaceful resolution to the conflict in making an effort to bring the party to the table that has to be serious, frankly we have seen lack of seriousness on the regime's side where they offer traditional pledges of dialogue without a concrete plan to transition to a different government authority that can bring in broad representation to the people. we will continue to pursue that objective.

like i said, we have a great relationship with russia where we can have disagreements, strong disagreements on a set of issues but still work together on an agenda where we share a common interest and have been able to do that on counterterrorism and economic issues and afghanistan. >> you mentioned -- i made it more national partners to comply with the opening in terms of this. >> you are right. it is an american war and we are seeing is general support and what we are hoping we will seek g 8 support for development of the standard that would be based on factors, there would be a symbol global standard for the

kind of information exchange that is involved, we believe that is the very powerful tool we have already seen in having a powerful effect on tax havens and illicit activity using such tax havens. >> if we are going to do that -- >> we will see what comes out from the g-8 communique. >> for the week ahead you have a pretty detailed read out at the beginning of this briefing. the president will finish it. the president will leave on sunday night, he will be there monday, tuesday and wednesday and return to washington later wednesday night. thursday and friday we don't anticipate any public events but the president will be at the white house for meetings. thanks, everybody, have a good weekend. have a good week, everybody. >> finishing up the white house

briefing, much of the focus today on the situation in syria since president obama's approval rebels. there's a republican senator and our services committee ranking chairman john mccain to the senate floor yesterday to offer his view. >> the american people are worried, weary because of what happened in iraq and we remain in afghanistan, iraq is unraveling, american the tired of reading casualty lists and funerals and the terrible tragedies that have befallen the american families. that is why neither i nor the senator from south carolina are saying we want boots on the ground. we don't want boots on the ground. we know it would be counterproductive. it would not lead to victory. but we do know we can provide incredible assistance and change the battlefields equations.

a lot of americans have not paid as much attention as some of us but maybe because they are war-weary. i think it would be wise of the president of the united states to go on national television and explain to the american people why we are stopping this genocide, why are we assisting these people who are struggling for the same things we stand for and believe in. why the united states of america went to bosnia, why we went to kosovo and didn't put boots on the ground and how we can help these people, to alleviate the unspeakable misery of the syrian people. >> the shares of the congressional tax-writing committees, republican dave camp of michigan and max baucus of montana spoke with reporters earlier today about efforts to change the tax system. we will show you that event by the christian science monitor in its entire debt 8:00 eastern on our companion network c-span.

join booktv and american history tv this weekend and explore the history and larry culture of raleigh, north carolina. is a discussion of the book of paradox of tar heel politics with robert cliftonson and a first-ever program by artificial limbs to confederate soldiers by canes lee wagner, author of phantom pain. american history tv and 4 of the north carolina state capitol and the history of shaw university, the first historically black college. these and other programs throughout the weekend and also wall of booktv's programming saturday at noon eastern and american history tv programs sunday afternoon at 5:00 eastern. >> i do think what we are doing does protect american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is to date we have not been able to explain it because it is classified so that issue is something we are wrestling

with. how do we explain this and still keep this nation secure? that is the issue we have in front of us. so you know that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress. both the house and the senate. >> within the administration and now on the court. when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers. this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us for the good of this country. now what we need to do, i think, is bring as many factors as we can to the american people. i agree with you but i want to make that clear. from the perspective that we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong, we are not. >> this weekend on c-span the senate appropriations committee looks that u.s. intelligence committee's secret data collection program saturday at 10:00 eastern. also this weekend on c-span2's booktv coverage from the

publishing industry's annual trade show book expo america saturday at 1:30 and on c-span3's american history tv lectures in history from the end of suburban -- slavery to separate but equal sunday at number that -- 1:00. >> we reached a milestone. since its online launch in 2007 there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming, public affairs, politics, history and nonfiction books all totally searchable and free, a public service created by private industry. america's cable companies. testifying before the house judiciary committee, fbi director robert muller said leaks about the nsa surveillance program and others have spurned national security. this was his last oversight hearing before the committee and his term ends in august, you will be the second longest serving fbi director. ..

>> [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. without objection teachers authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on the oversight of the united states federal bureau of investigation. i'll recognize myself and the ranking member for opening statements. this hearing on oversight of the federal bureau of investigation will come to order. we welcome director mueller clear final appearance before the house judiciary committee as fbi director and we're happy to have you here with us today. before we begin, let me take a moment to commend you for your successful tenure at the fbi. you took office under extremely difficult circumstances. in fact, you were confirmed one week before the september 11 attacks on new york city and washington d.c. during your 12 years as director, you have led the transformation of the fbi from a domestic law enforcement agency into a complex, intelligence-driven national

security organization, whose primary missions include confronting the most significant security threats facing our nation today. you have done the american people a great service and, for that, you have my sincere gratitude. we now know that last week's unauthorized disclosure of certain nsa intelligence programs was committed by a 29-year-old former defense contractor. i know there is little you may be able to say about these programs in a public hearing. but i and the other members of the committee believe it is important for you to explain, to the extent you are able, why you believe these programs are a necessary part of america's counter-terrorism operation. i also believe the recent reports regarding the nsa programs illustrate this administration's ongoing problem of national security leaks. the obama administration takes credit for having investigated more national security leaks than any previous administration. while this may be true, i'm not certain whether it is due to a more aggressive investigative

approach to national security leaks or the simple fact that there have been a shockingly high number of leaks in the last four and half years. these leaks illustrate the delicate balancing act between the need to protect national security information and investigate leaks, and the need to preserve the first amendment right to freedom of the press. regardless of how some members of congress may feel about the recently-revealed nsa programs, the fact remains that the terrorist threat to the united states is ongoing. we were reminded of this nearly two months ago when the boston marathon, traditionally a day of celebration, was the target of a terrorist attack. dzhokhar tsarnaev and his older brother, tamerlan tsarnaev, set off twin explosions that killed three people and injured more than 250. this attack was a grave reminder, as you warned this committee in 2010, that domestic and lone-wolf extremists are now just as serious a threat to our safety as international

organizations like al-qaeda. i'd like to commend the fbi and its state and local partners, all of whom worked tirelessly to identify and locate the bombers, and to apprehend dzhokhar. however, prior to the boston attack, several federal agencies, including the fbi, received intelligence information about tamerlan. i am concerned that inadequate inter-agency coordination may have prevented robust information-sharing in this case. it is imperative that the administration and congress examine this matter closely to identify areas in which intelligence information-sharing can be improved. on the subject of counterterrorism, i also look forward to hearing from you about the fbi's efforts to investigate the attacks on the american consulate in benghazi, libya. immediately following the attacks, the obama administration called them a spontaneous response to a video critical of islam. as we all now know, the attacks were in fact pre-planned acts of terror.

i am intensely concerned that the administration's handling of the attacks has hampered the fbi's ability to conduct a thorough investigation. as former deputy chief of mission gregory hicks testified, the administration's mischaracterization of the attacks so angered the libyan government that they prevented the fbi evidence response team from traveling to benghazi for two weeks. finally, mr. director, i am very interested in hearing from you about how the bureau intends to tighten its belt in a responsible manner during this time of fiscal uncertainty. along with crime subcommittee chairman sensenbrenner, i sent you a letter in april asking several questions about the fbi's budget and spending priorities, including the fbi's policy to provide extensive financial benefits, including paying for all laundry and food, for the highly-paid professionals brought to work at fbi headquarters for 18-month stints. i appreciated receiving your response last week, but i believe this is an area where

the fbi and other federal law enforcement agencies are not making the best use of taxpayer dollars. i hope to hear what the bureau intends to do to address this issue. i look forward to hearing your answers on all of these important topics today, as well as on several other issues of significance to the fbi and the country. and it's now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. and i joined in welcoming the director of the federal bureau of investigation. we gather today at a time when the nation stands at a legal and political crossroad. we are confronted with a seemingly endless war that

increasingly must be fought in the digital age. and i say this not only because of the recent disclosures concerning the fbi and the nsa surveillance programs, but because of a range of actions that have occurred since the attacks of september 11, 2001. it's not a partisan concern, and it is one that applies both to the present administration and to the last one as well. nor is it a concern particularly limited the surveillance programs. it extends to our increasing reliance on drones to conduct foreign policy. and the government's use of the so-called state secrets doctrine to avoid legal accountability.

and yes, end of small part because of the actions of nsa and the federal bureau of investigation, it's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state, collecting billions of electronic records on law-abiding americans every single day. appointed, the recent disclosure confirmed by the administration that section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act is being used to engage in a nationwide dragnet of telecommunications records. i have, along with many of my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, have long

expressed concern that section 215 fails to impose a meaningful limit on the government's ability to collect this type of information. if every call is relevant, then the relevance standard we enacted into law as a little practical meaning. another point is the total secrecy in which surveillance operates under the patriot act and fisa. this secrecy denies congress the opportunity to conduct meaningful oversight, and prevents the public from holding its government accountable for its actions. i concede that it's a difficult and sensitive issue to resolve.

but that's our job your a free society can only be free if it has the informed consent of its citizens. it is critical that the public knows how its government treats the content of its e-mails and telephone calls, even when it collects them by mistake. it is true that some members of the congress have chosen to receive classified briefings about these programs. i am on them. these briefings though, often prohibit attendees from taking notes, or to even discuss such information with anyone else. and with all due respect to my friends in the administration, the mere fact that some members may have been briefed in a

classified setting does not indicate our approval or support of these programs. indeed, many of us voted against the reauthorization of the patriot act and the fisa amendments act precisely because of what we learned in those classified sessions. i agree with president obama about the need to find a way to have a responsible conversation about these issues. and how we can engage all americans in this debate to a maximum extent possible. but at a time when no major decision of the fisa court has been declassified, and when the administration continues to rely

on the state'secrets doctrine to avoid accountability in the courts, i must say that we are not yet able to have a more public and rational, even if limited conversation. the only way to ensure that this critical debate will actually occur is for this committee to achieve an appropriate balance between the need for secrecy and the need for informed debate. one way to tell that the balance has tilted too far in favor of national security is when individuals in public service have legitimate grievances with our government, but feel they have no recourse but to leak classified information to the press.

i don't condone these leaks. i believe that if we fail to address the concerns at the heart of these controversial programs, that there will be more leaks. and so, director mueller, as one who supported the extension of your term as director, and for whose integrity i have always held in highest regard, we in the and are a nation of laws and not men. moreover, with all do respect, my considered judgment is that the federal bureau of investigations actions are inconsistent with the requirements of the patriot act, and violate the fundamental privacy of law-abiding citizens.

