and that's an understatement. mr. president, i again tell everyone we're diagnose doing our utmost to try to make it as convenient as possible for people to have the amendments determined by a vote or some other matters --, some other manner, but we may have to be here this weekend. i hope that's not the case. i've alerted people for days now. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> it was essential to remove france from canada for the united states as they came to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. and a few people led by franklin recognized the possibilities for america to become a great country. just let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. the american achievement of the people of 2.5 million people, for them and effect to get the british to evict the french from their borders and then the french to help them if it's the

british to manipulate the two greatest powers in the world was an astonishing achievement. president obama was in berlin following this week's g8 summit. at a news conference with german chancellor on july merkel the president was asked about the data collection program. in a few moments fbi director robert mueller tells a senate panel that the bureau has used surveillance drones in the u.s..

>> i came into office committed to protecting the american people but also committed to our values and ideas and one of our highest ideals is civil liberties and privacy. and i was a critic of the previous administration for those occasions in which i felt they violated our values and i came in with a healthy skepticism about how our various programs were structured.

but, what i have been able to do is examine and scrub how our intelligence services are operating and i am confident that at this point we have struck the appropriate balance. now let me be very specific in terms of and this is what i've described to chancellor miracle what these programs are that it caused so much controversy. have caused so much controversy. essentially one program allows us to take a phone number that has been discovered separately through some lead that is typical of what our intelligence services do but we get a phone number and what we try to discover is has anybody else then called from that phone and we have looked data that allows us to just check on phone numbers and nothing else, no

content, nobody is listening in on the conversation at that point kerry it's just determining whether or not it for example we found a phone number in osama bin laden's compound after the raid hadi called anybody in new york or berlin or anyplace else? if in fact we discover that another call has been made, at that point in order to listen to any phonecall we would have to then go to a judge and seek information through a process that is court supervised and this entire thing has been set up under the supervision of a federal court judge. when it comes to the internet and e-mail, as chancellor miracle said, we are now in the t arministry of rulesave to make and our protections catch up

with this new cyberworld. what i can say to everybody in germany and everybody around the world is, this applies very narrowly to leave that we have obtained on issues related to terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction so there are a few neuro-categories. we get very specific leads and based on those leads again with court supervision and oversight we are able then to access information. this is not a situation in which we are rifling through the ordinary e-mails, german citizens or american citizens or french citizens or anybody else. this is not a situation where we

simply go into the internet and start searching any way that we want. this is a circumscribed neuro-system directed at us kneeing able to protect our people and all of it is done under the oversight of the courts. and as a consequence we save lives. we know of at least 50 threats that have been averted a cousin of this information not just in the united states but in some cases threats here in germany. so lives have been saved. and the encroachment on privacy has been strictly limited by a court approved process to relate to these particular categories. having said all that and what

i've said in the united states is what i shared with chancellor miracle and that is that we do have to strike a balance. and we do have to be cautious about how our governments are operating with intelligence of this is a debate that i welcome. what we are going to be doing when i get back home is trying to find ways to declassified further some of these programs without completely compromising their effectiveness. sharing that information with the public and also our intelligence teams are erected to work closely with their german intelligence counterparts so that they have clarity and assurance that they are not being abused. but i think one of the things that separates us from some other governments is that we welcome these debates.

that is what a democracy is about and i am confident that we can strike this right talents, keep our people safe but also preserve our civil liberties even in this internet age. >> after the joint news conference chancellor angela merkel gave a speech about the historic random brigade. during his remarks the president challenge russia to agree on deeper cuts with nuclear weapons. >> justice means pursuing the security of a world without net we are weapons no matter how distant that dream may be and so as president i've strengthen our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number and role of america's nuclear weapons. because the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty we are in track to cut american and russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest level since the 1950s. [applause] but we have more work to do.

so today i am announcing additional steps forward after conference of review i determined we can ensure the security of america and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one third. and i intend to seek negotiated cuts with russia to move beyond cold war nuclear postures. [applause] >> let us not be blind to our differences but let us also direct attention to our common interest and the means by which those differences can be resolved and if we cannot here now our differences at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. >> wherever they may live our citizens of berlin. and therefore, as a free man, i take pride in the work.

>> so he learns the missile crisis you see a much different president kennedy than in the first year and then in 19 to three you see a different one again who at the same time is preparing the ground for a real shot at detente and his nuclear test ban treaty which was agreed to in the fall of 1963 while at the same time, while at the same time also building up defenses and seeking a way toward peace with this american university. now fbi director robert mueller testifies about the national security agency's data collection programs and takes questions from members of the senate judiciary committee.

when he steps down in september director mueller mueller will be the second longest-serving fbi director in history. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. is that feedback from my microphone? good morning. today the judiciary committee welcomes robert mueller and in what is likely is to be his final parents and before this panel was director of the federal bureau of investigation. we know director mueller began as head of the fbi days before the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001 and director i remember being down in your

intelligence center at the fbi building right after that and going over and sifting through what we knew and what we didn't know about that attack. for nearly 12 years he has led the bureau as he shifted his primary focus to national security and counterterrorism efforts still carrying on the historic mission of fighting crime. and in that transition, the important part of national security of course expected problems from national security letters to the latest revelations about the use of the patriot act. i remain concerned as a country we have yet to strike the right balance between intelligence gathering and the civil liberties and privacy rights for americans. also i want to make sure the

ships are necessary and the fbi's focus does not unduly hamper the ability to involving fraud and violent crime. that significantly affect the everyday lives of americans. these are concerns i expressed but i think one thing that the director knows and the public knows i have never questioned the integrity, the dedication, the constant professionalism of dreck or mueller. he has led the bureau through very difficult times. he has been a steady and determined leader of the fbi and spoken forcefully about the need to protect american civil liberties and i remember sitting there at the 100th anniversary of the euro and the director was very strong statement about the civil liberties of all americans. and it was no surprise that committed public servants would agree to put his long-awaited travel plans on hold when the president asked him to stay on

board for another two years. he has devoted his entire life to public service. we were just talking about how senator feinstein during a very terrible time in a time in which he became mayor of san francisco when the tragedies that led up to that. we are grateful to him and his family for their continued sacrifice and i might mention in this regard director mueller your wife and go. i know what she has put up with these absences and all. you have a wonderful family and the privilege of meeting them but i hope you will tell ann also how much i and the others appreciate what she has done to make it possible for you to be director.

as the fbi prepares first first change in leadership since the 9/11 attacks we have to review closely the private and challenge gathering -- intelligence gathering. we also have to ensure and this is the responsibility of not only did the fbi but the oversight that they do not violate the privacy rights in the civil liberties of law-abiding americans. i have long said protecting americans fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. we can and we must do both. the recent public revelations about to classified data collection programs illustrate the need for close scrutiny by congress of the government's surveillance activities. i have been troubled for years by the expansive nature of the u.s. patriot act. these powerful law enforcement tools including section 215 orders require careful monitoring and close oversight.

i authorize legislation 2009 that would have improved and reformed the patriot act while increasing public accountability and transparency. my bill was reported by this committee on a bipartisan basis in 2009 in 2011 and i wanted to reintroduce that till tomorrow and hope the senators from both parties will join me in this effort to improve the patriot act. the american people deserve to know how broad investigative laws like the patriot are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance. americans also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their red. right now i have to state i remain skeptical. i also firmly believe we need to maintain close oversight over the broad surveillance authorities contained in the fisa amendments act. i have had concern about the scope of section 702 and its

statutory focus on foreigners overseas. that is why push for a shorter sunset and greater transparency, better oversight last year when congress considered reauthorizing these provisions. i regret the senate rejected my efforts. i think now there's a possibility they may in further legislation accepts these commonsense improvements. we have to have an open debate about the efficacy of these tools particularly in light of the boston marathon bombing in april. not only in how we collect them but what we do with it once it is collected. whether intelligence obtained by the fbi has been properly relayed to the joint terrorism task force and to the boston police department. there have been questions raised it was not. i know the inspector general for the intelligence community is conduct an independent

assessment for an increased focus on counterterrorism and not come at the expense of the regular law enforcement efforts. and preliminary data released shows in 2012 the overall violent crime rate in the u.s. rose for the first time since 2006 and i think we should look at why and if the fbi able to work with their state and local partners in this. i know the fbi is at the forefront using forensic science in its investigations. it has had problems in the past with its crime lab and i look forward to working with the fbi to develop conference of legislation of forensic matters. so i think the director for being here but when i think you director i also want to thank the hard-working men and women of the fbi.

i know you are proud to serve with them and they are proud to have you leaving them. i look forward to your testimony. senator grassley. >> director mueller thank you for your service as well and extending that period of time that you are willing to serve the people of this country. thank you chairman leahy for calling the hearing and i welcome director mueller back particularly because this will likely be the last hearing he will appear before the committee. over that past 12 years director mueller has done a good job of transforming the fbi from a law enforcement agency into a national security agency. the wall between intelligence and criminal cases has come down and the integration of law enforcement and intelligence has worked. those fundamental changes have made the fbi stronger and more successful in stopping terrorist attacks before they occur.

