thought when they left town thursday, friday, in fact, friday night we were told the amendment would be filed, and presumably would then be debating that amendment. but what happened was we went into the night, every -- told it would be soon filed put wasn't filed not noon almost friday. and it wasn't filed as an amendment dealing with border patrol officers and sentencing and some other issues. it was a complete substitute for the whole bill. so this is a vote this afternoon to give major leader reid procedural control of the debate. that's his motion to shut off debate on a 1200 page substitute, 200 pages more, than the bill we were looking at last week, and i think haven't had a

chance to read the bill to see how the language is throughout the legislation, see what other changes may have been made over the weekend. i was here. we've been trying to get through this, but it's not easy, and i'm sure my colleagues haven't been able to do so. so, by filing cloture and blocking any further amendments from being in order, unless he personally approved him -- that's a parliamentary situation we're in today. we're in a situation which the majority leader will approve personally any and all amendments that get voted on. and so he once again created a situation where senators have to play mother may i to get a vote on an amendment they feel is important. that's not how the senate ooh be

run. a newly eye electricked senator from any state in america should be able to come to the floor and get an amendment voted on without having to have the permanent approval of the majority leader. this trend is accelerated in recent years where it's really damaging the whole role of the senate. we need more attention to that issue. so this is exactly what happened with obamacare. the majority rushed through a complex bill, so there would be no time to digest what was in it. yesterday, on one of his sunday programs, bob woodward, the famed writer who got with the nixon scandal and other issues over the years-said this, quote when you pass complicated legislation and no one has really read the bill, the outcome is absurd. close quote. i think that's too true. unfortunately.

senator reid said many times we have to pass this bill by july 4th. got his decision to make, other senators' decisions to make, so to accomplish that goal he assigned cloture medley on this new substitute bill. he filed it to shut off debate and that the effect of what we are doing here. so, why is there such urgency to pass legislation of this importance by friday? i'm not aware we have any big business happening july 4th july 4th recess. we can stay here until the july 4th recess for that matter. as bill crystal, the writer and commentator noted yesterday on one of the programs, quote, there's no urgency. can we at least let people read it for a week, close quote?

well, the last thing i think the loyal opposition should do, would be to be enablers for the majority plan to rush through the bill before people know what's in it. why should be enable that? if this bill is so good, what this harm of letting the senators and american public have a right to digest what is in it? why not commit to open and extensive debate. we have an obligation to read a bill withwe pass it. if senators have not read the 1200 page substitute bill, they shouldn't vote to cut off debate. say what the problem is here. this is a new technique. lamar alexander said some time ago that, well, the truth is, the senate doesn't do comprehend well -- comprehensive well. that's very serious, after the failure of this last bill and

obama karr some its massive power and overreach. so, what has happened? what happens is, senators get together, as they did with obamacare, based in secret, they write a 1200 page bill, in this case, and they do talking points. now, the talking points in a big bill like this, and in particular this one, have had political consultants, pollsters, all kinds of people, organizing this campaign to drive this legislation through the united states senate. they've had a response to every criticism. they've had spin in every different way. they're running tv advertisements right now, and i suppose still promoting this legislation as something it's not. so, the talking points are designed to be very popular. the talk points are designed to be very much in accord with most

people residents view about what good legislation is. indeed i like most of the talking points myself. i would vote for legislation that did most of that for sure. if it did what it said. and then that's what is so -- nobody can are artic -- articule and explain the details. good people don't understand it. so they promote the bill as if it's the talking points, when the talking points do not comply with what is in this legislation. and that's why we have an obligation study it, read it, and vote on the bill and not the talking points. a few weeks ago, former attorney general ed meese and reagan, close friend, wrote a letter to thed it forked of "the wall street journal," legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take the time to read the

bill, not rely on others characterizations of what it says. we not not afford to have congress pat a bill before finding out what is in it. close quote. at this point in the legislative process, a yes vote on cloture will mean senator reid has gained complete control of the process. no amendments will be voted on he does not approve. his goal is to drive the train through public discussion and public interest. so a vote this afternoon into proceed again for -- for the substitute of the gang of eight legislation, and the flawed framework of this bill remains. the broad frame welcome of the

mill remains, middle amnesty chill never be revoked. and with no enforcement effectively added. in reality, will not pass through. the june 7th rasmussen report, the american people want enforcement first. by -- the gang of eight initially promised their bill would be enforcement first. but that's not what the bill said today. not what is -- and no one disputes that it is amnesty first. in fact the lead sponsor of the bill, senator schumer, conceded this point shortly after the bill passed on -- on "meet the press" saying, quote, first people will bell legalized. then we'll make sure the borders are secure. then we'll make sure the borders are secure.