and so i finish what i started. the congress, and in particular this committee, stands at a crossroads. every day, it seems that a new part of the legal architecture put in place to fight this war on terror is exposed. the prison at guantánamo bay is unsustainable. of the 166 men held there, 86 are cleared for transfer. more than 100 are engaged in the third month of a hunger strike. nearly 2000 personnel are needed to keep the prison functioning. thanks in no small part to the efforts of the chairman, we have begun to explore the legal

underpinnings of the administration's drone programs. there is a growing bipartisan unease with the notion that the executive branch can kill a united states citizen on its own determination reposes an imminent threat. and with respect to the section 215 collections exposed only last week, it seems clear that the governments activity exceeds the authority this congress has provided, both in letter and in spirit. with every new disclosure, another piece of the legal architecture put in place in after september 11, crumbles. and so it's my hope that over the coming weeks the member,

members of this judiciary committee can come together and conduct a meaningful oversight of these programs. we are needed, we should pass relevant and credible legislation, just as we did on the unanimous basis after september 11. tomorrow morning, my colleague justin amash and i will introduce a bill that will address the overbreadth and impenetrability of the surveillance programs. it is not the only proposal to address these problems. it should not be the only response to the broader questions we face. but it is a modest start, and i hope that my colleagues will join me. this is the time for members on

both sides of the aisle to come together and help restore our nation to its proper role as a beacon for civil liberties around the world. i thank the chairman for indulging me additional time to make this statement. >> the chair thanks the gentleman, and without objection to other members of the single would be made a part of the record. we again thank director mueller for joining us today, and director, if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing u.n. -- swearing u.n. do you swear the test when you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> [inaudible] >> let the record let director mueller responded in the affirmative, and i will now introduce him. out only what is today is federal bureau of investigation director robert s. him or the third, which led the fbi since september 4, 2001.

he was first nominated by president george w. bush president george w. bush. and 2011 he was asked by president obama to remain as fbi director for an additional two-year term, and are swiftly approved the congress. director mueller has a long and honorable record in public service. after graduating from princeton and receiving a masters degree from new york university, director mueller enlisted as a marine and served in combat in vietnam. he received a bronze star, two navy commendation medals, the purple heart, and the vietnamese cross of gallantry. after his military service, he earned his law degree in my home state of university of virginia. early in his legal career, director mueller served as a prosecutor in the united states attorneys offices in both san francisco and boston. after working as a partner in the boston law firm of hill and borrow, director mueller returned to the justice department in 1989 as an assistant to attorney general thornburgh ahmed later as head

of the criminal division. in 1998, director mueller was named united states attorney in san francisco, a position he held until 2001 when he was nominated to be director of the fbi. director mueller, as your tenure set to expire this year we welcome you today for one last look and look forward to your statement. please proceed. >> good morning, chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers, and members of the >> subcommittee. i think for the opportunity to appear before and on half of the men and women of the fbi. and on their behalf let me begin by thanking you for your support of the bureau over the 11 years that i've been there. we live in a time of diverse and persistent threats from terrorists, spies and cybercriminals. at the same time we face a wide range of criminal threats from white-collar crime to child predators.

just as her national security and criminal threats constantly evolve, so, too, must the fbi counter these threats even during a time of constrained budgets. today i would like to highlight some of the fbi's highest priority national security and criminal threats. as enlisted by the recent attacks in boston, the terrorist threat against the united states remains our top priority. and has exhibited by many of our risks over the past year we face a continuing threat from homegrown violent extremists. these individuals present unique challenges because they do not share a typical profile. their experiences and motives are often distinct, which makes them difficult to identify and difficult to stop. at the same time foreign terrorists still seek to strike us at home and abroad. terrace today operate in more places, and against a wider array of targets than they did a decade ago. we've seen an increase in cooperation among terrorist

groups and an evolution in their tactics and an evolution in their communications. core al qaeda is weaker and more decentralized than it was 11 years ago, but it remains committed to attacks against the west. al qaeda affiliates and in particular al qaeda in the arabian peninsula pose a persistent threat. and in light of recent attacks in north africa we must focus on emerging extremist groups capable of carrying out attacks from that region. next, let me turn to moment to discuss the cyberthreat which has evolved significant over the past decade and cuts across all fbi programs. cybercriminals have become increasingly adept at exploiting weaknesses in our computer networks. once inside they can pixel trade though state secrets and trade secrets you can we also faced persistent threats from hackers for profit, organized criminals, cyber syndicates and activist

groups. and as i said in pasadena believe the cyberthreat may well eclipse the terrorist threat in the years to come. in response we're strengthening our cyber capabilities in the same way when hands are in televised financial security capabilities in the wake of the september 11 attacks. our cyber division is focused on computer intrusions and network attacks. fbi special agents work side-by-side with federal, state and local counterparts on cyber task force is in our 56 field offices. we've increased the size our national cyber investigative joint task force which brings together 19 law enforcement military and intelligence agencies to stop current attacks and prevent future attacks. cybercrime requires a global approach through the fbi's a 64 bit addressing offices. we are sharing information and coordinating investigations with their international counterparts. at the same time we recognize that the private sector is the

essential partner to protect our critical infrastructure and to share threat information. we have established several no worthing outreach programs but we must do more. we need to shift to a model of true collaboration and build structured partnerships within the government as well as within the private sector. turning finally to the fbi's criminal programs. the fbi's use of those range from complex white-collar fraud the transnational criminal enterprises, and from violent crime to public corruption. given limited resources we must focus on those areas will would bring something unique to the table. for example, violent crime and gang activity continue to exact a high toll in our communities and through safe streets and safe trails task force as we identify and target the most dangerous of these criminal enterprises. at the same time the fbi does remain vigilant in its efforts to find and stop child

predators. our mission is threefold. first, to decrease the own ability of children to exploitation. second, to provide a rapid, effective response to crimes against children and third, to enhance the capability of state and local law enforcement. through task force operation such as the innocent images and innocence lost initiatives. now let me turn and spend a moment discussing the recent public disclosure of highly classified national security programs. the highest priority of the intelligence community is to understand and to combat threats to our national security. but we do so in full compliance with the law. we recognize that the american public expects the fbi and our intelligence community partners to protect privacy interests, even as we must conduct our national security mission. the fisa court has approved both

programs, and these programs have been conducted consistent with the constitution and the laws of the united states. and the programs have been carried out with extensive oversight from courts, independent inspectors general, and congress. these programs to remain classified today so there are significant limits on what we can discuss this morning in open session. that i do understand that have been classified briefings on these programs for this committee and for the house at large, and hope you been able to attend. it is that we will be able to get such a briefing from the intelligence community regarding both of focus, restrictions on and the locality of these programs. asked to the individual is admitted making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. these disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety. we're taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures.

of this matter is actively under investigation, we cannot comment publicly on the details of the investigation. now in closing i would like to turn the sequestration. the impact of sequestration on the fbi's ability to protect the nation from terrorism and crime will be significant. in 2013, the fbi's budget was cut by more than $550 million due to sequestration, and in 2014, proposed cuts will total more than 700 million. the ongoing hiring freeze will result in 2200 vacancies at the fbi by the end of this fiscal year, with 1300 additional vacancies in 2014. i have long said that the people, our people, our people is the bureau's greatest asset. additional operation cuts will impact the fbi's ability to prevent crime and terrorism which will impact the safety and

security of our nation. we do understand the need for budget reductions but we would like to work with the committee to mitigate the most significant impacts of those cuts. chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers, members of the committee, i want to thank you again for your support of the fbi and for its mission. our transmission over the past decade with that of impossible without your cooperation, not afford to any questions you may have. thank you. >> i want to remind members of the committee that although certain classified programs were publicly leaked last week, that does not mean they have been declassified. members who may choose to question the director about these programs should exercise caution in how they phrase their questions in due regard to their classification. and appreciate the directors limited ability to speak to the programs and unclassified setting. we will now proceed under the five minute rule and i were recognize myself for five minutes.

mr. director, the recent revelation of the nsa data collection program has led to a great deal of debate both in congress and in the public. i know there's very little you may be able to say in public setting, but to the extent you can please explain to this committee why you think these programs are important and how they protect the american people from terrorism. do you share the concerns of many members of congress, including myself, and american citizens that civil liberties need protected in the operation of these programs? >> let me start by saying that the challenge in the position such i've dealt in the last 11 years is to balance on one hand and security of the nation, and on the other hand the civil liberties that we enjoy in this country. and there is not a day that goes by that if we don't look at some issues that raises that balance. one of the things we do insist on an ashore, that is any endeavor we undertake addressing

national security is illegal. in this particular case, the problems of the programs to which you refer, the legality -- by the department of justice, the fisa court has ruled on each program, monitors these programs and yes, has assured the legality of the efforts undertaken in these two programs. ..

>> a search warrant from james rosen. in your experience as a federal prosecutor assistant to attorney general thornburgh and as fbi director you authorize a search warrant for a criminal investigation wasn't a prosecution of that target the objective? >> i would say no.

there are affidavits to support search warrants or a place where a person would be mentioned to have culpability been no discussion of the anticipation. >> and perhaps with another case where you did not intend to characterize the individual as of flight risk and did you do low -- delayed notice as in the case that it actually took three years because the judge neglected to release the information to 80 months after the order required by the justice department requested 18 months in the first place. why would that be necessary

if there was no intention? >> but not the full extent of that investigation or all the facts raised in the affidavit with the discussion as to how we would proceed but at the local level for what needed to go into these search warrant, affidavit in particular with reference to the judicial requirements to get those records and second, there is a protocol from the department of justice adhered to to get approval man or that particular action. i know and you know, looking at this set of circumstances. >> i want to get one more question. there are tweaks that need to be dan. >> following dzhokhr

tsarnaev some time the criminal complaints against him we know the timing of these actions put forth by the aga constitution in criminal procedure do believe there well-suited to intelligence gathering from a domestic terrorist suspect in to the congress consider amending the rules when faced with excess of terrorist situation like in this case prior to given his miranda warning start circuit the opportunity to question him of dangers like other big ticket -- potential sites and other bombs that may have been in existence at the time that would have been important for the prospective intendant questioning? beginning interrogator will tell you the more

information that you get particularly this day and age the specially with access to information on a computer or a thumb drive you will have a better opportunity to get appropriate questioning accomplish. on the other hand, the dictates of the constitution and the statutes. in a very narrow sliver of cases where it is terrorism and the threat is substantial, one could look at opportunities before a giving those questioners additional time to extract information that may protect the public. >> my time is expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> we appreciate your presence here today. in the past week, and many in the administration have complied because they have a

brief to the congress and this committee we're all composite in the use of the surveillance tactics. can you knowledge here this morning that your briefing me and my staff does not constitute our ascent or agreement to these programs? >> for the briefings that have been and continue to be provided to congress is to inform congress how these programs are being applied, to what and they're being used, and in order to establish a dialogue as to what, if any changes need to be done to these programs. also to inform congress as the oversight role of the body and idle think we look at the briefings as a form of agreement in any

way, shape, or form but look at them as an obligation to inform congress as to what is happening so if they wish to take steps to change it but it takes the steps to do that spinet the public's understanding of this program is that the government collects these records to take the verizon system, and they collect the records of every person in the united states and retains them for some period of time, and then query's a massive database when it has a specific concern about any one of us.