they have also helped strengthen the fbi when tragic events like the boston bombing have occurred. cooperation between the fbi, federal agencies and partners and state and local law enforcement has been improved however there are still problems with the fbi that need to be addressed such as retaliation against soldiers who speak out and blow the whistle on internal problems. that said, for a second time i thank director mueller for his service and i'm sure he is looking forward to the deserved time off. unfortunately we still do not know who will be replacing director mueller when he leaves. this is a very concerning and of course raises questions about the upcoming transition. for starters the president has submitted a nominee to the senate to fill the vacancy. there have been media rep to

nominate the former deputy attorney deputy attorney general from the bush administration but no official nomination has been received. it's not clear with the intention of the white house is. with the release of mr. comite's possible nomination. whatever the motivation it doesn't change the fact that the present is not formally appointed anyone to succeed mr. mueller. the nomination to the senate and in short order otherwise we don't have enough time to properly vet the nominee and ensures that the new director is in place prior to mr. mueller's departure. given the fbi's role in countering terrorism counterintelligence and criminal law enforcement and a delay in appointing a director needs vast bureaucracy will be left to an acting director. i would like to hear from director mueller about the transition planning and how he intends to hand things over to the next director and what

contingency plans are in place in the event an acting director is necessary. there are number of other matters to discuss first. there have been a lot of news classified leaks it to national security programs operated by nsa and utilized by the intelligence community. the leaks of classified information related to 215 business record program and the 702 foreign intelligence has stated, has started a debate about whether these programs strike the proper balance between civil liberties and our security. as a result of recent information the administration chose to release additional details explaining how the programs operate including the facts surrounding successes in thwarting terrorist attacks. more importantly the information details various safeguards and programmatic oversight built

into the program. i am always of the opinion that more oversight is needed of the federal government and given the classified nature of these programs congress needs to be extra vigilant and conducting oversight of these programs. yesterday's public hearing held in the house permanent select committee on intelligence was a good opportunity for congress and the administration to show the american people that these programs can be discussed in an open manner. more hearings should be held so people that understand how section 215 works. this includes the necessary declassification of information to assist congress in determining whether the law was followed absent some level of transparency the american people won't understand how it works -- though how their government works. there's a lot of distrust in government these days and is certainly understandable given the scandal as irs and the state or see surrounding the administration's use of drones, subpoenas seeking reporters

e-mails and telephone calls along with the effort to legislate in spite of constitutional protections and civil liberties. an open and transparent discussion of these programs is the only way that the american people will have confidence in what their government is doing. i continue to believe that a major problem causing the leaking of classified information is the lack of whistleblower protection for members of the intelligence community. the final version of the whistleblower protection enhancement act signed into law last year failed to include protections for the intelligence community and i authored those. these provisions were originally included in the senate-passed version but did not pass the house. specifically it would have provided a protected method for employees to report concerns through a protected channel within the intelligence community. i believe the existence of such a channel would help stop would-be leakers from releasing

classified information so i would like to hear from director mueller about whether he would support such a provision. another critical national security issue to address is cybersecurity. the houses passed for separate bills addressing the issue. the senate continues to address the topic of various committees. all the proposals recognize the need for strengthening the nation's cybersecurity defenses. where they differ is how to do it. the fbi plays a front-line role in addressing an investigating cybersecurity so the director might inform us about what barriers exist and preventing efforts to combat cyberattacks against our computer systems. regarding traditional criminal matters at the fbi, i remain concerned about the number of cases where individuals may have been convicted based on faulty

fbi crime lab reports. chairman leahy and i sent a number of letters regarding the unpublished results of the 1996 review of the f. e. i crime labs. to date we have not received a briefing on this request. the department of justice continues to focus only on prospective review of criminal cases than not provide answers to the committee as to what happened during this previous review. i would like to hear what the director says about the matter and what has been done to bring justice to depend dependence it might be innocence as a result of faulty lab work. i will ask the director about the fbi's plans for using unmanned aerial systems or drones. at the last oversight hearing attorney general mueller i asked about the department's use of drones and in response the attorney general indicated atf had purchased drones and were exploring in law

enforcement. absent from this response was an indication of how the fbi was using or seeking to utilize drone technologies so i'll ask director mueller whether the fbi is considering purchasing drones, what limitations the fbi has put in place and how the fbi plans to use drone technology. i will ask about the fbi's investigation into the border patrol about ryan terry's murder. it has now been 2.5 years since the murder. the fbi had cited the ongoing investigation as a reason for not dividing information however at some point the fbi will have to answer questions about this matter and it's a matter of courtesy and humanity to the family to do that. finally, i remain concerned that whistleblowers at the fbi continued to face retaliation

and delay in clearing their names, so i will ask the director about the final outcome of two whistleblower cases brought by employees of the fbi that i've been tracking for years. the first is that of agent turner who blew the whistle on fbi employees removing evidence from the world trade center site following 9/11 attack. the second is employee robert -- who blew the whistle on attendance fraud at the new york city field office fbi. the deputy attorney general found special agent turner was subject to adverse personnel action. why has the fbi appealed and fought special agent turner's case for nearly a decade and what action was taken against those persons who participated in the retaliation? with regard to the cold this case, what is the current status

of that case been a ruling wide as my office has my office not been provided a copy? so thank you very much director mueller for your service but also for helping me get to the bottom of some of these things. >> thank you very much. director mueller, we will of course put you -- your full statement in the record. it will probably be your last appearance here and you served with distinction as only the sixth director of the federal bureau of investigation. which is a great career starting with your service as a u.s. marine in vietnam and through to the present. we will course b yll statement her yrs.

go ahead. >> thank you senator leahy and good morning and thank you for the kind comments about my wife who deserves very much of the credit i must say. by and she appreciates thinking of her. and ranking member grassley thank you for your comments, serve. and thank you for giving me the opportunity here to testify on behalf of the men and women of the fbi. let me begin by thanking you for your support of the institution over the last 11, 11 and a half years since september 11. any progress that we have made in that timeframe is attributable to a number of reads one of them being this particular committee. we live in a time of diverse and persistent threats from spies and cybercriminals and at the same time faced a wide range of criminal threats from

white-collar crime to child predators. just as our national security and criminal threats constantly evolve so too must we be fbi if all to counter these threats. even during a time of constrained budgets. today i would like to highlight several of the fbi's highest priority national security and criminal threats. starting with terrorism. as illustrated by the recent attacks in boston the terrorist threat against the united states must remain our top priority. as exhibited by many of our -- 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. there are experiences and motives are often distinct which makes them difficult to identify and to stop. at the same time foreign terrorists still seek to strike us at home and abroad. areaoperate in more places than against a wider array of

targets than they did a decade ago. we have seen an increasing cooperation among terrorist groups and an evolution in their tactics and their communications. while core archive is weaker and more decentralized than it was 11 years ago there remains committed to attacks against the west. al qaeda affiliates and surrogates and 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 additional such attacks. turning briefly to that which was mentioned and that is cyber. the cyberthreat has evolved significantly over the past decade and cuts across all of our fbi programs. cybercriminals have become increasingly adept at exploiting weaknesses in our computer networks and once inside they can trade secrets and we face

persistent threats from hackers for-profit. organized syndicates in what we call hactivists groups. as i have said in the past i do believe that the cyberthreat may well eclipse the terrorist threat in years to come. in response we are strengthening our cybercapabilities in the same way we enhance our intelligence and national security capabilities in the wake of the september 11 attacks. the cyberdivision is focused on computer intrusions and network attacks. the fbi special agents work side-by-side with federal state and local counterparts on cybertask forces in our 56 field offices working together to detect and disrupt computer intrusions. we have increased the size of the national cyberinvestigative joint task force which brings together 19 law enforcement military and intelligence agencies to stop current attacks and prevent future attacks.

cybercrime requires a local approach there are 64 legal attaché offices overseas. we are sharing information and coordinating investigations with their counterparts. finally on this particular point we recognize the private sector is a an essential partner to protect our critical infrastructure in sharing that information. we have established several noteworthy outreach programs before we need to shift to a model of church collaboration builds structure partnerships within the government and within the or. turning to the fbi's criminal programs we have a great range of responsibilities from complex white-collar fraud to transnational criminal enterprises and from violent crimes to public corruption. given the limited resources we must focus on those areas where we bring something unique to the table. for example violent crime and gang activity continues to exact a high toll on ourh safe streetd

safe streets task force's identify and target the most dangerous of these criminal enterprises. at the same time the bureau remains vigilant in its efforts to find and stop child editors. our mission is threefold. first to decreased culpability of children to exploitation and second provide rapid effective response to crimes against children and third to enhance the capabilities of state and local law enforcement through task force operations such as the innocent images initiative and the innocents lost initiative. now let me pause for a second and spend a moment discussing the recent public disclosure of highly classified national security programs. the highest priority and the intelligence community is to understand and combat threats to our national security. and we do so in full compliance with the law. we recognize that the american public expects the fbi and thelo

protect privacy interests even as we must conduct their national security mission. the fisa court has approved both programs. these programs have been conducted consistently with the constitution and the laws of the united states. the programs as we heard yesterday have been carried out with extensive oversight from the courts, from congress and from independent inspectors general. these programs to remain classified so there are significant limits on what we can discuss in an open session. i do know that there have been classified briefings on these programs for senate members over the last couple of weeks and i hope most of you if not all of you are able to attend. if you are unable to i would suggest and encourage you to do so. as to the person who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. these disclosures have caused sit rm to our nation

and to our safety and we are taking all necessary steps to hold accountable that person responsible for these disclosures. but as this is a matter actively under investigation and we cannot comment publicly on any of the details of the investigation. in closing i would like to turn to sequestration. the impact of sequestration on the fbi's ability to protect the nation from terrorism and crime will be significant. in fiscal year 2013 the fbi's budget was cut by more than $550 million due to sequestration. in fiscal year 2014 proposed cuts would 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 another 1300 additional vacancies in 2014. i have said and you have said that the bureau's greatest

assets are our people. additional operational cuts will impact our ability as an organization to prevent crime and terrorism which will impact the safety and security of our nation. i and i will say we all understand the need for budget reductions and we are going through a thorough review of every dollar spent and i'm sure we can find savings. i would like to work with the committee to mitigate the most significant impacts of the cuts in both this fiscal year and those we anticipate for the next fiscal year. chairman leahy, ranking member grassley and members of the committee i again would like to thank you on behalf of the bureau and all of our people for your support of the fbi and its mission. our transformation over the past decade would not have been possible without your cooperation and again thank you personally and on behalf of the fbi for your efforts and your contbutions and i look forward to answering any questions you

might have. >> thank you very much director and i share your concern about sequestration. the kind of me to ask -- meat axe approach has been devastating to law enforcement and devastating to some of the critical work we do in seeking cures for major diseases and a number of areas that have put our scientific efforts behind so many other countries and it's questionable whether it will take us decades to get caught back up. let me talk about the patriot and and fisa authorities. as you know i've had concerns about section 215 of the patriot act ends section 702 of the fisa surveillance intelligence act for a number of years. now the director of national