this is important. this is important because this is what happened in 1986, and center grass -- senator grassley said he voted when he saw the importancement -- i'm going to substitute illegal immigrants can still receive amnesty, not when the border is actually secured and sac footprint says she is starting to security the border. so,. >> so secretary napolitano is telling congress she is starting to secure the border. within six months of enactment, under the legislation, secretary napolitano need only present to congress status of the border status. their views on the -- and notice

she has begun implementing her plan. at that point, which will likely occur earlier, secretary napolitano said in her time before the judiciary committee, she may begin processing the applications for the granting of amnesty, and grant work, travel permits, grant social social se, obtain driver's license and any federal, state, and public benefits, all without a single border security answer attempt madam president, how much time has been consumed at this point. >> senator has 11 minutes.

>> if i could -- i had a time of 12:50 that i would like too accommodate the senator from alabama who is coming down at 1:00, and my understand is he showed up 20 minutes early, which i applaud you for being prompt and early, but i do wonder, madam president, what is happening here and that we had planned to be done here at 12:50. i'd be glad to good back and forth -- >> i didn't understand that. sorry. i thought -- i didn't realize -- you see you're taking the floor at this time? certainly yield and will wrap up if you felt you had time -- >> i think we had an agreement with -- to manage the floor. i'm going to let you finish and then go on but i just want to

make sure this is something that is going to allow me the opportunity to speak. actually the senator has been -- i'd love for him to listen to what i might have to say and then respond, because i think there's been a lot of myths out there that seem to be continuing. >> madam president, i will conclude at five till, and i would yield to the senator at that time. i think that will get us on the right track. i know there wasn't discussions earlier, that would be the time i would have, and then i wouldle -- i didn't realize you were in on that. so, i will accommodate for representations you have been given.

senators have been talking a good bit about the enforcement that will occur under the -- the substitute, but the substitute does not change the fact that no reduction in illegal immigration was scheduled, doesn't have results are ore oriented suspect to it. -- oriented aspect to it. we don't hear so much about that anymore, and all the bill really requires now is that the secretary submit a plan for achieving and maintaining that, not the actual achievements. even if this was a real plan, it wasn't matter because it does not account for those who evade

detection at the border. temperature her testimony, secretary footprint independent all but acknowledged the effectiveness is meaningless. homeland security has no idea how many borders -- so it's not subject to real enforcement. mr. president, i appreciate my colleague, senator corker, to set forth -- produce legislation will be good for america, and i appreciate the vision that has been stated, and having been involved in this now for quite a number of years, not because i desire to, but because i felt an obligation to do so, having been a federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. i want to see the system absolutely work. i'm aware this bill is an organization bill.

it may authorize border patrol. it may even authorizes -- but until congress appropriates the money, over a period of a decade, the way it's set out. it will never happen. i'm cop shoes that all the promises made in the legislation on the line and in the additions that have been made to it, will not be' -- and we will, under this legislation, be sure to have a vast increase in illegal entry under the entry exit visa system as the congressional budget office stated, and that we'll still have illegal enter entries from the border. so i think the chair and yield the floor, and reserve the balance of time for senator grassley.

>> madam president, i'd like to speak on the subject -- >> senator is recognized. >> madam president, first of all, i want to acknowledge -- >> time is -- is the senator proceeding? >> i understand that -- >> senator may proceed. >> thank you. >> madam president, the senator from alabama has done an outstanding job of talking about the problems with the bill. i do want to say that the vote tonight is not on the base bill. the vote tonight is on an amendment. many people on our side of the aisle have had concerns about border security. and the way the base bill reads is that the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, would decide what bored measures -- border

security measures would be in place after 90 days. that causes people on both sides of the aisle to be concerned about what kind of border security measures would be implemented. the base bill as the senator from alabama listed, leaves that discretion hundred% to the person who leads homeland security. so, on the floor, we have had numbers of measures that we voted on to try to strengthen border security. all of those measures have failed. i have voted for almost every single one of those that has come up, and as matter of fact, almost every member on our side of the aisle, other than the gang of eight, has voted for those measures. what we have before us tonight, though, is another border security amendment. what this amendment does is it puts in place five triggers that