is that understanding accurate? >> within broad parameters, yes. but the first point*, the particular database has no content whatsoever we have no authority to get content with the statutes and what the fis the court has allowed and and at the time in the length of the calls and there are cases where that has been instrumental to identify individuals throughout the country. >> i know that. but the content is kept. but to have that information of who called the doom, the length of time probably where the parties were, does

that serve any real purpose? this puts everybody in the united states of america subject to this type of content. we have a feeling, at least some of us, that it is not necessary, nor does it serve legitimate legal protective service. >> would you indulge me? i want to go back and clarify. which does have some bearing on this. before 9/11 comment there was an individual to came to be one of the hijackers and is being tracked by the intelligence agencies in the far east and they lost track

of him. at the same time the intelligence agencies had identified the al qaeda safe house. they understood it had a telephone number but they did not know who was calling in to that particular state house. we came to find out afterwards that the person who called that safe house who was the same person in san diego if this was in place at the time we could identify that particular telephone number. >> i am almost out of time. >> i asked indulgence because it is a critical point* as to why we have this program and how important it is. >> all right. >> if we had a telephone number we could match it up through the legal process to identify it. >> one last point*. >> the 9/11 commission

itself indicated investigations or interrogations' once he was identified, could have evidence of connections to other participants of the 9/11 ply it could have derailed the plan but the opportunity was not there. if we have this program that opportunity with has been. >> i am not persuaded that makes it okay to collect every call. looks, the verizon system system, how can the government to ride the information on all of the verizon systems is a statute limits the government to those records that are relevant. if they are relevant, under your interpretation means

that anything and everything goes. that is what you did in the example that you just gave me. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we will stick to the five minute rule that is an excellent question we will have to wait for the answer but we will submited in question -- some of the question of writing for those who don't have the opportunity to answer today. >> thank you very much, chairman. to begin director, let me thank you for your dedicated service with an agency that has to change the targeting and mission as a result of 9/11. you and i got our job about the same time. i retired as chairman in 2007 and you were getting ready to retire but i will begin.

let me start out with senator barack obama first president bush put forward a false step with the security we cherishes liberty is we provide that the law enforcement agencies to attract and take out the terrorist that concludes of their freedom. the second'' which comes in the same speech in washington in 2007, the bush to administration acts like violating civil liberties is a way to enhance security. it is not. there are no shortcuts to protecting america. ''. now director, you have served both under president bush into the transition to president obama. what to privacy protections of the fbi implement under president obama and were those in place through the

fisa application? >> we have internally in the privacy officer the department of justice and i do not know specifically but and programs such as this are other areas where we initiate collection and the permission to go to the privacy shop. >> that is not my question question, with all due respect. there are protections implemented by the new president for rock obama after a jittery 20th. >> were there? >> with the of their privacy protections. >> there might not have been. >> i am very interested in your comment of the case of someone who got on the radar screen before 9/11.

second come on page 215 of the patriot act requires the business records of fisa warrant or orders be directed solely at foreigners who are targets of the authorized terrorism investigation. but not on united states citizens unless they are contacted or involved. i don't think section 215 would have the element to identify him if it was in place before september 11th. but my question is respect to the fisa order leaked to the guardian but the narrow scope of section 215 and as i have described it. hawkins section two and 50 be utilized to scoop up the

phone records of citizens that are not in communication with foreigners who is an object of a terrorism investigation? >> to research and extend a half toots' deferred to the justice department with the fisa court and there is the belief that telephone poll data has that information that is relevant, it may be relevant error has been relevant. >> the question of relevance is the same type issued with the grand jury subpoena or a national security letter without involving the patriots back to. but here you in of the patriot act that it is done in secret and there is no

due process protections in place because the recipient of the fisa warrant cannot tell what record set has been turned over that is that the case with national security letters or a grand jury. now i guess what my concern is, there really isn't any way for anybody who's records to return to over to approach the fisa court to get the order that the fbi agent assigned to the affidavit to get the order. my time is up. >> let me just follow up with that observation, as we all know, these records are not part of the fourth amendment the supreme court has held that to be the case. the determination as to the legality of standards has been addressed by the fisa

court in the affirmative to support this particular program. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> let me just suggest by the way the 1979 decision of the supreme court that a phone bill is not protected by the fourth amendment might not apply for a lot of this stuff to day given how pervasive and privacy invading this data has become. compared to what was done in 1979. i don't know i would totally rely on that for everything that is being done. but me ask you the following, under section 215 power also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, even alan -- e-mail record even though they don't do that although

they did, certainly makes a mockery of the relevant standard of section 215 everything in the world is relevant in some of us offered amendments to do that maybe we should have adopted that but it is no excuse for the misinterpretation of relevance to the point* there is no such meaning to the word. second, under section 215 if you have information from metadata andy think this phone-number looks suspicious and we should get the contents of that phone, do you needed new specific warrant? the macintosh -- at the east and national security letter. you do not have subscriber information so you would need that to get the

subscriber. >> then if you wanted to do more? >> when you have to get a particular order by the court for that particular phone. >> is the answer you just gave me classified? >> i don't think so. >> then i can say the following, we heard precisely the opposite the other day. we heard you could get specific information simply based on an analyst deciding that what you just said is incorrect. >> i answered the same question. >> i asked the question both times i think it is the same question. so maybe you should go back and check because someone is incorrect.

>> that is my in the standing of the process. >> did not question your understanding but it is my understanding i was rather startled the other day to take this opportunity. >> i will be happy to clarify. >> second, we have heard of the terrible, horrible damage nestle security doesn't buy snowden to release the separation understand how national security was breached. we new publicly from 2006, at least, from a report in "usa today" about basically the existence of the massive and day -- and is a database of metadata reported back then. we debated in this committee and on the floor of the house in connection with the reauthorization i believe in

2012 and 2008. that was known publicly. the only thing that was not known as far as i can tell that was revealed was the specifics of the court order. to tell us nothing other than what was already public for whatever length of time and was. even and the stuff about section 702 we debated that in the fisa debate a couple years ago. great thing that may not have been known is the capabilities but my assumption is tell me why you think this is not correct that by any would-be terrorist who has a brain in his head would assume that all communications are vulnerable and may be subject to interception and how does that add to that or change that assumption? >> let me address the last

point* first any terrorist that has a brain would figure it out but the fact of the matter is a terrorist is a terrorist but i can speak generally but cannot go into details as specific parts of the national security but every time we have a leak like this if you followed up and look at the intelligence afterwards there are persons out there who follow this very, very closely and they are looking for ways around it. when of the great abilities terrorist understand is there communications and they're consistently looking for ways to have secured information any tidbit that comes out in terms of capabilities they are immediately finding ways around it. if we lose, because we have a number of others, lose our ability to get better communications, we will be exceptionally vulnerable. i ask you to get a

classified briefing as to more specifics, but nobody is to be misled for national security. the issue is how you balance that? understand that andy may come down differently than others, maybe even me perhaps. but there is a cost to be paid. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you for your years of service mr. director. i want to revisit benghazi. some recent weeks ago before the secretary of state clinton appeared before the senate hearing, she was asked about certain facts that surrounded the libyan tragedy and responded what difference does it make? i take umbrage with that response that i felt was condescending and insensitive. it could make a great deal

of difference. having said that, we have seen that fbi evidence response team waited for more than two weeks for access to benghazi and some have said this was due to bureaucratic entitlements. do you agree with that? >> i do not. we monitor the situation very closely after that occurrence. we had percents ready to go and we were in touch with the state department requesting opportunity but there were a number of factors to make this as unique situation overseas as we have seen. the first bombing of the sees but we got our people last time but this time a combination of factors with a delay. there is no law enforcement in the benghazi. not then are not now and nobody to deal with in terms

and to assure your security. >> let me ask. >> second, it is dependent upon to get the visa from the libyan government and then and today is still unstable and it is difficult to get any decision made from a person who is a decision maker in that arena. but the bottom line is to assure the security of our people and when we could assure that we did go into to do our on-site review. >> did you speak to someone in bolivia -- libyan government about the delay? >> we were talking to our ambassador at the time pushing hard for the state department was pushing hard. we were pushing hard but the two concerns of the safety and the reluctance of the government to move quickly inhibited our ability to do what we wanted to do.

>> is a former prosecutor you are familiar of preserving the crime scene to be sure you can collect maximum amount of evidence. having said that once the ert arrived, how quickly were they able to secure the scene to begin to collect the evidence? >> the ert team went in with the military component with support from others and i think it is within 24-hour period. >> would it be fair to say the two week delay of the fbi ability to have a secure attacked led to corruption of the scene? >> i am not certain i would say corruption of this scene. you always want to get to the scene as soon after the occurrence than by any number of people and not as pristine as we would like.

>> would also be fair touse day -- long to say that evidence collection since we cannot establish the chain of custody that the delay adversely impacted the way to gather evidence and a variety of ways and adversely impacted the investigation. >> has is put a damper on our ability to pursue leads? with our suspects? >> you don't know what you don't know what you may have messed the investigation is ongoing and we have had some success that i cannot get into today. but it is a very difficult operating environment, not just at the scene itself but

obtaining the cooperation of witnesses who may have information. >> my time is almost out. this benghazi tragedy still hangs in my craw. not directing it at you but somebody. we still don't know all the facts bridal suggest there is a cover-up but it has the trappings of a cover-up. as my late granddaddy says it makes my coffee taste bad in the morning. thank you for being with us. >> i recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> director mueller thank you for your very distinguished service. people are are acquiring firearms with a gun show loophole and other exceptions easily obtaining a firearm without the background check so what difference would the background check make?