intelligence has declassified some more information about the bulk collection, the huge amount of collection of phone records under section 215 and i think the american people want to know if it's been sufficiently effective and justified with a very expansive -- last week i asked the director of the national security administration general alexander to provide specific information and in broad generalities i asked him for specific information about cases where data obtained through section 215 proved critical to thwarting a terrorist threat. he promised he would provide that by now, by this time this week and he hasn't yet but i assume having promised publicly that he would, he will. last week we heard it was dozens

of plots and this week we heard it was 50 but then either way it seemed clear that the majority of those cases weren't under section 215. they were 702, a different type of program. so let me ask you this. in section 215 of the patriot act critical to the disruption and discovery of terrorist threats and if so how many times? >> the answer to that is yes. i would say for most of the occasions it has been a contributing, a contributing factor. one.against a number of dots but there are those cases where it has been instrumental. the one that was mentioned yesterday was an individual out of the san diego, who we had opened and 2003 based on an

anonymous tip that this individual was involved with al-shabaab providing support to al-shabaab in somalia. we did an investigation we close the investigation down. >> but in that case the initial was from a tip. >> that was in 2003. we closed it down in 2003 and in 2007 the nsa was up on a telephone line in east africa. they had a number of the telephone line but they could not tell what calls were made to that telephone line in east africa and consequently they took that number and ranted against a database and came up with this number, telephone number in san diego. all they had was the number. they then go through the additional legal process to get the subscriberinformation that is not included in the database and from that went up on a fisa after they gained their requisite predication. that was the case that was

solely based initially the reopening of that case, that person has been convicted and he pled guilty and is about to be sentenced but that is one case where you had it sitting by itself through speeds of possible to say how many were 215 has been critical? >> let me if i could say two things. i know we are working through the list of numbers and a list of cases and of those domestic way i think there will be 10 or 12 or 215 was important in some way shape or form. >> out of the billions that were collected. >> yes but let me go back to september 11. one of the principle hijackers ultimately, i think he was in the plane, one of the planes and i maybe wrong on that but he was the principle hijacker and the intelligence agencies were on him tracking him through the far east.

nobody had him in the united states. he comes to the united states in 2000. sometime thereafter the intelligence communities are on a number in yemen that is known to be affiliated with terrorism. at that point in time without this particular capability they had no way of identifying whether there was somebody in san diego calling this number in yemen. the ig report afterwards indicated that had we had this information we may well have been able to stop the attack. if we had had this program in place and the nsa or the committee brought this number to us we would find it against the database and what would come up is his number in san diego. we go through the same routine. >> we also have a whole lot of other things happening there.

the 9/11 commission showed the failure of the cia and fbi and i the fbi and i realized it was before your time but the failure to share information. it created problems. the cia shared record with the fbi that might've made a difference. minnesota had the warnings out there that have been followed up in washington. we could look at a whole lot of, a whole lot of things that we are doing a lot better today. but then of course we know that the president was told in august of a serious concern about this. so, i realized the mistakes made

before 9/11. we are trying to close that. i just want to make sure we are collecting -- i was concerned about this last week. the nsa somehow they were conflating 215 and 702 as though this was critical to everything and get as you know we collected several billion phonecalls. sometimes you don't have anything unless you have a tip from police work. it makes you look back and find out what numbers were worthwhile. i worry that we get so imputed with the technology that we forget that somehow all the technology in the world doesn't begin to help as much as just

collecting the dots, connecting the dots. >> i think what concerns me is you never know which dodd is going to be key. what you want is as many dots as you can. if you was down about them like this you are moving dots from the playing field. now they give no, they make that decision that it's not worth it but let there be no mistake about it there will be fewer dots out there to connect if you do not have that ability to go back and records that retain the toll records or the database retains those toll records and identify that person the united states who is in communication with the terrorists number overseas. >> i will have further questions again and connecting the dots referring to conflicting testimony that on the boston marathon bombing, even though

the boston police had four officers assigned to the joint terrorism task force they were not given all the information the fbi had about what the russian security service said, cryptic though it might be and we are not told that tamerlan attended to travel abroad. is that true? >> well, yes and no. let me if i can explain. the boston task force last year had probably close to 1000 threats related to counterterrorism. everybody on that task force handles federal threats or local threats or what have you as a task force. the question i think from davis's point of view sholdthe n

police department then informed? this because it was resolved and it was not an immediate threat did not get briefed to the higher levels of the fbi's much less the other participants on the task force so i don't think it's fair to criticize the task force concept for something like this and everything's high rep the chain of command given the number of cases we had in this area. i will tell you if you talk to state and local law enforcement i think they will say the work we have done in the course of this investigation was first rate and the relationships being developed over a period of time are expensive and the success of bringing and identifying the two responsible in such a short period of time is attributable to state and local law enforcement but also by us and the relationships. >> senator grassley i apologize

for taking extra time. please go ahead. >> i just told them he doesn't need to apologize. he is the chairman of the committee. during the last hearing in 2012 senator hatch asked a question as to whether or not president obama discussed potential successes with you. you responded at that time that you had not -- had in the past but not recently. now i don't expect to get any information on the content of a discussion you might've had with the president but i do ask this question. since the hearing of may 2012 have you discussed potential successors with president obama? >> well, yes. i generally don't like to get into the conversation but i would say yes. >> you have answered the question. do you have a transition plan in place for your successor and if so how much time is dated to

implement the plan in order to provide a seamless transition? >> we have been preparing as you can imagine for the last two and a half years and we have already prepared the extensive materials that the successor will have to review. we are prepared to start the briefings as soon as the person is worn and. we have been looking at personnel so there can be some overlap of personnel so the person comes in and has key components that are ready to support them in the same way that when i came in before september 11 the fbi supported me. >> approximately how time -- how much time as necessary for that? >> well, it is a learning experience and we will get the briefings and the like but it will take maybe i would say a month to get one's feet on the ground but in that month i can tell you something's going to happen. whatever you plan in terms of ad ooking at someine

come up and your attention will be diverted so it's hard to say specific time. >> this is so important because we will have about four weeks in july. we will have only four days after your term ends to consider a nominee. do you have any idea what we might expect a nominee to come up from the white house? >> i do but i'm not in a position to divulge. >> then let me go into another one. this involves fast and furious. in my opening statement i said i know that the fbi doesn't talk about ongoing investigations however eventually the fbi has to talk about the brian. murder investigation just like eventually had to talk about the anthrax investigation. i'm going to be submitting a detailed list of questions about the concerned that the. family has that there was an attempt to cover up the connection between the guns and the atf operation.

according to the family the indications, the indications of an attempted cover-up haven't been fully investigated. all i'm asking now, would you be able to respond to my written questions before you leave office? >> i would have to look at it as we will make every effort to do so. >> and then just one question in regard to this issue. so why will ask right now. on october 20, 2011 i wrote you to ask what time the fbi arrived in -- where order patrol brian. was murder. there are conspiracy theories out there that the fbi for an fbi informant was out before agent. was shot. do you believe that there is any truth to those theories? >> don't believe there are any truth to those theories but i would have to go back and make certain. oftop of my head i b

there are true but i have to go back and make make sure they we have nothing to be supportive of those theories. >> okay and i would like to have that in writing. i want to go to drones. in recent request to questions following his last oversight hearing the department of justice advised this committee that both dea and atf have acquired unmanned aircraft systems. the department indicated that those agencies were drawing up plans and procedures to use them. the responses did not indicate whether the fbi had acquired drones and whether there are future plans for drone to knowledge he to be used by your agency. does the fbi own or currently use drones and if so for what purpose? >> yes, and for surveillance. >> okay, does the fbi have any agreement with any other government agencies and let me

suggest a couple. there might be others. coe and homeland security to receive assistance in the use of drones? >> i'm not certain. i don't think so but well, all i am saying is one of the issues with drones by any use of drones by any agency what happens in the airspace so to the extent that it relates to airspace there would be some communication back and forth. >> so instead of asking a question i think i can assume since you to use drones that the fbi has developed a set of policies procedurals and operational limits on the use of drones and whether not it -- impact on the citizens. >> we are in the initial initial stages of doing that and i will tell you our footprint is very small and very few and we are exploring not only the use but

also the necessary guidelines for their use. >> does the fbi use drones for surveillance on u.s. soil? >> yes. >> i want to go on to a question. >> i would love to put it in context in a very minimal way, very seldom. >> currently it is a crime to purchase material for the production of illegal passports to forge illegal passports to distribute illegal passports and to engage another criminal act to the day that facilitates trafficking of false passports. the immigration bill before the senate will weaken this current law. under the bill only those who produce, issue or distribute three or more passports will have committed a crime. ..