are tangible and what these triggers say, if these five things are not implemented, then those who are here who are undocumented will become temporary status, do not receive their green card. let me go through the five measures that have to be put in place before that occurs. first of all there has to be 20,000 more border patrol agents deployed and trained and on the border. that is one of the truths. that is a doubling of our border patrol. secondly, the additional 350 miles of fencing that republicans have longed for, has to be in place. that is very tangible. thirdly, we have to. deploy over $4 billion worth of technology on the border which will give our border patrol 100% awareness. this is a list they've been

seeking for years, and before anybody can achieve their green card status, this place has to be bought and deployed. fourthly, we have to have a fully implemented exit and entrance visa program, something that, again, republicans have push for, for years, and fifthly, we have to have a fully deployed everify system. all five of those measures have to be in place before somebody can move from the temporary status to a green card status. those are tangible triggers. mr. president, when i was in the shopping center business before coming to the senate, i used to build shopping centers around the country. and it was very evident in the community i was in, when i was completed. and using what i competed -- always when i completed those shopping centers i was paid. i didn't have to go through some kind of thing that said, did we meet 90% of the retail needs of

the community? we tried to design the center so that it met the needs, but it was very tangible when i was complete and i was paid. so what this amendment seeks to do, to put five very tangible elements as triggers. these elements are our elements that republicans, for years, have pushed for. and so it's my hope that this evening, republicans will join me in putting in place the toughest border security measures we have ever had in this nation. now, senator of alabama talked get helping of this -- the length of this amendment. the length of this amendment is 119 pages long. because of senate procedure, it had to be added to the bill which made it a little bit over 1200 pages but the base bill has been around since may. it's gone through committee, and most every one of us, who are

serious about this bill, have gone through its many provisions. so the amend we offered on friday, that's given people 75 hours to look at, the amend is 119 pages long. now, for those who are listening in, the legislative language we write pages such that they're triple space, very short so 119 pages is really 25 or 30 pages in normal people's reading. so i would say to the president, that any middle school student in tennessee or alabama could read this amendment, probably in 30 to 40 minutes. just ask senators to be given an amendment on friday, the bill has five basic things and a few others, ask them to read the amendment over the weekend, equivalent of 25 or 30 pages. certainly not something -- when you're serving in the united

states senate. so the length issue is something that is a total myth. some people talk about the cost of this. well, let's talk about that. first of all, the cost only happens if the bill passes, but it's estimated the cost of these border security measures would cost $46 billion. mr. president, that only happens if the bill passes, and i think you have seen that the cbo score on this bill is 197. so if this amendment were to pass and the bill were to pass, we'd have a situation where, over the next ten years, we'd be investing $46 billion in border security, almost all of which are measures that we have probably pushing for, for years but $197 billion coming back into the treasury. i've been here six and a half

years, and never have i had the opportunity to vote for something that cost 46 billion over ten year period and we received 197 billion over ten years and we didn't raise anybody's taxes and it promoted economic growth. so, those people who are talking about the problem with this, would just say, show me one piece of legislation that we have had the opportunity to vote for that has that kind of return. i think everybody private equity, every hedge funder in the united states of america, would take those odds. finally, let me say to the senator from alabama. governor brewer of arizona was on the telephone. she read the amendment of the weekend. it only takes 30 to 40 minutes, and she took the time to read it. and what she just said on national television is that this amendment is a win, a total victory for the state of arizona, and the knows more about border security probably

than any governor and any person in the state -- in the united states of america. so let me just say one more time what we're voting on tonight. we're voting on a very -- border security amendment. if you vote for this amendment, it means that five very tangible things have to be in place, whether the money is appropriated or not. they have to be in place before you can have a green card. so if it's not appropriated, no green card. so, when people say, well, congress may not spend the money on this, well, congress doesn't spend the money on it, people will not move from temporary status into green card status. so it's totally up to us. but the fact is, itch you vote for -- if you vote for this amendment tonight, you're vote all the five provisions have to be in place, border security measure. the entire american population

can see whether they're in place or not and until those are in place, people do not move to the green card status. if you vote against this amendment, which i'm get the indication the senator from iowa and others may be thinking about -- what you're saying is, no, i'd rather not pass these five -- i'd rather let janet napolitano, he the head of homeland security, decide what our border security is going to be. don't think that makes anybody particularly comfortable. people talk about congress needs to weigh in on the border security measure and we have with this amendment. what i would say is that if you really believe in making sure that we address our border security, this amendment is something you should support. if you'd rather go to the status quo, leaved to the administration children do i agree has not done the things to