>> at the outset it means fewer persons who have the characteristics to be hampered -- possession of guns. >> with the issue of the telephone records, you have indicated how the acquisition of all telephone records hopes to protect us from terrorism. is it true that this data can be used for things other than terrorism? >> no. >> not criminal investigations? >> no. >> you can use it of the purpose of section 104 wiretap is a significant purpose or terrorism is a significant purpose or any other purpose. >> imus the question. >> on section 140 after showing significant purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information. a significant purpose was a

change in the law from the purpose to suggest it is the primary purpose. if it is just as significant purpose it leaves open the idea there is another purpose for getting the information. when i asked the attorney general that question for what other purpose you could be using these warrants for coming he blurted out criminal investigation. of course, without the normal probable cause and everything else. is the acquisition of disinformation, a the data solely for terrorism or something else? >> terrorism. >> if you tripped over some other things like to notice could reduce that a criminal prosecution? >> no. >> no. >> not that i am aware of if there is the egregious crime you have permission the court would have to authorize. >> the exclusionary rule works because you don't

illegally obtain evidence because if you have got it you cannot use it. there is a suspicion that you get this information and you can use it if you have a task force and so they can get the fisa warrant but i cannot you get it and we will track it down as an agent of a foreign government so we can listen to see if we can trip over the crime to use the evidence be you say you cannot for anything other than terrorism? >> section tamerlan tsarnaev says reasonable suspicion of a telephone number associated with al qaeda or a foreign power. it is very simple. >> significant purpose. not a primary purpose. >> i am certain, i will have to go back. >> we changed it from primary to significant that u did have an ulteriora aha

motive. >> without particular language change let me get back to our by to give some thought to that. >> so this information we're getting can only be used for terrorism. that is what we are hearing. >> yes. >> with the i.r.a. situation there is a question whether progressive groups were also targeted for scrutiny under section 501(c)4 abuse. but if it can be shown that only groups targeted were targeted because of political view would that violate criminal law? >> that is speculative. excuse me one second. [inaudible conversations]

i just want to check if i was correct with my answers on your previous questions. thank you. >> on the boston bombing obviously there is information out there you could have used. with the limited resources limit your ability to track down each and every lead you are given to compromise your ability to protect us against terrorism? >> we get thousands upon thousands of terrorism needs each year. the boston office is in the range of those numbers of thousands per year. in this particular case, i do believe when we got the lead on tamerlan tsarnaev from the russians the agent did a excellent job to utilizing it tools available to him in that investigation

as i thank you are aware he did the record's checks, the interview persons at the college where tamerlan tsarnaev was for a period of time and interviewed the parents, and tamerlan tsarnaev himself, said the affirmation back to russia and three separate occasions we ask for additional information but at that point* they would not give us indication he was a terrorist but we did a thorough job to follow that lead and at that point* in time i do not know there is much else that could be done within the statutes and of the constitution to further investigate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. director i just want to thank you for your service over the years to our country. i also want to disclose a happen to represent

cincinnati ohio where some of the allegations of the apparent rogue employees acting on their own originated. but my question, let me begin, the irs is privy to our citizens most sensitive the reformation and is tasked with implying somewhat in the fair and impartial way? you would agree? >> yes been active members of the tea party group received a letter asking pretty invasive questions i believe to provide facebook and twitter information and they specifically mentioned a gentleman by the name of justin just an ordinary citizen who did not have any connection with that had received the inquiry and he

got no notification and also questions about providing of this about the issues that were important to that organization and to they wanted to know what there position was regarding such i am very to target conservative groups with that line of questioning and the request for information i believe it is more like harassment rather than the appropriate inquiry after the 501(c)4 status inquiries. the attorney general announced after may 14 he ordered an investigation by the fbi. has it begun that investigation now? >> yes. >> i assume you cannot go into the details? >> correct.

>> the irs commissioner miller -- miller blamed the actions on to rogue employees wait out there in the cincinnati office. how could we possibly know anything about that and he acted like nobody here in this city do anything about it or was connected in any way. that is pretty clear at this point* the irs in washington was involved in this. and i would like to read a couple of things relative to the employees of what has been indicated on the record. she said the tea party case and those types of organizations questioned by the irs was in a holding pattern. she indicated they were

basically in a black hole and she was working 11 years at the irs and the way it handled the tea party cases was unprecedented which i think is pretty significant and said it was micromanaged to death by the irs lawyer who worked in washington. again no washington connection but that is where the irs lawyer was, here in washington d.c. but back in july 2010 there were was a list created you know, what that is? it stands for the on the lookout, bolo. >> i knew that and all law enforcement context. >> yes. that context. >> to send applications from those involved with the tea party movement and she told

congressional investigators she understood the purpose was to target conservatives and republican groups. other political groups did not get handled the same way according to her and a "usa today" review of tax exemptions show dozens of several groups got exemptions while others were on hold and subsequently there was another bolo criteria coming from washington d.c. talking about groups whose issues include government spending spending, debt, taxes, and if you are critical of the direction of the way it is ryan and again the audience sat in limbo 27 months, will all these matters be investigated by the fbi no matter how high up they go? in a specifically to the extent there is any indication of criminal misconduct we will follow the police were ever it

takes us. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes. >> thank you director mueller for your service you have raised the standard very high and we appreciate that and we want to follow up in a response you made to a question mr. conyers gave you use a phrase that you thought the american people were concerned to what end end, the day, the two programs are being used. i think that is absolutely the case. i think that was the case when we were debating the patron act and its

reauthorization and the concern that a number of us were raising at that time. to what end with those programs be used? congressman scott has questioned you about some of the yen's and i just want to frame this based on the fourth thing is you mentioned in your opening statement to talk about terrorism and national security and to talk about cyber security and criminal activity and with cyber security and that it required public-private interaction and as they become more global all four of those categories so is

there a distinction between terrorism for terrorism purposes? that is why the statutes were put in place. is there a distinction between terrorism and national security? >> i think terrorists as defined as a threat to national security in and of itself. >> does national security include things better outside the category? >> terrorism is a separate category but they do have individuals. >> what about trade?

>> i can tell you one of the hypothetical is a cyber terrorist attack satin is trade. >> to disrupt that, absolutely it is a matter of national security. >> the public's concern is what is the overlap these four categories and to what extent is disinformation to be gathered to be used for things in the grey area? and i was uncomfortable we got so preoccupied with terrorism that we compromised that thought of personal liberties but

assume that ray got comfortable with that after 9/11. what if you found something in this information under these two programs that are related more to criminal activity, a serious criminal activity and the question is can that be used, anything you find in the phone dragnet, can be used in a criminal investigation if you decide, if not terrorist related necessarily but national security related or cyber security related. what is the dividing line between the use of these and

other than individual agents expression or what they represent in the affidavit to the court? >>. >> i'm sorry. i really apologize. it is data gathering. >> the statutes is fairly specific to terrorism and to what that would understand to be terrorist and other groups that are specifically mentioned. as i tried 2.0 before, the program is set up for a limited purpose with a limited objective to identify individuals in the

united states using it for terrorist activities. >> cyber terrorism? >> it can be but i have to look at that i don't believe it is covered in this particular statute. i tried to leave out the possibility if there was evidence applicable to a homicide that the only way that is utilized to go back to the courts to get approval to utilize the information in a way that was not covered with the original order. >> we now recognize the gentleman for five minutes. >> director mueller i want to commend you on your service to our country. let me ask you, i have been reading about the james rosen case, the reports on

it and i find a great deal of confusion over what the justice department over what the fbi have done for have not done. you are familiar with the search warrant and the affidavit. >> not in that particular case. >> all right. are you familiar, at the time the search warrant was issued, the leader of the information was already identified were you aware of that? >> this was three years ago not aware of the timing. >> that's right. he was already identified i will just tell you if you read the affidavit clearly he was identified as the teetwo -- leaker and

attorney general holders said he did not know the prosecution but if you read the search warrant i know that it talks about mr. rosen as perhaps a as a co-conspirator or as you read the affidavit, he clearly was encouraging stephen kim to leak classified information. there is quite a bit of and he was concealing his identify -- identity telling him to conceal his identity. now according to the affidavit i know nothing that has been disproved. this disclosures' read into our national security clearly and it could have cost the life of our intelligence source in in

north korea. i am not even sure if a person is still alive. now just assuming what i say that the affidavit is correct and james rosen was dooming says information of daily contact with scam, i know there has been accusations that the privacy protection act was violated, but it says it protects journalists from turning over in a materials including sources before the information contained in these materials was disseminated. it was disseminating one year before. and also prevent investigators from searching newsrooms, uncover

information as it is assembled. i do think that applies in this case. i don't know any newsroom or any product. but it says there is no protection if there is probable cause that is committing a crime to which materials relate to including possession or communication of classified material. this affidavit contains 35 pages of active recruiting of the state to point* -- department employees advising him to use a fake e-mail. the search warrant was to google. it has been said they should take reasonable steps to

obtain the information through alternative sources or means. i would think google's would be an option -- an alternative source. ferris is a clear perception of a vast you to read that affidavit. and my point* is simply from reading the affidavit i would say it is clearly within the rights of the government to prosecute this report. >> i can tell you two things. i did briefly review the affidavit looking at the issue when it arose i am somewhat familiar and the focus of the investigation is with the person that has

leaked the information. and it is appropriate to apply to the search warrant and the protocol established in the exercise when it comes to the tension between the first amendment of the of one hand. >> the time is expired. >> there was no prosecution. >> bedtimes' has expired i will recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you to you director mueller for your years of service to our country i remember seeing you right after 9/11 you were on the job just a handful of days and you have certainly

served our country well and honorably. and i thank you for that. i do have following up the congressman's questions i do have concerns about our posture relative to the press. i want to talk about the issue of the phone numbers of the associated press or the associated press reporters. the department of justice recently let the ap know that it had subpoenaed the records over 20 phone numbers as part of a leak investigation and the ap said approximately 100 of its reporters use these phones on a regular basis. one of the phones was the 80 primary number in the house of representatives press gallery used by many reporters not just that ap.

and this raises concerns not only about the first amendment but also separation of powers. certainly it is likely that many of the calls made by these bonds were with congressional staff for members of congress and likely irrelevant to the case but they do raise issues of speech and debate. i am wondering, in the department of justice the attorney general had to personally sign off on the subpoena for reporters and in this case since the attorney general recuse himself, the deputy attorney general signed off. who at the fbi needs to sign off on the subpoena request like this before it goes over to the justice department? is that you? >> no. the assistant director level perhaps to get back specifically but i believe

depending on the context it is the assistant director in charge of the division generally the assistant director that handles the leak investigation. >> in a case like this, at that level is there consideration of the implication for the chilling first amendment rights and also an analysis of the speech and debate implications and separation of power? >> i think the flag would be raised certain they ave to investigation and the leak investigation you know, you are in an environment with competing tensions anytime you come across anything that implicates the legislature or congress than that sends a red flag to require additional scrutiny and a decision and ashes to how the investigation inco's then you want to be with these attorney general with the case. >> ♪ to assume that the

department justice and the fbi decided it was okay with members of congress and the legislative branch with the subject of your inquiry with the location of the phone call? >> i am not sure that in and of itself that there is one telephone number that is the main number would be sufficient to raise a flag we have to get congressional conversations across this line. it is a request for toll records. >> in terms of investigating leaks of information it is a worrisome issue but why did he think it was necessary to seek records for so many reporters in that case? obviously many of the records would not have

subpoena the of relevance to the fbi have a process to minimize the records or was all data uploaded into databases regardless of relevance? >> we are adapting special procedures. to assure that the records are protected so i would have to leave that to the department of justice with the investigative and still under believe that there is a substantial effort made to minimize the request. >> in order to get a subpoena they would have to be implicated from the

investigation, the reporters. is it the fbi practice with the editors and publishers to print stories as criminals since he has been the fbi director has seen that communications with the search warrants alleging they are criminals? >> the time has expired but the director in its of the question. >> we don't consider that category as criminals in any shape way or form but to identify the individual that has some secrets. part of that investigation and goes to show the compact between the person making the materials of a person publishing the materials. if you go to court you have to show this set of materials that were leaked went to a particular person or publication but the focus is on the person who is the key to. the last bar, i cannot

recall. >> will you get back to us? >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in a guy with deal 10 seconds to the gentleman. >> i think the ap with that is outrageous is what i was simply saying there was a totally different dynamic with rosen. >> director, you used a term just now with the gentlelady from california that we're in the process of, actually you said, in the present tense that it is fair to characterize that you are now in the process of protecting that which has not previously been protected. in other words, i am assuming with the present tense before this became public protections that will be in effect in the future were not in effect. >> so some investigations.