>> i will try to buy not certain that we have that much experience in the statute. but let me look at it and try to get back to you in short order. >> would you agree that the weakening of the current law creates a loophole thatcould

allow terrorist groups such as al qaeda or hezbollah or other spies to more easily operate within the united states? >> without analyzing the bill i am not in a position to implied. >> i will yield. >> thank you very much. senator feinstein. >> thank you mr. chairman. you've made several remarks has to the integrity and the service will i can't help but note the first time i've seen just one person at this very long table. i think that is due deference. director i first met you when i was the mayor and i think it was 30 years ago you were a united states attorney in san francisco. i've watched your progress and serve as to presidents, one

republican, one democrat. i've watched your extraordinary integrity and i've watched you remove the fbi from certain interrogations' having to do with the detainees when you didn't think was appropriate. i consider you to be a man of high integrity and very strong values and i think that you brought that also and strengthened it in the organization you represent. you look young and vital to me. >> that's good. i want to have a talk with you about these two programs because i go front and center with them as the chair of the intelligence committee of the senate. and you know, we have looked and tried to provide the oversight and see that they follow the law. we have a classified briefing and i will say one thing about

it for 47 members and have the former chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance core there to explain how the core proceeds. i believe it is legal phone record data, not the names but the data only 22 people have access to it and it was in grade approximately 300 times only this past year. you yourself mentioned helped at ten to 12% of the 50 cases where they have set the unmasking now for a qualitative judgment to buy and i've made my and. how do you judge the ten to 12% as highly worth it or not worth

it? >> i think it's very difficult to judge a program in a particular way particularly the will give you the key to preventing a terrorist attack and how one lead you have how that making love in the same place. which of those is going to be the one to help you disrupt the plot? in my mind, the communications to devotees of terrorists is the weakest link to it if we are to prevent terrorist attacks, we have to know and be in the communications. having the ability to identify a person in the united states, one telephone number where the intelligence community lies on in yemen or somalia, pakistan what have you, that a boston attack or about 9/11. and some of the one hand yes it

is relevant evidence and critically important that we have that link, and then the question is when you legislate it and you have this fast record how do you appropriately give oversight to the justice department to come in the national security division and the inspector general's office through the fisa courts and congress. they want to make sure that these are legal and effective and that there is an appropriate oversight because it does raise national security and civil liberties concerns. but once you get that and identify it, then are you going to take the botts off the table and make them unavailable to you when you are trying to prevent the terrorist attack and that is a question for congress. >> the way that i looked at it is that this was an attack which could have killed hundreds if not thousands of people, that he

wasn't going to be the lone perpetrator, we know that there were at least two conspirators who were going to participate. we know about other things that show that there were going to be more people and it seems to me that if we were not able to protect it and the new york subway or will not in a number of different places with hundreds of people or thousands of people literally being killed there would be no question as to its value and worth. i have come to believe that the only way that we prevent these attacks is a good intelligence. how do you get good intelligence when it likely one of the conspirators is in another country connected with a terrorist group and one is in this country prepared to carry out. so, to me the value of those

programs in preventing loss of life in this country is substantial. here is the question because you have that ten to 12%, do you think you would be possible not to collect the data base, but to be able to and query data base if the time for keeping that database was extended to five years with the phone companies? >> i know keith alexander and others are looking at the possibility of restructuring the program in this way. in my mind there are two disadvantages, me beebee three. there is no records retention requirement on telephone companies at this point, and they are all over the lot. some may do this in 18 months and maybe less or more. in that database they keep will be those numbers that are calling of a suspect numbers overseas. second, if you have a number in

yen in the would require you to go to three or four or five or six particular carriers with separate legal paper and require them to come and pick up what they have collected and are keeping and get back to you. the point being it will take an awful long time and in this particular erie when you are trying to prevent terrorist attacks, when you want is that information as to whether or not that number is in contact with somebody in the united states almost instantaneously to prevent the attack. you cannot wait six months, three months, a year to be built collate that and put it together. those are the concerns i have about an alternative way of handling this. islamic let me ask you this is it ten or 12 cases or ten or 12%? >> we have ten or 12 cases. i'm not certain whether all of them are to 15. they are a combination or one or the other. >> thank you.

one other quick question. if people are concerned about privacy, i think the greatest threat to the privacy of americans is the drone and the use of the drone and the very few regulations that are on it today and the booming industry of commercial drones. you mentioned that you use it for surveillance. what are the privacy structures on the use of drones buying your agency today? >> it is seldom used in a particular incident where you need the capability to the bible have to go back and check in terms of what we need in the images and the like. it is very narrowly focused on the particular cases and particular needs and particular cases and that is the principal of privacy limitations.

>> i would like to get that information. it would be helpful to us. thank you very much. senator hatch. >> thank you, madam chairman. while i came here today basically to thank you for your service, i also want to thank senator feinstein for her kind of remarks about you. senator feinstein has done an excellent job on the intelligence community. up until i left a few years ago, i believe i was the longest serving person in history on the intelligence committee so i am fully aware of these matters and all i can say is i want to pay tribute to you, general alexander and others in the intelligence community and the fbi for the work that you've done to protect our country and these problems that really could have been very disastrous had we not had the of devotees that you have been describing here today.

but i also interpersonally think you for the terrific service that you have given. i watch you very carefully kid i've been chairman of this committee and ranking member on this committee. i just have to say that i don't know that we have never had an fbi director as good as you are, and frankly every one of us has confidence in you and your ability and your integrity. that's a pretty high comment because -- and it's meant very sincerely. i've watched you over the years and the fbi do the job that in many ways they never get fined for and in many ways people don't know about it. it is a thankless job in many ways and you have given almost all of years of your life to this type of work. i just want to personally tell you how much i personally

appreciate you and appreciate the fbi and those of us have served for all these years. i wish you the very best when you finally do hang them up here and i think that all of us or at least i can speak for most all of last we just think that you were terrific. i won't take any more time, but i just wanted to make sure that i let you know how deeply i feel towards you and the fbi who's been doing a great job all these years. thank you come senator you shared my confirmation committee hearing. i will forget that -- and number of years ago. i've been lucky and fortunate to have the opportunity to do this job. thank you for the comments. >> you've done a great job. >> thank you senator hatch. senator klobuchar is next. i do not see her. senator frank and is not here. senator sessions?

>> those or kind comments, director. i would echo you know my admiration for you as a professional is exceedingly high. you came to the office with the kind of skills and experiences that others have noted that gave you an opportunity to be very, very effective in this important position. so i really salute you for that and your integrity is undoubted and your experience and of a love of your country. so i want to join in my comments in that regard. there are so many things that are happening now. and i think the fbi needs to rise to the occasion. the fbi is such a premier investigative agency. i had the honor to prosecute cases brought to me by almost 15

years and i met with them personally for hours and weekends and nights and know how meticulously they work to do everything exactly right. when on your people have doubts come a great doubts sometimes about the integrity of the average cases and agents that i know, i know that is just not right. they try to do the right thing everyday. if they are involved in anything seriously wrong, disciplinable calls left. they can make mistakes, and congress sometimes creates circumstances that puts them in difficult positions and life is tough for agents out there but fundamentally day after day i have worked with fbi agents. they are personal friends of mine and they remain so for decades and i just want to share those thoughts. maybe you would like to comment

about the fed devotee of your agents. >> you aren't going to find a better group of people to serve with. the testimony was most firmly felt when i was a new person in the institution in the week of september 11th and the organization of every analyst and professional support staff worked flawlessly in response to that and just indicative of the capabilities and the quality of the people. >> i agree. director mueller, one of the big matters before the nation today is the irs scandal involving the actions that have been taken to target conservatives and tea party groups. so it happens, and i know that becky on the tea party testified in the house committee, and she

was a normal housewife, american citizen who got deeply engaged in trying to make the country better. she loves the country. she was trying to do the right thing. and i believe that the irs didn't perform and handle their applications for status correctly. i believe it is a very serious matter and i am concerned about it. you asked last week about this as to whether or not the potential victims of these abuses have been interviewed and i think that you said no. i believe on may 14th the attorney general said that ann investigation had been.

is that the lead agency on the matter? >> yes. some of you designate agents in charge of that investigation? >> yes, i have. >> did i ask before whether you knew the names of those what if any had been assigned to it? >> i can say over a dozen agents have been assigned. i can tell you that it falls in the purview of valerie who is the assistant director in charge of our washington office in charge of this investigation of the field level but we also have people with headquarters who are monitoring it. i cannot tell you who in the course of the investigation has been interviewed. i will tell you before we initiated the investigation if, and when we did come get complaints, those individuals were interviewed before we even initiated a investigation and they would be the victims to which you.

>> the fbi is the right agency in my opinion without question shouldn't be internal irs, ig or others. and you have the independence to do that effectively. and i believe you can do that pitted but i called her this morning. and see what happens we were discussing with a lawyer and they said they had been talking to other so-called potential victims and none of them had been interviewed, none of them had been contacted about an interview, even the department set up with them. i think that is pretty slow. i think the first thing that you do from my experience is interview the people and find out what conversations they had, what documents they had, with the basic parameters of the problem are and get busy on it. do you think -- it seems to me that you are running behind here. what would you say about that? >> i'm not familiar with the

details of the investigation. quote obviously given what you said i would go back and see what that is but also these investigations, one of the first things you do as a prosecutor is have the record so that when you do the interviews come you have the requisite materials so that you can do an effective interview. hypothesizing because i don't know what's happening about bill will look to in particular is being interviewed. >> i think it's too slow and i think you can always have a chance we are getting our records together and reviewing some. somebody needs to go out and find out what the problem is, talk to the people and see what the problem is first. >> there is a sense of urgency in the investigation that is and languishing. >> i would share with senator grassley the deep concern that this immigration bill would save

passports which you should be aware of and the need to be on top of only those who produce, issue or distribute three or more passports have committed a crime. under the bill only those that for deutsch and possess three or more passports will have committed a crime to the only those that use any official material to make ten or more passports will have committed a crime during a i hope that you would look at that and we would like the fbi's at fais if this makes it more difficult to produce integrity in the passport processing business. would you look at that? >> yes, will do. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and director mueller for your wonderful service the last 12 years and the work that you've done in minnesota. and i think the nation was riveted with the work that you did in your agents did with boston.

thank you. i also noticed there were atf agents, going to start with that. we had a hearing for the president's nominee for the head of the atf. it would be helpful to have a permanent head of the atf. >> i think it is beneficial for them to have a head of the atf. >> since the position became confirmed are you aware that this congress has not ever confirmed anyone for the job? >> i understanding that. >> and one of the ideas put out there if they are simply not going to or they are unable to get bipartisan support for a nominee to put us over the top so we would get a confirmed nominee, senator durbin's idea to put batf under the of the body if, for a number of years, it goes without getting a confirmed director. what would you think of that idea? >> it's something the would require a great deal of study. and before one wanted to embark on some sort of a writer.

>> we are the point we have 2400 agents who deserve to have a permanent head. just as your agents have a permanent head and i'm hopeful we will be a will to get this done but i wanted to put that out there for your people to think about because we are sort of left with the hope of the confirmation ahead but if that doesn't happen we have to think of other ways to get this done. on this issue i would appreciate comments earlier but i think that was to chairman lee e. about supporting a declassifying were working to do that some of the fisa opinions. is that correct? >> i've not been asked about the fisa opinions in particular. we were talking about is the examples whether to 15 or 702 had been used. my understanding their ways that the odni is looking at classification with regard to the court orders if that is what >>hat's what i meant.

do you think that can work? >> there was testimony in yesterday's hearing before the house and i would regard to the ongoing process and i would have to refer to the odni for an answer on that. >> i appreciate the information that's been put out to show the number of terrorist attacks that have been averted and it's important for the public to understand exactly what is going on here and get the facts right about the numbers. can you talk about and maybe defer this to another time that the various tracks on the process for the data collection and analysis that people understand what protect privacy. >> certainly if you look at 215, the significant figures that you do have a database it has met at eight and the numbers do not have any information with regard to who has those particular numbers, no content. you have 22 persons who have access to this to run the name,

not the names of the numbers against the database, 20 analysts and the supervisors. there were only 300 inquiries, approximately 300 our meeting at the base. you then have overlapping and the overlay of oversight from the department of justice and the ig's office, the court one to 15 every 90 days and that finally the oversight from congress to get sick each of the three branches of government have a role in assuring the privacy interests are protected and that the other hand you have a strong possibility and in actuality that in some cases this has been instrumental in a contributing to the prevention of terrorist attacks. >> thank you. another issue that we talked about is a problem of synthetic drugs. we have had the deaths and a huge increase in the number of calls to the poison control and others and as you know we pass legislation targeting certain of

the synthetic drugs, but i believe that there is still more work to be done and working on the so-called analog provision that we could do more with that. can you update us on the general synthetics stayed in the u.s. and how the provisions we pass what more you think we can do. >> the last part of your question as to what more we can do it isn't. we are further on the list. >> we are working on these issues and continue to see that it hasn't gone away. we want to put it on your radar screen working on a bill.

throughout the issues i know we talked about the high-tech issue and you said you believe the fbi must change with the technology to better address the criminal and national security threats. what is the fbi currently doing to keep up with the changes and technology? >> we understand we have to have a basic knowledge of technology to conduct investigations in this age to the extent you need to be refreshed on where we are in order to do our job. it is getting a greater training. our specialists have more than a thousand personnel and of the country that are specialists in this particular area. but what we i think the key for us is the one ncigtf

investigative task force followed after september 11th understanding we can't do it alone having a task force concept where you have all of the major players in the cyber arena participating savitt there is a substantial intrusion we immediately have those that would be involved in the dhs try to determine how to address it is critically important. the other thing we've done and put a great deal of focus on is work with private industry providing information to private industry with so they can protect their networks. a growing internally and then building our capacity with the private sector in the areas we have been focusing on. >> thank you very much for your service. >> thank you senator klobuchar petraeus senator cruce. >> director mueller come it's

good to see you. thank you for testifying. you have known each other long time, a dozen years ago you were my boss at the department of justice to make any mistakes held you will be harmless. >> let me also echo the comments of colleagues on line on both sides of the dial. thank you for your service and integrity. you have spent many decades on public service focused on law enforcement, and indeed all i recall when we were working together that a part of justice almost every day in the morning staff meeting the question that he would ask is essentially are wheel locking up bad guys and i appreciate that focus to protecting the innocent and going after bad guys and thank you for a lifetime service. i want to talk about to topics

that are of sycophant importance. the first is the irs and i want to echo some of the concerns senator sessions raised about the groups that we know that were targeted by the irs and reporting that they had yet to be contacted were interviewed by the fbi to the as you know in any investigation that is in a highly politicized climate that involves potentially corruption and political interference from the white house, the investigation is a perilous endeavor, and an endeavor of significant importance to the populace to date i want to ask what level of priority would you characterize the investigation at the fbi? >> i would say it's a high priority investigation and that there are -- it needs to be

handled with care but it also needs to be pushed aggressively because of a very important case as you are aware we will work together and pull no punches in terms of where that investigation would lead to the it and we would go down any path that would lead to evidence on individuals, organizations or otherwise. we are in the process of doing that. we have substantial i think numbers in terms of those that are working day in and day out on the investigation both internally and the fbi but also with support from the per ton of justice where we need legal process. again i have to get back to you in terms as i said to senator sessions in the case and progress of the interview but i am aware of the ongoing

investigation. and i do believe that we have moved expeditiously during the period of time in about a month now to read and become the agents or other personal? >> approximately 12 agents working on it but also the agents designated about the country because of the bread of the investigation and who will be working on it. depending where the investigation takes us around the country. it's been a i want to ask additionally if the scope of the investigation includes looking into whether individuals have been publicly targeted. i can tell you that we are hearing more and more anecdotal reports not just of tea party groups or conservative groups that were delayed or targeted in the applications that the donors that supported governor romney in the campaign to support of

republicans who found within weeks or months they were targeted. those are very difficult questions to answer if there is a pattern of doing so because they are not generally public but do you know if the scope included individuals for the irs? >> i think that you can understand because it is an ongoing investigation i am leery about delving into much more about what is happening in the course of the investigation. all i can do is assure you and you know me i will push it wherever it goes to the estimate i would certainly urge the fbi not to circumscribe the scope because the last time there was an instance of an administration trying to use the irs to target political enemies and was the nixon administration and lead to grave consequences. and i think that the fbi is well

situated to pursue a serious and an impartial fair and yet vigorous investigation of whatever the scope of conduct and illegal conduct may have been. >> i want to talk about a second topic briefly which is i am concerned this priority and more on terror have been misallocated and that the administration has been less than a vigorous at protecting the civil liberties and constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. the administration has been less than effective in investigating and going after the real why of terrorists and a concern in particular is that those of the fbi have been unduly constrained and ufed and i would point

to two instances. one, the fort hood shooting where we have with major hassan in a credible evidence including e-mails with anwar al-awlaki talking about killing other service members. the fbi was aware of that and yet we failed to stop that terrorist attack. likewise with the boston bombing we had considerable evidence with the tsarnaev brothers with of their islamic views, their advocacy of those views. we had reports from russia that we failed to stop the attack. in your view why is it that law enforcement wasn't able to connect the dots with fort hood and boston and prevent those attacks before hand and what policies have changed under the obama administration concerning

the investigation of radical islamic terrorists? >> in meter case with it before and hood or in the boston case there were policies that inhibited us from doing our job, i would tell you in the fort hood case, prior to the time of fort hood, al-aulaqi was seen as a proselytizer, a radical imam but wasn't known to have engaged in operational activities. consequently, we didn't look at the prism. have we done so other steps would have been taken. there were judgment calls made for instance whether you interviewed hassan and in retrospect it could have gone the of the way that i do not think that there were any constraints, statutory or

otherwise that enabled us or disenabled us from doing the job. in the case of boston, yes we were alerted by the russians to tamerlan's movement toward radicalization of an expectation from the russians he was being radicalized and wouldn't be going back to russia to fight with perhaps the chechens. they alerted to us they wanted us to do whatever investigation we could or alert the russians when tamerlan went back to russia. we did an investigation based on what they gave us and that investigation required going to the university or the college for a period of time, interviewed his parents and interviewed him and did i think a very rational and responsible and for noinvestigation given the information we had. he then goes back to russia and

then what we did not do, which we are going to do in the future and that is the text alerts that come in to the task force have to be identified to a particular person as opposed to just coming into a task force. in any event, there is nothing that comes during our investigation at the outset in 2011. and in my mind and even if we had done one or two things that in retrospect we could have done better i do not think we would have been able to stop that particular at tak. but i do not believe that we were in any way constrained from doing the investigation that we felt necessary once we have the investigation. >> i was at a hearing and sorry i missed -- i hope i don't ask

things that have been asked the questions are still relevant. first of all i just want to thank you for your service, mr. director. i believe our country is a safer place because of your steady leadership and you will be missed. on the subject of the surveillance programs when other colleagues have been discussing. i believe the government must give proper weight to boast to the cover of keeping america's safe from terrorists and protecting privacy and part of leaving that probably is making sure that there is enough transparency.

so they understand the protections that are in place. they have reasonable safeguards and i believe the government needs to be more transparent with these programs. it's consistent with national security, and i believe that the government can and should provide the information in a way that doesn't compromise our security. if you think that the government could be more transparent in the american public about these surveillance programs in a way that is consistent with national security. >> the two levels of transport and see, first is transparency throughout the government and

transparency to the court and to the congress and given the briefings and the like i think there was transparency to those elements to be when you talked about transparency to the american public, there is -- you are going to give up something and you are going to give signals to the adversaries as to what our capabilities are and the more specific you get about the program, the more specific you get it up the oversight, the more specific you get about the capability and success of people sitting around singing now i can understand what can be done with our members in yemen and the united states and i have to find another way to communicate and i'm going to keep that in my mind is that there is a price to be paid for that transparency where the line is drawn in terms of identifying with the capabilities are is out of our hands. you tell us to do it one way that there is a price to be paid for that transparency. >> and that is the question.

to do these programs you need the trust of the people. and of course, this all changes s 's why we had obviously seen the nsa to be more forthcoming with that kind of transparency that i have been asking for. i want to ask specifically that section 215 on the patriot act and to live on medved data. importantly by statute on the fbi has the authority to request business records under to 15. it's not the director of national intelligence, not the attorney general it's the director of the fbi. last week director clapper declassified the fact that the telephone data can be increased

only when there is a reasonable suspicion based on specific facts that the particular basis is associated with a foreign terrorist organization. you also declassified the fact that in 2012 the database was searched only 300 times. this is the kind of information that i think the american public benefits from knowing that can build for their trust between the public and the government. do you think that kind of information would be compromising before the disclosure? >> that could be with what our capabilities are. the specificity that the dialogue would have to on a particular program it doesn't talk about all of the oversight and it doesn't talk about all of

the tough constraints on how the program operates in. at this particular point in time, generally, no pity it educates the person as i say about our capabilities and makes it that much harder to prevent the next terrorist attack. they are the soft underbelly of the terrorists. we can't intercept those communications to that extent we can prevent terrorist attacks. they want to prevent that attack. >> i understand your view on that. >> five co-sponsored bipartisan

legislation to release with national security. i'm asking your judgment on this. the court opinions interpreting the key provisions and the patriot act and the fisa and intelligence surveillance act i think what's hard here is that it's hard for americans to the date when it is kind of secret. do youbelieve that the american people would gain the trust and the benefit perhaps from the redacted version of these decisions and opinions by the court? >> let me start by saying by a understand the frustration. you're right.

the american people are frustrated and may be frustrated not having access to the particular theories that are espoused in those opinions. i do know that the odni is looking at the possibility of releasing the redacted copies. the lawyer spoke yesterday at the hearing and indicated that they are reviewing at least the key opinions with regard to the 215 and the seven note to to see whether that could be accomplished. so i would have to defer on that. >> and again that is on them already been disclosed to the suspect the opinions haven't been disclosed the program is being disclosed. >> yes. >> thank you. since this may be the last time you testified i again want to thank you for your steadfast leadership and your service. >> thank you. >> senator lee.