>> but i just want to hold you to the explicit of the word so is it fair, yes or no, to assume there are additional efforts now under way that will be implemented? >> yes. >> at some time in the past was james rosen the subject of an investigation with criminal activity? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he now a suspect in a criminal investigation? >> not to my knowledge. >> so a warrant for any other document naming him as a suspect would be false? >> i don't think there is a warrant out there. >> so any kind of documentation that alleged he was involved would be a false statement? >> i just want to follow up. >> i think i know where you are going. >> will you get me there? >> we are not all the way they're.

the colloquy in question i am uncomfortable with to say conduct described in a particular entity which could or could not be subject. >> but it is fair to say he was not a suspect into the documents speak for themselves, today, are you using on necessary and available resources to apprehend those people responsible for the murders in a benghazi? >> yes. to your knowledge are those assets being used to try to find those responsible to bring them to justice? >> yes. >> can you explain to us us, this is a little longer, the call is it we have videos and knowledge of to these people are by name but yet we have not found one of them in libya or

another country? isn't it unusual? >> let me explain in a couple of ways. yes it is unusual. as i articulated with the embassy attacks before a and our colleagues and law enforcement the government to help us there isn't one in libya we don't have colleagues to go to so it is unique. >> you had access to the site to get into get into benghazi on our behalf? >> but nonetheless we have video and we have spent working. with individuals who may have participated or we may have evidence video or

otherwise, we are pursuing. . . a picture of somebody in the case of benghazi and have the information you may know. >> we are making use of the new

media, facebook and the like and in the course of our investigation you can go on our web site and find stills from the video. >> selective the pact. >> because we want people to come forward. we did the same thing in boston the way we were able to identify the responsible is to identify them leaving -- at the scene and afterwards and publicize their pictures. >> last of the people responsible for benghazi to our knowledge are not u.s. persons therefore, if you knew the location of them within the be eligible for a presidential ordered strike no matter what country they were in? >> the time has expired. >> others working for the ins and outs of the regime for undertaking such activity. >> but it would be consistent with other drone strikes ordered by the president. >> i'm not that familiar with it

>> with the legal ability as well. >> with the indulgence for ten seconds, director i want to thank you for your years of service and all that you've done for america. this was always a tough place to come but you are always welcome. >> the gentleman from texas ms. jackson lee is recognized. >> let me start by saying director, we have interacted with each other for the past 11 years and i want to thank you for your service. you are particularly one that i admire having graduated from the university of virginia law school you are a wise man. so, fellow alum let me thank you and i know that we will show no bias this morning that i want to thank you for your service to be at one of the planes that has not penetrated into this committee is the enormous hit.

you mentioned $550 million, 700 million in 2014 and the other was 2013 and 2200i think you said 1400. that is pretty someone devastating. is that not correct? >> yes. >> the fbi has had an influence on the civil rights investigations. yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the death of evers. would that impact with could they have in a civil rights enforcement? >> i can't go that far because let me tell you that when we get faced with cuts we prioritize. we wouldn't cut counterintelligence or cyber. the principal criminal programs are public corruption and civil rights.

>> so you would be tight but he would try to be doing it in other areas. >> and as we go down the list of prairies we would be cutting the support the you get in those investigations. >> and that's important. let me ask about a gun legislation. you were a strong advocate and the constitution bill of rights with a storage building universal background check requiring people to store their guns, but that seemingly infringe on the second amendment just on its face? >> the one thing i'm not is a constitutional lawyer. i understand the question, and i understand -- >> would good laws help make us safer? >> we can always do more. >> thank you. let me move to this question of the e-mails and the various public discussion which i think is good. do you think we can have a significant release of construction interpretation of section 501 decisions that could

be classified in a manner consistent with the protection of national security intelligence, sources, methods and properly classified sensitive information meaning that the decisions of the court would be declassified, keeping in mind under the restraints of the national security classified intelligence sources etc.? >> i have to defer to the department of justice because that relates to the pravachol set up. >> opinions of the court you think disclosing them you as an investigator if it was protecting other classified wouldn't be open to the public and be reasonable? >> i would think no, there are absolutely in those opinions matters that should remain classified. >> but if they would keep that classified, others could be

released? >> i don't know that with a fact. >> it speaks to tangible things that are part of this investigation to read to you think 501 that is the issue of the ordered investigation could be narrowed somewhat? >> i'm just not familiar with what you're talking about, 501 -- >> it is section 215. as the >> to 15. >> it is how we have gotten to where we are today. >> i think there can be a discussion to the scope of 215, understanding the purpose of it but also the impact on privacy. >> let me ask these quick questions. do you think what we have done over the past we have been disclosed is so broad that we undermine what we need to do by not narrowly focusing and then with respect to the boston

marathon case have you in this investigation determined the dots were not connected as they look at the perpetrators to travel overseas coming back have you found the smoking gun or can you go to the question of narrowing this broad trolling of where it needs to go? >> in the goal that you have and the extent that you narrow it, the dots that are available you would narrow the dots that are available that may be that dhaka that prevents the next boston. on the boston case i think we did a very thorough job when it came to our attention. i do think that there could have been better exchange of information particularly by the russians earlier on that may have helped, and there were other things alerting the trouble that we were fixing. but even if we six that, even if it had been fixed price year to

the boston bombing i do not think it would have stopped it. you can draw the balance the you will minimize the dots with me think the gentleman again for his service. thank you. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i want to join the course of those complimenting you for your service. so many americans will never think you because they don't know the harm you kept from the falling them because of your efforts but we thank you for that. we have heard a lot of members to ask about an application for a search warrant to the i gave a copy of the application to the staff before this hearing and i think that they have it to present to you now but for the record is the case one - nj 100291 ak document 20 with the trans permission i would ask that that be made a part of the record of the hearing.

>> is it not true that the standard for arresting an individual for committing a crime and the standard for charging individual for committing the crime are probable cause? >> yes. >> if that is the standard for arresting an individual and charging them with a crime in the application for the search warrant that we presented and if you have been questioned several times today, your special agent certifies there's probable cause to believe that the individual involved here had committed or is committing a crime yet your testimony is that there is no potential for prosecution to get my question for you today is if you have an individual that you know has reached the standard for a rest and charging with crime and one of your agents has attested to that how can you say

what standards has the department had that says that there is no potential to that individual to be prosecuted? >> any number of occasions. we may have probable cause or fractus would purport to charge somebody with something and we do not. >> before you even get the evidence, how do you say there is no potential that he will prosecute this individual when you haven't even obtained the evidence to know the extent of the crime. some of that was the time that we included search warrants and we had come operators. >> that in this case of mr. rosen, ken utility was cooperating with there were any guidelines in the department -- >> my response was to the question before that there are many occasions -- >> in this occasion with mr. rosen. >> let me finish, sir. you have probable cause to believe a person has committed

the crime and no intention whatsoever -- >> absolutely. i know that. but can you tell us what guidelines would allow the department -- allow you today to testify under oath that there was no potential to prosecute mr. rosen if your agent has said that you have probable cause to charging into arresting and you hadn't even gotten the results from the search warrant it. >> i'm not certain that i understand. >> let me be specific. there was no potential for mr. don rosen. a search warrant was issued and your agent attested to the fact that there was probable cause to the resting and charging come and get your statement is that there was no potential for prosecution at that time for mr. rosen. my question is what guidelines on what basis do you say there was a potential -- >> i would have to go back and look at my answer but i'm not sure that i stated in that way.

>> would you say that there was a potential when the search warrant was issued? >> i'm not going to say that because i am not a prosecutor on the case. i didn't have the case and those decisions are being made by -- >> i know they will ultimately be made. but you cannot say today that there was no potential for the prosecution can you? >> i'm not going to state this one way or another. >> what me ask this rate i will shift to italy because you don't want to answer that. since the president has been in office, we have had a 40% and most, 90% in some states including the home state of illinois can you tell us what has been the cause of the uptick in the gang activity of 40% since the president has been in office? >> you talk about the uptick in the gang activity and it's grown over a period of time. i don't think that there is any person who can say that there is any cause of increasing the gang activity. it goes to a member of factors.

but by the same token, they're has been a substantial reduction in violent crime throughout the country. new york, chicago. there's an article as an sure you are familiar with homicides in chicago in this fiscal year. consequently on the one hand you have certain communities that have enough uptick in the gang violence but you also have a number of communities that have effectively addressed that violence with new ways of community policing. 63. but the increase has been 40%. with that all i yield back. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> of the fsb met with us and the counter intelligence.

>> you talked about the tsaraevs and that they may be a threat if they returned and wanted some information about when they would return. they thought there were some walls that and he did your ability to do a complete study or carry your study for a longer period of time. first, did you get that paper from the fsb for the counterintelligence about the tsarnaevs and is their legislation that need to be passed to allow you to do that to keep within the rights of the american citizens and number three, or the relationships between the fbi or the fsb improved where we could share intelligence to work against the threat of radical islam and terrorism and what of the country's.

>> in moscow and march of 2011 the agent was assigned to it and did a thorough investigation, ran through all the records checks, went to the community college where he had spent time and did neighborhood research before then and interviewed the parents and finally interviewed tamerlan himself. number we find provocation for the further investigative efforts of wiretap or what have you. we then reported the those -- the intent of that investigation for any material they may have that would assist us in furthering the additional investigation. and we got after two or three requests we got no response from

them. we did all of the investigation that could have been done. any additional information at that time i don't believe would have turned up more evidence of his ultimate radicalization. yes we had a chilly period if the fsb. as i can't you know, we met with the general several weeks before you did after boston. they had been helpful to our investigation. we hope we can continue to exchange information to prevent further terrorist attacks particularly in the united states. >> why was there not inability to let them know that he had returned to their request to this gimmick because we didn't pick that up. when he got on the plane there were several reasons and that is the -- >> what are the reasons? the impression i got coming and this is a leap but if they had known he was coming back to doggett on that possibly the

boston marathon bombing wouldn't have occurred. >> in this particular case, the warning went to the task force and the fact of his having went to the task force and for a variety of reasons not the least of which has been closed sometime ago, that particular indication that he's on his way back to russia did not get acted upon. >> has that -- is their something that has to be corrected? is there a law that should be changed? >> nope. it requires the correction to the procedures which we've done to assure every such notice for what can be done informally, someone talking across -- >> let me ask about this other man who was killed in florida and was one of the three that killed the marijuana -- they

were from massachusetts -- >> i'm not sure what you're talking about that please. i would say it is a response to a fat. >> later they said they were under investigation. >> how did you get knowledge of his involvement in this crime? was it through the fsb or you're own investigation? >> there was a number of ways. the programs under scrutiny today -- >> the time of the gentleman --

>> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> the director can answer that question. >> it was done in that particular program as well and i will tell you that we came upon him and a variety of ways. >> tamerlan mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from iowa mr. king is recognized. >> tamerlan director for your testimony and service. following up on the question it wasn't clear to me was the initial information on the gentleman referred to was that the original information from the russians? >> i think i reduce a there was a variety of sources that brought you to him. >> you're talking about the individual from florida? >> yes, he was murdered -- i'm sorry, killed that fbi activity. >> it can from several leads

that we are falling domestically to reduce debt was there a lead that came from the russians? >> i don't recall. i don't recall that there was, that he had been identified by the russians. >> are you aware of a letter dated march 4th, 2011? >> yes. >> was that letter initiated by the russians? >> yes. >> and issac in the file and your response was -- >> it was acted on very quickly afterwards. >> did you have domestic information on tamerlan prior to that date? >> did we have information on him prior to that date? i don't think so. let me just say his name had come up in two other cases. of those to other cases the individuals had their case is closed so he was one or two

away. some of the letter of march 4th refocused the fbi on tamerlan? >> absolutely. >> you are aware of the letter also from the fsb dated april 22nd of 2013? >> yes. >> and those letters are they classified? >> i am not certain whether classification level is to be hispanic i would ask you to take a look at both of those letters and consider if they are classified to release them. the subject matter of that and the information i think that we would agree it is something to be useful for the american people to be aware of coming and for me i was struck by the amount of domestic information that the russians had on activity on tamerlan tsarnaevs. also to the public as my reference, is it also possible to reconstruct going backward for the time line a place or places where there might have been an intervention that could

have prevented the boston bombing knowing what we knew at the time clocks >> every time we have an incident like this we go back and scrub it hard. i indicated one area and that is notification of the subject troubling should have been documented the direction was taken as a result of that notification of the borders and customs it should have been documented, but in looking back at it i do believe that his radicalization was it went forward substantially. during the time it was in russia but i do not believe that he was on our radar screen when he was back there. >> that is also my understanding, but as far as the radicalization that took place do you see that as a long process that perhaps started when he was younger and was a product at his home country or how do you view the radicalization? >> the best you can say is fits and starts. >> and i think that is fair.

the security though when we have people coming in from let's say the north caucasus region who are persons that come from let's say a profile that would fit purses of interest from nations of interest do we do increase with the russians or any other country to do background checks on those individuals that might be seeking asylum here in the united states that come from those areas? >> you really a deterrent to the dhs what they consider in terms of evaluating the asylum. i would hesitate -- sali -- >> on the subcontract that out to you? was in the u.s. cis ask them to the background checks? >> i don't think they contacted us i think they run records checks through us to see what a derogatory material we may have on somebody seeking asylum. >> are you aware of any increase that might ask them to give advice on who they might be watching coming into the united states under a sign on? >> which is how tamerlan got

here. >> i can't speak to what they do in all of the cases but if they have a person they believe to be a terrorist i would say often they give us that information and ask for assistance from us. >> let me ask in a direct question at fsb they said this could increase the couldn't say it never happened but as he looked at the other people on the panel they seemed to think there was one perhaps ten years ago as the specific response was that they were nil. i'm going to suggest to the panel that we need to take a good workout we do background checks on people coming from the nations of interest who likely are persons of interest to tighten our security and i think there was a window and there might be hundreds that come through a window like that. tamerlan for the service and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes.

>> tamerlan mr. chairman, director mueller tamerlan for your years of exemplary service to the nation. this will probably be the last time seeing you before this particular committee and i wanted to give you that. i will also agree with you that has terrorism both foreign and domestic changes and about, our law enforcement capabilities have to do the same and so if data collection will help us remain secure in our personal liberties, then that is a discussion that we should have, and if we don't have security, then our civil liberties are definitely threatened, and i know that everyone can agree with that.

this is an issue one like that of some of my colleagues on other sides of the aisle are looking for out in the backyard, benghazi, irs, the rosen subpoena. we can deal with those things but there are some issues right at the front door knocking loudly, and i think the loudest is coming from data collection and secrecy in the government, and so my questions would be regarding that. why is it necessary for the data collection internal domestic data collection to be a secret? why is it that that program has to be a secret? i disagree with the notion that public knowledge of those programs can undermine our ability to respond to terrorist

threats, and i also want to applaud the work of the company's like the googled work hard to make the government legal requests as transparent as possible. this week they requested permission from you and the attorney general to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests including fisa disclosures as its transparency report. but in the publication of national security requests kind of like medved data, but in that better serve the conversation on civil liberties and national security than keeping americans in the dark because as we keep americans in the dark, it tends to break down the trust that americans have for the government. i am really concerned that we have too much classified

information. and i am disturbed or perplexed actually about who actually decides what should be classified and how we go about unclassified and things so that's a couple questions i want to give you a chance to respond. >> i do think that is a -- there is quite obviously tension between the secrecy attendant classification to certain programs and documents and i'm not going to say there are not occasions where there are things were over classified. when it comes to identifying the way we handle communications and all their iterations particularly in this day and age you have any number of ways to communicate whether it be e-mail, chat and a variety of alternate ways of communicating to the extent that those that are associated with terrorist groups or those associated with the others to the extent they

have information as to how we operate in terms of identifying. >> how we may use those programs, but the programs themselves, why is it that just a broad disclosure that yes, americans, we are collecting medved data from your phone records and this is why we are doing that, and then you explain the intricacies of what you're doing and when you are not doing. you are not talking about any specific programs or operations, excuse me, no specific operations or operatives, those kind of things but just the existence of the program. americans need to know what is being done and why. >> all i would say is there is a balance. >> i would encourage you in the classified briefings to ask that question. >> i have not gotten a

satisfactory answer to this back whenever there are disclosures like this, we see through other programs we have intercepted communications we see exactly what those individuals are doing >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> there will always be that adaptation to what we are doing. >> of the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> tamerlan mr. chairman and director. i'm not going to comment about your being the last time here. i did that three years ago and it didn't turn out right. anyway i want to follow-up on what my friend was talking about, the over classification issue because it does seem to be a problem. and certainly an issue. there is an article today in titled obama's snooping involves

the bombers. i wasn't aware and i went to the fbi web site, i wasn't aware of the sensitive operations review committee so i wanted to find out what it was. apparently if something involves things like news media, religious or domestic political organization, things like that, then it has to go before the sensitive operations review committee in order to be approved, and here's the information on the data about it it's a political organization like a tea party, a religious organization like evangelical christians which the department of land securities so afraid of for the mosque apparently it has to get approval here and we already knew and have gone through and it seemed ridiculous to me and michele bachman and lynn westmoreland that the material that we were reviewing the was purged by subject matter

experts was classified. it would seem if you are trying to make the islamists feel better about training materials you would want them to see what they were removed and i'm just curious why are the subject matter experts that the fbi had to go through all their training material and purge anything that might be offensive to an islamist, why was that needed to be classified? i would think they would be heroes forgetting that stuff out. why was that classified cracks >> we went through a faeroe review. i think you've been fully briefed on that. in those materials or samples of cases. >> i have such a short time i need you to answer questions. my question is why were the subject matter experts identity classified? >> because the process and whole

had within its parameters all information that we have in the bureau and if i'm not mistaken we gave you the names of the individuals. >> in classified setting so i would get prosecuted if i revealed them. and i don't know why you can't make those public so that people would know but obviously you feel -- i would look at bat to read this and also i want to go back to boston. you said things like -- the fbi did an excellent job, don't know what else we could have done and according to the russians there is a great deal more that could have been done and when we find out about this sensitive operations review committee and as this article points out if it is true, it says we don't know who the chairman and members are of the sensitive operations review committee or the staff that's kept secrets, the fbi

never canvassed the boston mosque's until after the april 15th attacks. if the russians tell you someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque's they went to the new get the articles of incorporation as i have for the group that created the wallsten mosque where the tsarnaev brothers attended and find out the name which you'll remember because this man who was so helpful to the clinton administration with so many big things come he gets arrested at the airport by the fbi and is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism. this is the one that started the mosque they were attending and you didn't even bother to go check? then when you have the pictures why did no one go and say who are these guys? they may attend here.

why was that not done since such a thorough job was done? >> your facts are not altogether. >> well -- win not specifically if you're going to call me a lawyer you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong. >> we went to the mosque prior to boston? >> we were there happening -- talking several months prior as our outreach efforts. >> were you aware that they were started? >> i've answered the question, sir. >> you didn't answer were you aware that they started? >> of the time of the gentleman has expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico for five minutes. >> tamerlan mr. chairman, director mueller. i want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service to the nation. you will leave a lasting legacy and large shoes to fill.

as you have recognized, the fbi's role since mine alone has ebal and expanded prior to the attack the agency's primary responsibility was to fight domestic crime including violent crime. now the bureau also stands at the forefront of the government's efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism and allows the tragic events in boston illustrate the stakes couldn't be higher conducting both law enforcement and counterterrorism operations is a large and complex portfolio and i know you are constantly reviewing the allocation of the personnel and resources to ensure that both missions receive the attention they deserve. an example of a u.s. territory home to 3.7 million american citizens underscore is why it is important for the fbi notwithstanding its transformation in the wake of

9/11 to continue to place great emphasis on its traditional role as a crime-fighting agency. as the chairman noted at the hearing last year in the homeland security committee, the people of puerto rico are under siege. like all american citizens, my constituents are targets for al qaeda and its affiliated organizations. a day, too worry about terrorism when they board a plane from a visit a site with their children or travel abroad. indeed in 197216 american citizens were killed and many more were wounded on an airport in this trial. the victims of one of the first instances of terrorism but the fact is my constituents are buying violent deaths every day and they are not being killed in terrorist attacks. rather they are dying in huge numbers because of the toxic mix of drugs, guns local gangs and

transnational organizations. i know what you are familiar with the statistics, but they bear repetition. in the tenure period between 2003 to 2012, there were 8,600 homicide victims in puerto rico. the year 2011 was the most violent in the territories history with 1,164 murders. that is the equivalent over three homicides a day every day. it's about the same number of homicide deaths of texas with a population that is seven times that of puerto rico although the number of members decreased in 2012, the per capita murder rate was still about three times higher than any state and about six times higher than the u.s. national average. as you know i have urged the government to surge the resources to puerto rico to alleviate this crisis.