>> thank you mr. chairman and for your service to the country. with respect to section 215 of the patriot act, is it the bureau's practice to request records or other tangible things related to americans that they themselves are not relevant to an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities? >> i'm not certain that i and extend the question. are you talking -- >> what are the applicants on the 215 orders. >> dalia understand. you are the applicant when you make your application is it to request things that are not relevant to the investigation and other words do you confine your request to those things that are related to an investigation or are the broader

than that? >> in the context of the application to the court and the court's finding defies relevance in that particular context. as we talked about and we have discussed the last two weeks i would have to direct you to the orders. i know they are not published but the fact that the court has ruled the gathering of the data satisfies the relevant definition within the statute. >> so with that understanding that you necessarily do cover a lot of data that itself is not closely tied to an investigation you can understand why a lot of people would be concerned and have additional concerns but not only would have secret data

gathering activities going on but also that they are undertaken pursuant to this secret all and orders that the american people can have access to. but if as we have been told it is necessary for the government to collect and store vast quantities of information and putting information on americans that is in itself related to foreign intelligence for ticker resume investigations -- >> are you talking about the medved data -- meta data a lot of people have concerns but if any limited principles there are that would prevent the government from ultimately storing all information about all americans, meaning just collecting more and more of the data and holding it for long periods of time and in some perpetuity.does the part of juss

the fbi have a view on the constitutionality of gathering information and storing it so long as it doesn't perform and queries on that information? >> i think i understand the broad question. the justice department believes that the program in place has been upheld by the court is constitutionally there is a discrete set fact with the predictions on privacy that in the department of justice and the fisa court believe that absolutely is constitutional. semidey you sympathize with those that say it is mehdi i and you can collect that quantity stored for a long period of time and that it can later be surge causes it brings about a certain intrusion on privacy pity even if it is a privacy intrusion not

permissible in court. >> as you know better than most it isn't protected by the fourth amendment say yes without a question of a doubt privacy concerns that there are dennis privacy concerns compared to just about any other intrusion as you get more private haitian and in fact it is at the bottom level. do i think that it's say -- would be concerning to know this? absolutely which is why i do believe that it's important that this is not held by not just the department of justice and not just necessarily just by the inspectors general but also by the court and congress. >> i think it's important to remember also that the president decided is decades old and it didn't deal with the sheer volume of the medved data that we are talking about in the technologies that are at an issue now didn't exist then and

certainly were not even contemplated then. and the more that you aggregate the large quantities of the medved data potentially on every single american citizen and you get someone within the executive branch of government the power to search all of that you do give them a broad view into the lives of the american people. the more data that you get, the more you add to that even if any one of those points might be itself insignificant don't you think you start to approximate the point that you breach the expectation of privacy? >> i certainly believe there probably is a scale come in yes but it's the same dialogue we had 20 or 30 years ago about a telephone records. it's the same debate all be at the post of the telephone records that you have pretty much the same piece of data in

every case, so i would argue that even though it is not exactly the same as the telephone record, the proposition that was not acknowledged by the supreme court and smith versus maryland is applicable today. >> do we have comparable data, the capacity to gather, analyze and store in perpetuity and that kind of medved data with every single american citizen at that point? >> it would have been tremendously burdensome to do so at that point. you could do it but it would be ineffective. one of the differences today compared to 20 years ago it was in the telephone company's interest to maintain the telephone data because the mill billing was based on the telephone poll data. today that is no longer the case. in fact the telephone companies see it as a storage burden and consequently that information that was there in a telephone

company is 20 years ago may not be there today paid absent to 15. >> thank you very much, director putative i see my time is expired. thank you. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join my colleagues and thinking you for your service and extend my aloha to you and your future endeavors. i appreciate the fact that this kind of data that's collected particularly under section 205 could be helpful in connecting the dots and yes it is hard to figure now which might be the critical lot that helps you fill a plot could i have a question to the best of your knowledge what are the costs of collecting and storing data gathered under section 205 and 700 to? both your agency as well as the nsa? >> he would have to turn to the

nsa. i'm not familiar with what it costs. >> what about your department? >> we don't use the storage. nsa stores the two entered 15 data. >> what about the collecting part? >> the collecting? the order directs that the data goes to the nsa. >> while you are the applicant for the data come it is the nsa that i should ask about the costs of tended to the data collection. do you know how long the data collected is that? >> just five years. if you think it should be longer? >> i don't think it should be shorter. >> the prosecutions in the indian country you talked about that briefly in your testimony. the department of justice issued a report on investigations and prosecutions in the country

during 2011 and 2012 and this is a report mandated by the tribal law and order act of 2010 and it seems that while there's been a noticeable increase in the number of violent crimes prosecuted, those figures do not reflect that one-third of all reported in the in country crimes would close administratively by the fbi before they've ever reached a formal referral stage and the approximate 80% of those investigations that more administratively closed or violent crime related to the and can you shed some light on the reasons why so many fbi and the in country investigations were closed before the referral and ways in which your department can better interest and investigate violent crimes in the andean countries which is still a very big problem. >> i think that we all understand it is a very big problem and i know the

department of justice in particular the attorney-general and deputy attorney general this is one of their substantial priorities which is why you need an increase of prosecutions in the andean countries to i will have to get back to you on the figures related to the administrative closures. i'm not certain if there has been an uptick in the administrative closures why then is there. it may be consistent with the fact that we have done additional prosecutions with additional prosecutions and scrutiny of the underlying case which is the result of the administrative closures and i might just be speculating getting backed to you on the issue. >> this is a major issue in the indian country and i realize in this report. i'm curious to know why commesso can you provide that to the committee? >> senator feinstein had a

concern about the use of drones and particularly with regard to the use of the drums beat come drones by the sector to we have anything governing the use of drones by the private sector and? >> i'm not aware of any. >> should we think about legislation to protect individuals' privacy with regards to the use of drums by the private sector? >> i think there are a number of issues to be debated in the future as they become more present, not the least of which is drones in space and the concerns you have on that but also the threat on privacy. we already have to an extent a body of law that relates to the aerial surveillance and privacy relating to helicopters and small aircraft for the like which could be adopted to the

use of drones but it's still in its nascent stages that it's worthy of debate and perhaps the legislation down the road -- >> the hearing we have been one of the kennedys, and i think it was this one, where these drones can be very tiny but still a lot of data and there could be cameras on it and i think that this is a burgeoning concern for many of us. with regard to the data that is collected under section two will five in particular the millions and millions of pieces of information collected, the indicated that there were 300 inquiries that were made with regards to the data and they have to forward those to you tend to 12 cases were referred to you? >> avaya refer them to us when the heavy u.s. number that comes out.

>> i'm having some difficulty understanding what the process is, what they do with all this information, where you come and. there is a nexus between the nsa looking at the data and then forwarding it to you say ten to 12 cases where they see further investigation needs to occur so what happens to all of these other cases and other numbers that were increased by the nsa? >> when you talk about ten to 12 cases, these are cases where the identification of a number lead to a terrorist case or corroborated other information that we had in the terrorist case. but if you have nsa on a number in yemen for instance, and they want to know who from the united states is in contact with that number, you have that nu in yemen and they take that number

and run it against the database of numbers to see whether there is any number in the united states contending that number in yemen and when it comes out, we mentioned a couple examples here, say in san diego they refer to us and say there is a number in san diego that is in contact with this number in yemen which is terrorist related ..

>> had we had that program in place, we might as well have picked up on this. >> in your view, there are literally billions of pieces of information collected each day. and in your view, the possibilities justify this kind of data collection? >> given all of the constraints of the program and all of the constraints, it is the program as a whole, not just the fact of the accumulations but how it is handled and what kind of information comes from it. i was asked earlier today why did we not miss boston or for that. it can be one piece of information that comes out of it that would prevent the attack. people would say the we were not

sufficiently attentive to the e-mail traffic of the terrorists so to the extent that this provides how we can figure out how to break the case. >> i certainly understand that. >> senator? >> thank you. i just want to echo the sentiments of my colleague. i want to thank you for your long and dedicated service. i was fortunate to be on the judiciary committee of the house. i thank you for your candor in

this case come all of the questions have been asked to your credit and answered as well. i have some questions with regard to information being held and how much you have answered this question. but there was one thing i wanted to ask with regard to this. 215 has been around since 2001. >> i think since 2007. >> okay. how has the legal interpretation , with 215, what kind of standard is applied and has that changed over time since 2007 or perhaps a for? >> i am not sure.

yes, the justice department has made applications. it is not just the justice department. this is an opinion saying that this is an appropriate interpretation of 215. >> one question. you would hold it for five years, saying that if it has not been cleared or minimized then you get rid of it. but that is a query and it is minimized when appropriate. i assume that can be queried again and again during the five-year period. and you say like last year it was queried about 300 times. it is the same information, basically. the same database.

the same metadata that is clear again and again. you may have a number called and for instance, amid the telephone number and the call made to san diego, for example, like back in earlier 2000. so you need to that number in that database for the year before in order to tie in the particular number to the terrorist number in yemen. so it gives us the database for you. lack of time, which has the relevant information in it. if you go to one of the providers, they keep it for six

months including how things are when we have verified your database. >> figure. your service will end in september? >> guest. >> what advice would you give to this body in terms of what changes are needed and how we handle situations like this? obviously this came as a shock to most of the country. but this kind of data was being collected in terms of concerns and i share them. about two much information being out there. what is the proper balance to inform or to keep the citizens aware enough that their rights

and civil liberties are protected. but that we are also giving dear appropriate federal agencies the tools that they need to thwart attacks. is there any advice that you would give it you haven't given before? >> no, the only thing is that the levels of transparency in this particular case, it was not only the department of justice, not only inspector general reports on this particular programs, but the pfizer court and congress and various committees in congress, to the extent that each of those entities are brought in the loop and no one is able to question to a certain extent that these entities have coverage. the american public has to put some faith in these institutions. you're always going to have

those areas of unclassified areas where it doesn't make any difference whether it is cyberor the military or the intelligence like this in disclosing our secrets. it will make us more formidable. and there is always going to be a level of frustration. the only other thing i would say that there is going to be additional terrorist attacks. one of the most debilitating things for those of us in our position. those to try to attack. you are immediately attacked as well for why didn't you do more. so we always believed regardless of the attack that it is incumbent upon us and others to go back and do what we could've done better. but the tone of how you do that and the way in which you do it would be helpful to those of us who worry about this day and

night. >> thank you. thank you for your service. >> senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman great director, thank you so much for your service. i have enjoyed working with you over the years. i recall in particular when you arrived with the fbi after 9/11. i took note that the computer system for law enforcement and united states of america on 9/11 is as archaic as anything that anyone could imagine. a system that we inherited that the fbi had no access to the internet or word search capability and once unable to transmit materials and documents. the photographs of the suspected terrorists were sent to the fbi offices across america by overnight mail because they could not be sent by the

computer system that you inherited. we had many conversations. some attempts and some missteps that tell me today, where are we today, 12 years later in terms of the computer system and agencies. >> we have gone over the hot point in terms of the computer systems. we have the computer system has been operating for the last two years and it's good in terms of case management. many of the other programs we have not only upgraded but are now incorporating in a much more effective network. but i will tell you it was one of the most frustrating aspects of the job. trying to adapt new technologies an institution that has unique business practices. and to modify those business practices at the same time agra.

at the same time you're trying to that new technology. particularly with the kind of contracting mechanisms up in the federal government were at the end of the five-year contract things are going to change, technologies are going to come along. the fact of the matter there is very little room in the contract for any ability to change to adapt to the times. if you have seen, i are very much remember being in a intelligence operations room and in boston, we're back to the same place and there is not a piece of paper to be seen. and also to the creditor of the bureau, the ability to identify those two individuals in boston within 48 hours after it occurred, utilizing various technologies in the laboratories of there. i think it is testament to the

fact in testament to the fact that we have come a long ways to go. >> let me just say for the record that in addition to bringing integrity to the position in which you have, in addition to helping keep america safe with an extraordinary degree of success. i think that your legacy will include the information technology available in your department is now meeting 21st century standards. when you inherited it, it was a creation of unique business practices and i think you have been very kind in the characterization. >> may add one thing. we are okay today. but as you know, technology cost money.

. >> we would like to know how this database will be put together. >> our standard is the collection to workers. >> the standard we are talking about is the identification of the selector that you're going to run against the database of records. if we were to retain the records for five years and you have access through the agencies and processes common to access those records for government purposes, if there is a suspicion, would that meet the needs of

collecting the information to keep us safe? >> not in the same way that the program does now for several reasons. first of all, you have to go to a number of telephone companies preview have to get legal processes. then you have to hope that those telephone companies have some retentions of record keeping capabilities. i can assure you that it has not been five years. >> not today? >> not today. >> it could be required of them. i am not saying that it couldn't be done. but you are asking if there is a distinction between today and how you propose what the downside is, the time it would take two survey, the time it would take for them to get it. and every one of these cases, time is of the essence. you do not want to have to delay six months or a year to get the information to prevent the next terrorist attack.

>> we certainly wish you the best. >> okay, so on this subject, it is good to see you. >> thank you. >> three topics i would like to touch on. the first has to do with the investigation into the conduct of dirs the background to it is the tax laws have allowed you to form up a charity in section 501 c3. but if you want a lobby, you have to warm up under 501 c4. then if you want an election coming you have to form a super pac. the difference between a 501 c3 and a super pac is that it is required to identify donors.

what developed was a pattern of folks filing as a 501 c3's, but then going out and electioneering as if they were a super pac. the problem with doing that is that there is a place on the form when you file for a 501 c4, it requires you to insert and avert under a that you will not seek to influence elections and so forth. so there appears to me, we had a hearing on the committee about this. we had a case for 181,001 statement violations based upon would appear on the surface.

this appears that there are false statements made under oath to government agencies for the purpose of missed representing the 501 c4. that never comes to the fbi because there is an agreement between the department of justice and the irs that unless the irs says so, we are not going to look at it. and i think be applicants of the 501 c3 were being intimidated because there is some very powerful people on both sides of the idle behind the 501 c4 problem. so i really hope that as we are looking at the question, the irs question, part of what you are looking at is whether or not it is really a plane but no less a

false statement. something we should turn away from because the irs has not yet diverted. i hope you'll consider that question is the irs moves forward. it may not be the kind of question the moves towards a charge. it may not be purely investigative. but i do think it is an important policy question. i think it is important for the american people to know that when people are doing something that appears that way subject to rigorous investigation, it appears to be a flagrant false statement. the answer from the government is that it was not referred to us in the right way. and it isn't a very convincing answer to what appears to be a fairly blatant criminal act. so i would like to ask your comment on that, if that is something that you will consider as part of this.

>> i'm not familiar with any such agreement. i would have to look at that and discuss it. >> okay. we can get back to that later. but recently, some of the department of justice folks and the office of management and budget, as they try to figure out how to figure out prosecutorial law enforcement resources should be structured to focus on the cyberproblem. and in the time that i have been in the senate, for six years now, i have watched that administrative structure really almost every year to something that is new and different. and i have had gone to some of the facilities and i'm applauding how impressed the fbi is to keep track of who's coming in the doors and windows. trying to get the companies that

are being attacked and having their intellectual property stolen. but it has not resulted in one of prosecutions it is part of a pure industrial espen nagy, cybersecurity attacks from outside of the country on american companies. there is always something involved, a seedy pickup something involved. it is a question and i think this is a boom area that has to do with the nsa in the department of defense and its acute vulnerability. but i know that you are on the

way out. i hope that one of your department of justice to the bureau will be that we need to keep looking forward to see what a structure should be to take on this threat in the years ahead. i don't think we're there yet. i think have made progress and we are in a state of constant flux as we try to adapt. as we the biggest transferring wealth -- basically they are stealing our transnational multinational criminal components as well. i hope that you guys have an open mind and we are detailed to look for what it is looking like

down the road. what is this down the road and i know it is a mad scramble and it is hard to kind of pop your head up out of the day-to-day fight and plan ahead. but i think that that would be a good legacy for you to leave. to look forward and what they should be like five or 10 years from now. >> the focus has been over the last year in a variety of ways. and we have to put our own house in order first. we are doing that. but we have two adopted over the next several years, addressing itself with more specificity in particular ice threats that have been prioritized in which we will see a substantial one. we now have the

counterintelligence like this. our organizational structure is worked into this threat-based structure as opposed to a program organizational structure. we have to continue to do that. one of the focal points have to do it my firm belief that we have to have people at the table at the outset and determine national security and what have you. but you that you need all of the facts and information. you need him on the table regardless of the classification side because there is something that can happen on the criminal manner. this will be the comparable facility. lastly, we are the private sector when we have our act

together. we have the general coalition with the exception of the nsa because of what they've done. but the rest of this can be relatively clear and low. and in my mind, you need partnerships and the private sector to come together and equip themselves to share information and setup conduits between the private sector and the federal government that will ensure privacy and also enable us to share information in ways that we have not done in the past. so i think that we are moving towards that structure. do we have another way to go. and until you we will have some discussions on the. >> good. the last point, and we have discussed this a little bit, but i would like to make the point that i do think that we over classified times. it is much easier to classify times and it is to are a whole

variety of reasons. some of them good, some of them not so good. classifying programs and materials. but it seems she the a lot of the stuff that has been said about the nsa programs and the support of them by the fbi could have been said before compromising those programs with significant respect. particularly the multiple checks and balances and the number of guards at the door to the ball before anybody can get any kind of information. both houses of congress being briefed on programs like this. inspectors general being independently accountable to the programs like these. internal oversight of the executive branch apart from the independent inspector general's and the rigor and frequency of

the audit is done for those programs. the fact that court judges are brought in to serve on the court and they have to sign off on these programs, you have a strong array of protections under our system of separating government did as one could possibly three, i believe. i don't know that a single stone has been left unturned in terms of putting eyeballs on to making sure that these programs were carefully used and never abused. so that kind of story, i think it is one that does not hurt us to get out first. before this. people knew that there were ways in which we were protecting ourselves and we could've sent generally without giving the details of these programs. americans privacy, we gos that

all in on making sure they're not shortcuts and only qualified people get it. so i think that the lesson from this going forward is that as much as there is a public interest in classification of a lot of this information, there is also a public interest in declassify it. in some cases, i would say that the declassification has exactly zero national security risks associated with it. it is kind of got swept up with a bunch of other stuff because the program was classified. we depend on you to do this because the senators are not the classifiers. the only way that we can declassify anything is so interesting that it's ever been used in the history of this intelligence committee and i would urge you to, i would urge you to speak through this as well. but i do think that we have a persistent focus on what could be declassified and what would

help for the foreseeable vents of the disclosure that would be a good policy to pursue. >> i understand your sentiments. i believe there's a price to be paid. we tend to think that people know and understand the internet around the world. but you have persons that want to undertake terrorist attacks without a full understanding. to the extent that you expose programs like this, we are educating them. we will be better educated and find better ways to communicate. we will not neglect to mutation. that is not to say that still shouldn't be on the other side. it is much easier to explain to the public we don't have the restrictions quite obviously is a classification. but i do think that there is a price to be played untranslated.

i would not underestimate us. this. i would not underestimate this price to be paid. not by a substantial disclosure. >> yes, i agree. i think we have to be very sensitive to that and particularly sensitive to that when we are talking about the mechanics of a particular program. because when we are telling the american people that if we do anything, here are the kind of procedures that were used. you would never tell anybody about an ongoing investigation but we tell everyone about the warrant requirement and minimization and the things that protect american security. that process is also classified when it comes to these nsa programs. and that is where we have to make some ground. >> this is the end of your first appearance before the committee. let me thank you very much.

you're made a lot of people proud. we are very glad to have the chance to work with you. >> is in him and women of the fbi to make a place run. as you and i both know, we have been in these positions. >> it is well said. thank you. >> coming up on c-span2, tea party activists protest the conservative political organizations. and pentagon officials testify about technical problems with the f-35 fighter jet.

leader, david cameron talks about members of the british parliament about the g8 summit. >> medicare trustees will give description of the medicare program. we will have the subcommittee on health morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later in the day, a senate panel will examine the security clearance process that determines who gets access to classified information. live coverage from the homeland security subcommittee begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> to go to gettysburg and to think about this charge, to think about the lives lost in the great battles before

fredericksburg in the wilderness and chancellor bill. all of it is this contradiction. >> i like to go to gettysburg to say to my fellow brothers, do we deserve this. do we deserve the sacrifice that we have. and are we living up to that. he we met the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live from gettysburg national military park on sunday, june 30, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern oa c-span3.