earlier this year following a visit by the sec to in the public, the dhs decided to substantially increase its presence on the island. next week i meeting that a senior adviser to the secretary to receive an update on the steps of the dhs component agencies taking and the results we can expect to see. yesterday the appropriations committee approved the act for the fiscal year 2014 and that bill directs the secretary to provide a report on the counter toward the activities of the dod undertaking or intends to undertake to support law enforcement operations in and around puerto rico. in march i wrote a detailed letter to the attorney general holder copying you reiterating my request that the search resources to puerto rico. it is clear that the fbi and the atf needs to do more, much more to reduce the level of violence

in puerto rico and to reassure my constituents that their national government cares about them and was working every day to protect them and their families. director taylor come can you please tell me what concrete steps the fbi is taking or will take to reduce the exceptionally high level of violence in puerto rico? the threat has involved in its nature and its critical that the fbi's response involves us as well. the time for business as usual is over. >> as we have discussed i am sympathetic to what is happening in puerto rico. we had squads to cover any kind of crimes. we have before violent gang task forces more than any office in the country. we have an allocation of 313 full-time agents and they are

fully staffed and we are about five down. but i can tell you under the term of sequestration, the possibility of allocating additional resources to puerto rico is difficult. >> i think we of understanding of the devastation to the communities that are designed by violent crime. i wish we could do more and had the resources to surge. i know we are working with the dea to combine ourselves with the national police and we are having some success. all i can tell you is not i wish i could do more at this point given the constraints it would be difficult. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and we recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> director, this past sunday mr. cummings the ranking member said based on everything he seemed in the irs case the case

is solved. is mr. cummings accurate? based on everything i've seen in quoting mr. cummings the case is solved. >> it's currently under investigation. >> what can you tell us about this? have you found the infamous agents to be discovered in who those people are? >> can you tell me some basics, how many investigators you have assigned to the case? >> i may be able to do that but i have to get back to you. >> can you tell me who the lead investigator is? >> at this juncture no pity the >> we would like to know how many people you have assigned to look into the situation. >> i haven't had a recent briefing on it when we first

initiated it i haven't had a briefing as to where we are. >> you don't know who is leading the case? if you talk to any of the victim's come have you met with any of the tea party folks since 2013? >> i don't know the status of the interviews are. >> would you expect that that has been done? >> at some point in time generally the investigation you get the document so that you can have -- >> don't you normally talk -- in your extensive record and history and investigative work don't you typically talk to the victim? don't you typically talk to them -- >> so did the fbi contact any of the victims were they contacted by the fbi prior to the investigation when these groups or applying for the tax exempt status did they pay them a

visit? >> i do not know. >> parchin? >> i don't know. >> some of them testified they were paid a visit by the fbi, specifically catherine said she was visited by the fbi and was the head of true of the vote. >> i do not know. >> okay. if the -- excuse me if he did contact people involved in the irs scandal, victims' groups prior to the investigation when they were applying for the tax-exempt status why was that the case? why would you be looking into it and was their coordination with the irs? >> you're asking me details about the investigation. >> i am saying why were people targeted before the investigation started? why were they contacted by the fbi, people who are now part of the groups targeted by the irs? >> you're asking questions about details of the investigation to respect that is and 80 tell. that took place prior. >> may i please finish? you are asking detailed

questions about the investigation. i would be happy to get back to you to answer the questions i can understanding -- >> i am asking basic questions like who is heading it up and you can't tell me that. can you give back to me on any group targeted by the irs who the fbi visited with prior to the investigation starting while they were applying? and would be important for this committee to have. >> we will look at the questions. >> have you reviewed the inspector general's report regarding the scandal? >> i have been through it, yes. >> you have concerns about how the inspector general did the report and collected information? >> i did not focus on that at all. >> is it typical inappropriate for the investigator to have one of the central players in this who was the director of one of the key players of the tax exempt division sent in on the interviews almost all of the interviews with employees in that division is that typically how the investigation is done?

>> i'm not familiar. i understand what you're saying about the circumstances but not being familiar with -- >> is that how you would do interviews with of the boss sitting next to the person you're trying to get information from? is it appropriate for the inspector general who came out and transcribed the interview that our staff has done is it appropriate to have her collect the data and give it to? to the inspector general? >> i'm not familiar. >> if that happened is that appropriate? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> this did happen. >> is it appropriate when the inspector general is doing his investigation and his audit to give information to the very people he is investigating in the course of the investigation and not share that same information with fi oversight committee? specifically may 30th of last

year the inspector general told doug showmen the terms tea party petrie it were used to identify groups and put them on a list he told them that was going on. he told them that a year ago. four days later he told the general counsel treasury the same information but didn't share that with the committee that asked for the investigation who has oversight over the inspector general's didn't share that with us. is that how the investigation is supposed to work? >> you are talking about circumstances i'm not familiar with and i really can't comment on what was in the investigation without knowing it sitting down and going for the fact. >> if i can and i will stop, that is the point. you've had a month to investigate. this is the biggest story in the country and you can't even tell me who the lead investigator is? you can't tell me the actions they took which aren't typically how investigations are done you can't tell me if that is

appropriate or not? this is what happened and you can't tell me how many agents are assigned to the most important news story may be the most important >> the director will be allowed to answer the question and if he can't answer it today we would expect he answered in writing to us as promptly as possible. >> i would be happy to take your questions in writing, sir. >> the gentleman from washington. thank you for your service and being with us today. i happen to agree with those that believe greater transparency and the better data about the request the government entities are making to internet companies and providers would help inform the discussion we are having about how to balance the legitimate national security needs with privacy rates paid by understand it was earlier google sent a letter to you and the

attorney general holder earlier this week to provide reports on the number of the national security requests it receives as well as their scope and i wonder if you can share with us what your response is to that request. >> that is being looked at by the justice at this point. >> earlier this year, google did work with the department of justice and the fbi to disclose in broad strokes the number of national security letters that they receive. did google disclosures of the numbers harm the national security in any way? >> let me just hypothesize without answering particularly. if you had such figures out there, but and somebody that wanted to have secure communications maybe make some decisions as a result of that information? >> as to what capability they

use, so basically there are issues that need to be discussed in the course of deciding what needs to be declassified. i think most of us in the government would love to be able to disclose more because it would be understandable to persons that you have the conflicting values of trying to protect the country and trying to protect the information that enables us to continuously identify the communications of terrorist efforts to thwart attacks. that is the conflict. >> tamerlan. the committee is also considering the reform of the electronic communications privacy act. the senate judiciary committee performed the legislation out of committee. members on both sides of the heil seem to agree that we failed to modernize the reasonable expectations of privacy especially in the digital age. for the routine investigations,

i believe law enforcement should use the same standard for the in a box that they do to search files and the home but the elevated law allows the police to provide only a subpoena without a judge's approval for the providers to turnover e-mails that have been opened or are more than six months sold. the committee is currently considering legislation that would require government entities to obtain a warrant before having access to store content. i am pleased the department of justice and the attorney general recently acknowledged that reform to the electronic communications privacy act has failed to keep up with the development of technology. and i wanted to know if you agree that it's time to reform these laws to include a warrant standard for a short content. >> i would agree that it's time to look at mullen given that communications in terms of what the impact would have on particular requirements and situations. i'm going to see what kind of legislation is proposed.

>> do you have a proposal right now if i have a physical letter and a piece of paper and you need a warrant if i have a piece of online communication that doesn't necessarily have the same standard to use chemical we would get pleased -- be pleased to get back to you by mail or e-mail. >> in terms of keeping up to you have recommendations on others we need to look at because the way that folks can indicate now is different than you talked about with other forms clearly they haven't kept up with changes in technology. do you have an opinion on how you would like to see the legislation form? >> we will get back to you with whatever ideas we have. i do think that there needs to be reform. there is always an impetus to increase the standards to get particular document but it should be done in my mind

dependent on the attributes of privacy necessary for the particular means of communication or a particular day that relating to the communications. if you raise the standard too high, we do not get the basic information that can identify terrorists to the point we can take the additional investigative steps to identify the subscriber and once we have identified the subscriber, identify others in that network. if as a result of that investigation we find that the are involved in terrorism than getting the wiretap. we tend to confuse that that is by the fourth amendment that which is not in the fourth amendment and so as when one draft the legislation it ought to be kept in mind. >> tamerlan and mr. chair. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from utah for five minutes to read >> tamerlan and to the director, tamerlan can yufang yourself regularly available to the

kennedy and it's helpful and we appreciate that in your service. i want to talk a little bit about the medved data and specifically the jones case which is the supreme court ruling they've ruled nine to nothing a gps device placed on the vehicle for an extended period of time was an unreasonable search. it's broadly defined as using a gps device work triangulation so you can tell the specific whereabouts of where a particular phone is. can you help me define what mehdi is because what we have seen in the news is that the category is a simple telephone number, where they are calling and how long they are calling. can you help me define what else is in this category? >> in the case of e-mail it would be information we would consider. not the subject line for

instance, that wouldn't be met the data. in terms of the telephone, that would articulate principally. >> would it include giglio location? >> that's a question i would have to get back to you on. >> we submitted in advance the questions we were going to ask you today so i could have a dialogue with you. we were very good at providing the questions i was going to ask. with all due respect, sir, you are the director of the fbi. you've been there for 12 years and you had to have thought post jones what are the implications of the case and how does it apply? ..

>> if i call my 12-year-old

daughter, the phone number that i called her on, the geolocation -- i have a bill that i sponsored. it really basically categorizes the geolocation as content as opposed to the metadata. if you are going to follow what the telephone number is, where it is, is that or is that not content? >> i will tell you that i think it's a difficult question. and i want to think about it. >> is there a data database that anyone knows about. >> i do not know if that is specifically addressed to geolocation apart from anything else with investigative activity that is the location database. >> does the fbi believe that there should be a lower or different standard for them to access geolocation with other

mobile devices than the tracking devices? >> i apologize. you gave me the question tonight. i did not get briefed on it. so i am better able to answer this. >> at this point i would like to talk about giving the questions. >> it is terribly frustrating at times to be the head of the fbi or the director of the fbi. this is an important discussion and dialogue. >> this includes the answers that we need. >> what would be a reasonable timeframe?

>> okay, i appreciated. >> i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we will again reinforce these questions be answered as properly and a meeting taking place with the gentleman from utah. he has content an issue that needs your input. we now recognize mr. jeffries for five minutes. >> i think thank the chair. i also want to thank you for directing the presence here today and your service to this great country. evarts soden has been characterized by many in his actions have been called courageous or heroic. it is not my place, i believe to characterize them one way or another in the court of law. hopefully this will blow over.

he has become a lightning rod of a very important debate of we in the congress should have as to the proper balance between legitimately held security concerns and concerns for privacy and liberty, which are essential to the preservation of our democracy. in that spirit, i just wanted to get a sense of some of the particulars to the extent that you can discuss them in an open committee hearing related to the recent to 15 acquisition connected to the horizon metadata. assumably that was the fbi, the department of justice, others that are relevant.

the metadata for all verizon customers in the united states of america and beyond for a three month. matt was relevant to a counterterrorism investigation with foreign intelligence acquisition. is that correct? >> if you are talking about the relevance and the finding of relevance, yes, there is an order that has been issued. including other aspects of a. being that this information that was accumulated, that it set up satisfies the regular standard in the statute. >> yes, the fbi coming to the conclusion that they can legitimately pursue this information, i presume that you also have to conclude that it is relevant information. is that right?