>> coming up next, the grounds of the u.s. capitol and audit of the irs rally. [applause] [cheers] [applause] [cheers] >> thank you. thank you for being here. >> we appreciate you understanding the founding pencils of the united states and we understand our freedoms and they do not come from the government.

this knowledge in the hands of free people is a threat to those who are lost for power and authority. patriots, you are making a difference, and it shows. [applause] >> the ruling would not have turned a blind eye and ignored us. instead, we transformed the irs into an agency. an agency that many people fear more than death into a weapon against us. they use that weapon to set their sights on us, the people

of america. because we want a better america. [cheers] [applause] they did all that they could with the first amendment rights by silencing her speech. stifling our assembly. and stopping our petitions. ours is a government that is too big and too powerful. we have a tax code that is 73,000 pages long. obamacare was 2000 pages and nearly 20,000 pages and regulations already. in only three years.

>> right now as we stand here today, many members of congress in the senate and the house of representatives are trying to pass another 1000. 2 reams of these pages of bills on amnesty and integration. this government is out of control. those are the ruling class of this entire district. these people are even trying to admit that they have these from obamacare they are sticking the

exchanges on us we are here to show that they are wrong. we will not allow them to dictate to us. we will not be intimidated. we will not be silenced. we will remind them where the law will be applied equally and fairly. gangster style government will not stand in america. instead, we are going to continue to do what they fear the most.

this includes these will create a better future for all americans. president ronald reagan said that his victory was attributed to a set of principles. principles were included heartbreaking defeats. we have so many reasons to be encouraged. we are listening to the stories of the unselfish principle fighters who were protecting and nurturing a principles and have

done so under the face of discrimination and targeting from government agencies. we stand today to fight for our freedom. together we will do what we set out to do 4.5 years ago. together, we will restore our freedom. we will restore our constitution. this is helping patriots that the irs is targeting to

congress. please welcome the wings ways and means chairman, david camp. >> thank you all for being here. thank you for loving america. thank you for being concerned about a government that has grown too big. and thank you for being concerned about the future. we are leaving our children and grandchildren's future. my committee, the ways and means committee has been trying to get answers for many irs individuals for more than two years. we are just starting to get some answers. conservatives had private confidential tax information.

as the press has reported, a worker in cincinnati was quoted as saying that we don't do anything here without direction. i am here today to commit to you that we will get the answers. [applause] [cheers] [applause] >> it will take time, but we will get the facts and we will follow them wherever they lead. jericho. [applause] >> we will get the truth and we will hold those responsible accountable. thank you and god bless you, god bless the united states of america congressman steve king has been fighting with us for the past four years.

we want to understand that people need to know the rule of law. please welcome congressman steve king. [cheers] [applause] [cheers] [applause] >> thank you for being out here. god bless you all for standing up for america. for american values, you know, the irs audited me one too many years ago. and i wonder why are they asking me for these questions. i went back out and i climbed into the seat of my old bulldozer and i thought, i'd like to get rid of the irs.

that is the part of freedom. how much money you make. so the irs now has gotten too intrusive. if this broad federal government can track every phone call, if they can track every internet activity and your credit card, if they can track your cell phone. if the irs that you can have this focus, we thought this is bigger than what it would ever get. [cheers] [applause] for at least 30 years, i have been for abolishing the irs and establishing a fair tax. [applause] [cheers] >> a national sales tax on sales and service to give back our freedom.

this includes uncle sam, and every time they do that, they are reminded of how expensive our federal government actually is. and we will turn the society and culture over. and we will raise generations of conservatives that is the freedom that our founding fathers envisioned for us and that is the freedom that we will get we stand against them. you can go to audit the irs.net. you can do that right now. we have auction items for even a little bit. on it, the irs.net.

the next speaker is a freshman congressman from north carolina and he has the irs verification bill. it will auditlcome congressman richard hudson. i'm fed up with the direction the country is headed. but i didn't know the half of it. they are spying on the ap and fox fox news reporters. a lot of up and ozzie has been reported. hillary clinton's spokeswoman help to cover it up. obama's department of defense has declared a terrorist attack

by someone as radical as the individual in fort hood, texas. they called it an insult. obama's energy department launched over 100 criminal prob. they warded accommodations to the fake alias. it is outrageous. president obama has included illegal appointments. one of them is even involved in an investigation. finally, the irs. we are here to talk about the iraq i are at and what they have done to target conservatives. we were fed up and we didn't

know the half of it. today we have to rededicate ourselves and we have to recommit ourselves to what we started with the first place about. which is reforming the tax code and saying enough is enough to washington dc. we have too much of the money, give me back my money. we have to recommit to that. [applause] the irs scandal has caught their imagination, now is the time. now is the time for us to leave from here and go out and continue to build this movement and put pressure on politicians who do not think like us. now is the time for reform and the time and today is the day.

>> my next speaker is a freshman from arizona. please ome congressman matt salmon. [cheers] [applause] >> i want to take your picture. they're only 12 people and a in a three legged dog showed up. [applause] [cheers] you are the heartbeat of america. you are why i am here. i served in congress from 1994 through 2000. i left voluntarily. because i don't believe it should be a career. i signed on to come back to get our government back on track again. i want to tell you something. if adhere strictly to article

one section eight of the constitution, we would balance the budget next week. that is what we need to do. [applause] >> john wayne was one of my childhood idols. one of the greatest americans. life is tough, but it's a lot tougher if you're stupid. the good news is that they asked lois lerner to leave the irs. but the bad news is that she is being hired at the nsa. it is a joke, it is a joke. to know thating.

there's a number of patriots that you helped to get here that believe that the constitution and the fact that we raised our right arm to square up the constitution is more important than anything else that we do. because of you, because of you every day, we get battle armor. i want to know that i will do everything within my power to try to rein in my corrupted government. the foxes in the henhouse. that is why send a letter. for myself and 36 other republican freshman. eric holder says we want independent counsel that is not influenced by this administration.

but i wanted to know that we are going to get the job done. keep the faith, we are going to win this thing and we are going to win it together. you helped us to take our government back. god bless you. >> our next freedom fighter is willing to stand alone. thank you.me louie [cheers] [applause] >> wow, you know, most of the time in washington, we cannot call it common sense.

thank you for doing that. finally, some of us have been praying that americanize would ben to a very subversive and oppressive -- dismissive derisive american government. i believe someone once said that. people are awakening a majority of people. many are saying that we do not trust the government now. well, what that tells me as a student of history is that the majority of americans are now giving the mindset of the founders who did not trust government. [cheers] [applause]

when you can have the embodiment of oppression and this being dismissive and derisive, it is time for a change in america has awakened to that. [cheers] [applause] >> the majority of americans are saying that, wait a minute, we get what the founders were saying. we don't trust the government either. we want gridlock so you don't keep passing laws everyday that means more and more regulations. we get it. just at that point, some of our republican leaders have said that now that america gets it, let's change the subject and talk about amnesty.

we need to say that mr. president, you need to confirm this and then we need to take up immigration that badly needs reform. but until then, let's just have a tax reform that the american people deserve. >> there is a cnn reporter that needs power. you can go backstage this way and they will tell you. [cheers] [applause] but keeping positive about this. this is a conservative that does not back down. let's welcome mike needham.

>> wow, what a crowd. you know, there are some people who want to write the obituary for the tea party. if you look around at the scout on wednesday afternoon, the tea party is alive and well. this is a great party. it won't stop with the irs. it wasn't the irs, it would've been eric holder's justice department. if it wasn't the justice department, it would've been cathleen sebelius and hhs. these are the consequences of big government. we will not stop until this has been reined in.

will we stop when this cost trillions of dollars? will be stopped from the house of representatives passes a trillion dollar food scandal? thank you all for being here. please keep up the fight. [cheers] [applause] >> thank you. i figured it out. maybe the fbi would know who is heading up the investigation if they weren't spending so much time trying to figure out where jimmy hoffa was buried. [laughter] [cheers] [applause] >> thank you for what you are doing on this issue and a host of others. we appreciate your love for this

great country. there is no statute of limitations on the truth. benghazi, the irs. you name it. we are committed to getting to the truth. [cheers] [applause] more importantly, maybe most importantly, we are committed to stopping this obamacare legislation from actually happening. ..

our congressmen, please welcome congressman tom. [applause] >> what a joy to be with you comparing it america has come to d.c.. it was about four years ago a lot of us were here and hundreds of thousands of our greatest friends joined us. i remember a was a quote from ronald reagan. he said it's more harmful than its desire to help us blindness us from all its power is harming us. the veil has been lifted, wouldn't you say it has been exposed and as we have exposed, wea