>> yes, with access to this information, it is very limited and there has to be a showing of a reasonable and articulable position and that we have this associated with terrorism. and there is a limited search that is done in the process. it satisfies the relevant standard with the court. >> want to pursue information based on that reasonable suspicion standard, what is the process for attempting to acquire content information connected to the metadata presumably on a forward-looking basis. >> if you want to get additional information, you would have to get an additional legal process. for instance if you only wanted to obtain wire interception in

the additional legal process that you have to go through. >> under the relevant standard, this type of metadata information should also be made available pursuant to a court decision if it is connected to other service providers. >> i cannot talk to the specifics of the program. >> okay. >> is anything that you can say as to why they were being considered overwriting users in such a broadway as it relates to every single user over a three-month period of time across the country of more than 300 million people? >> it goes into the details of the program. i don't know where they got into this.

>> switching topics, in terms of the sequestration impact that we have had on the fbi, i think they have increased their efforts connected to illegal piracy and intellectual property spaced. >> just. >> that is an important step that you have taken. increasingly significant in ways. are those fbi efforts impacted and the adverse way connected to increased enforcement effort with property spaced? >> i do not think that next year they will be impacted. >> well, across the board, my expectation is that we have to consider dramatic and drastic reductions across the board.

>> the time with the gentleman has expired. >> we recognize this gentleman now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize you, director. i would like to talk about katherine engelbrecht. in july of 2010, she and her husband were business owners and they started to groups. hoping to be a nonprofit group. in december of 2010, the fbi domestic terrorism unit inquired about the attendees. in january of 2011, the fbi domestic terrorism unit inquired about this. in january of 2011, many were audited in 2008 and 2009. in january of 2011, irs

questions included these applications and that was the first round. in march of 2011, the -- excuse me, may may of 2011, the king street patriots were -- rather members were going to the fbi after their request about questions on how are they doing on anything that they need to tell us. october 2011, the questions were asked and they wanted to know who these people were, who they were tweeting too. every place they had ever spoken, every place they tended to speak, who they were speaking to, the names of the participants. and copies of transcripts everywhere they intended to speak and asking about 300

questions, including who is doing the training, what is the background of the trainers and they ask the lawyers were and the background of the lawyers that represented the qualification of the lawyers. three more visits by phone and the fbi, june, november and december, and then the irs in february of 2012 questions and nonprofit status in and this was a third round. the department of justice and inquiry said, are these people under investigation for criminal offenses. i get a letter in return from the justice department says that they are not under investigation, but it continues. they were visited later by the atf and osha and they were

visited again by the irs and the questions are coming from cincinnati and they finally did another question from the irs from utah. that was in march of this year. in april of this year, there comes the atf again. another unscheduled visit to their business. i have read the civil rights law and it is important. you have a division in the fbi to enforce the violations and i understand the law. you cannot target a certain group because of their beliefs. the irs has art he said that we have targeted certain tea party groups because of this. my question without going into detail, a hypothetical place, these groups that you have seen

and inquired about, does that appear to be something, if the complaint was filed with the fbi, they would investigate civil rights violations. so i think that is part of the ongoing activation -- excuse me, investigation, i should say, of the circumstances relating to this that was initiated a number of weeks ago. my expectation is that this would be a piece of the investigation. you also indicate that the fbi agents -- i will have to go back and look at the predication for that particular visit to follow up on that aspect that these persons were involved with the bill. >> thank you, mr. director. i yield back my time.es the

gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, i want to thank you for our service both in the military as a prosecutor and as a law enforcement officer. i would like to touch on three different areas, starting with the rosen affidavit. there is probable cause to believe that the violation occurred of the espionage act. this is the phrase i want to focus on. either as an eater and a better or a co-conspirator. if the standard is probable cause, why in the world was the phrase added if they were not contemplating this? >> i do not know why. >> you were a distinguished federal prosecutor and i was not at all distinguished. but i was a prosecutor. i don't remember adding extra

warning to an application for a search warrant. i am vexed at this at the very least. >> i just don't know. also, they requested a nondisclosure order citing the five different reasons. we assume they are under oath when they appear before a judge. do you know which of the five categories that would need to be shown for a nondisclosure order was testified in this case? which of the five reasons were outplayed? >> i'm not familiar with the facts related to. >> but you would agree with me that when you are asking for a non-disclosure order, one of those five actors isn't quite? >> i am not familiar with the

statue. everything in there ought to be accurate and every item and not. >> you ever recall discussing the james rosen investigation with the attorney general? >> no. >> do you know at the very least that there was probable cause of crime has been committed? was there a discussion of indicting james rosen? >> not that i don't. >> if you have more than probable cause, why would there not be discussion? >> there may have been, as you well know with the agent in terms of what went into the affidavit and the discussion between the lawyer and the agent to get with the agent knows and the investigation needs to get

the approvals that are needed. that does not come up to my level have that discussion. okay, so it is fair to say that you are not part of any conversations with respect to whether or not something along the lines of an indictment should be considered for the reporter, but you don't know whether or not the conversations took place, but you were not part of them? >> i was not part of them. >> okay. does the bureau have a policy -- if you go to a magistrate or an article three-judge, is there a policy on this, on judge shopping? >> no, not that i am aware of. >> switching gears, there is an allegation this week of americans being involved of the prosecution overseas. with the bureau have jurisdiction to investigate that? >> i would have to look at that.

initially i would say -- i'm sorry, i would say no, but there may be -- maybe i am missing something but i have to get back to. >> if there were an allegation that the state department attempted to interfere with or influence the investigation. is that something the jurisdiction would have investigation over? >> i am not certain. going back to the activities overseas, we would have perhaps some kind of connotation for being involved in the overarching investigation as to the second question, i just cannot say. >> i have been out of the business for a wild. i think it may be a crime to travel for the purpose of soliciting underage sex. >> yes, i do believe that that would be covered.

i would have to check on a. >> okay. >> i have not done this work for some time. >> okay. finally with respect to ben godsey, and this is not a trick question. the quicker you get to a crime scene, the better you're going to be to investigate in process. is that right? >> yes, absolutely. >> and the bureau just did not get to it for how long? >> about two weeks. >> why did the bureau not get to the crime scene for up to two weeks. >> the first one relates to the state security and ben godsey and there was no security. >> stopping either, asking one more question. if ben godsey was not safe enough for the premier law enforcement agency in the world to go, how is it safe enough for us to extend diplomats? >> i understand the questions being asked.

>> it is rhetorical unless you know the answer. i cannot answer it. >> i'm saying that i cannot answer it. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and we will look for opportunities again. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> sir, i appreciate you being here. there is some time for rhetorical questions, it seems. my friend from south carolina brings a good point. there are things that people in the world but that. they are honest and hard-working folks and they say that this does not make sense. it attributes to the disconnect that happens with the folks who go to work and they see what's happening and they get up each day. they say that it just does not pass the smell test. we have covered the gamut. our country wants to be safe. people want to know that the government is watching out for

them and there is legal sharing. this hard work between the police and the law enforcement agencies and the justice department. there needs to be a good balance. there is a program called the joint regional intelligence group. i would like to switch gears. we have established this pilot program. the purpose will be to coordinate information sharing with intelligence communities. we have been hearing that the fbi has been excluded. is that the case, or is that your understanding of what is going on? >> would be excluded? >> the state and locals are being excluded. >> i think there is some concern at some point that this is a new

vehicle. it has great integration of the intelligence capacity around the country. >> so you're saying that this is an existing program what the director says is not new? >> i am not certain exactly which program we are talking about. >> the joint regional intelligence group. >> yes. >> it certainly includes state and local law enforcement in this undertaking. for instance, part of it is to charge us in the various divisions or districts and the person who is in charge for the quarter nation under that. >> okay. the understanding here -- tell me more about this program. i mean, there seems to be more

of a pilot program. either it was integrating stuff and where is this being located out of? >> i guess that i am confused in terms of what programs you are talking about. i would be happy to get back to you specifically on this as i can read it and assimilate it. >> i appreciate you getting back to me on those questions. a lot has been said about the communications privacy act. i just want to open this up and say, is it better -- would be helpful for law enforcement to have a clear standard. and if so, what do believe that would be? >> i think it is updated.

as i indicated before, i would caution against raising standards for obtaining basic information because you eliminate much of the data that provides predication for further investigation. as one looks at it, i had some concern about raising standards that would impact our ability to conduct cases. >> i have a law professor that indicates that this may not even exist today with what is going on. is there a way that we balance this in which it seems to be metadata. we are collecting this in such large-scale. we have a pretty hard line to focus here with protecting civil liberties. yet giving access where need be,

where i think people would understand there's a reason to investigate. >> i do think that given the new technology, the ability to communicate in a number of ways, but the statute needs to be upgraded. you can identify terrorists by looking at substantial accumulations of the data. it may well be worth the balance. on the other hand, what you want to protect is the abuse. >> depending upon the decisions, the court entrance court decisions, i am concerned that we are in a situation where some

of the older rules but didn't understand this kind of technology may be balanced in a way that we are going to have to look at it differently instead of saying that it has been on okay in this way. i think people are concerned about it. thank you for your service. thank you for being here to answer the question. >> we thank the gentleman. the gentleman from idaho is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, thank you director for being here. thank you for your service. i was a criminal defense attorney. i'm a little bit confused by the answer from the administration about the james rosen investigation. how many times as an fbi director or attorney in the law enforcement practice, have you been able to investigate somebody that you did not intend to prosecute?

>> i want to be very specific about this. not that you don't prosecute after the investigation. that is the purpose of the investigation. to find out if you need to prosecute somebody. but to look into people's private information and communications. those that you do not intend to prosecute. >> do you understand? >> i think i do. but i think perhaps we are passing each other. they can be a husband and wife team to avoid taxes. at the outset, you have probable cause to believe -- >> yes, but you have probable cause to believe that they are both committing a crime and you determine after the investigation that one committed the crime the other did not commit the crime. is that right? >> that is an option. yes. >> tell me how often a prosecutor investigate somebody

who is not intended -- that they don't intend that any time to file charges. it seems to me that it is much broader than the fourth amendment. the you're going beyond the extent of the fourth amendment. >> you know the dialogue as to whether or not the person is going to be prosecuted in terms of testimony. we make the decision day in and day out. especially if they are not going to cooperate with us. often we will investigate them for a period of time. consequently we have no thought about prosecuting and we want their testimony. >> what you have said is that mr. rosen was never intended to be prosecuted. i never heard where you win after an individual where there was no intention to find out if that person was going to be prosecuted. that is what i'm having a hard time with. >> i am not certain that i said

that. it was not my determination to make that idea. >> he said -- i would have to look specifically. >> would you think that would be inappropriate to go after somebody that you don't intend to ever prosecute. because that has been the excuse of the administration. >> i would have to think there are a number of occasions where we have the ability and capability at the outset to make a determination that we are not going to go forth. >> i agree. but the problem with this subpoena is that mr. rosen was never intended according to the attorney general. this is something that i think we're beyond the fourth

amendment, which was unnecessary. that is why they have to go around chopping for those who would approve of this subpoena. >> as i indicated we focus on we, the fbi, we are focused on this and that is who we want to identify with and ultimately prosecute. to do that, we have to show that the information went from this person to the person who published it. part of the investigation, you gather facts about the individual who had security. >> you tell the judge that you are intending this and you have reasonable suspicion to believe that this person has violated the law. how often have you, as a