secure the border then vote against this amendment. vote for janet napolitano to secure our borders, and in the people on the other side of the aisle that may resist this, what i say is this amendment balance out the bill. it balances it out. it says that, yes, we're going to put the kind of border security in place that will cause the american people to -- at the same time in doing so, we're going to put the n place very tangible triggers, triggers that knock be moved you. cannot move the goalpost because of interpretation. they're there, they're concrete. if we need them, people have the pathway to be the productive citizens they would like to be. so to me this amendment satisfies people on our side of the aisle that want border secure, and ought to satisfy people on the other side of the aisle that acknowledge that we need to do both. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. i'd love to enter into a colloquy with the senator from alabama. i know there's a lot been said but i would just urge every member of this body to take the 30 to 40 minutes, not much in the united states senator on one of the biggest issues we have dealt with the united states senate, to read the amendment, to see how superior it is to the base language, and i applaud the folks who created the base language. this an effort of improving a bill and then decide do you really want to vote against an amendment that the governor of arizona, who has dealt with this issue more closely than any of us in the body has declared as a total victory for their state. do you want to vote against this? do you want to vote against this, really? i would ask this body. i think we ought to send this amendment on to the base bill with a tremendous majority. then we can debate the other

pieces. we have an entire week. there's all kind of votes. ite love to see a vote on the portman amendment. my understanding is, some of the people disagree with this bill don't want to see a vote on the portman amendment. they're blocking it. the amendment would make this bill even better. so i hope we hear though portman amendment. i hope we hear from other senators as they seek to improve this bill. but i hope we'll do that after voting cloture tonight, on a border security amendment i know strength 's this bill, puts it in balance, creates trust with the american people, and creates the kind of pathaway that many people are seeking. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> well, senator from alabama. >> the senator would surely

acknowledge the amendment was filed friday, when probably most of our senators hat left town. it wasn't his 200 page amendment. all kinds of special interests and senators' interests have been added to the bill, and it was filed as part of the overall bill so you would knowledge that the replacement that we would be voting cloture on tonight is 1,200 pages -- about a little less than 200 pages more than the bill was on friday morning. ...

>> the senator was a great jurist from the state of alabama. he worked on all kinds of legal documents, i'm sure, before he came to serve in such a distinguished way in this body. and i know he understands well because he's had to do it many, many times, that when you have an amendment that touches many parts of a bill or you have a contract that has changes that touch many parts of the contract, what people do to cause people to understand how it's written better and, actually, it has to be a rule of construction here in the united states senate, is you add those 119 pages throughout the text of a bill that's been around since may that the senator from alabama was able to go through in detail as a member of the judiciary committee and offer all kinds of amendments. he's seen that base text now for a long, long time and went through it almost more than most here -- i know more than most here in the senate. so, yes, we added an amendment.

it does have other concerns. that's what you do when you try to write a piece of legislation that solves a problem. it is 119 pages. it was added to the base text, that's true. and i would just have to say on any measure for somebody who cares about border security, it is much stronger than the base language. >> well, mr. president, i'm going to talk about what the amendment does. and the senator hasn't seen quite as much, although he's an experienced and very able addition to this senate, but hasn't perhaps seen how over decades can promises about enforcement of the border don't occur. and that's important. i would just -- senator, i'll just go through the legislation, amendment you've offered and make some comments about why i think it's not, it does not do what you believe it does and why

we should not pass it. and why we absolutely should not move forward on the substitute which is basically the bill that has been put out by the gang of eight which fails in a whole host of ways. and i would just also be concerned and will ask you, do you believe that senators who have concerns about the bill should be given the right to have amendments voted on in an up or down way as long as reasonably necessary to be able to offer amendments to fix the legislation? >> mr. president, i couldn't agree more with the senator from alabama. and as i mentioned in my comments, i hope that this body, i hope that senators on my side of the aisle will not block senator rob portman's amendment on e-verify which greatly strengthens the bill.

but i agree with senator. yes, i hope we'll have a plethora of amendments offered this week, debated this week and voted on this week. and i would just say to the good senator from alabama who i really cherish serving with, i have not blocked one single amendment from being voted on. i don't know if the senator from alabama has blocked any. but the fact is i say let's let it roll. i'd love to see another 50 or 80 amendments this week if time will allow. so let's let it roll. i'm all for that 100%. >> well, i appreciate the senator saying that, but it's not going to happen. because when you give cloture tonight, senator reid is going to be in complete control of the voting process. amendments will be at his pleasure. the ones he thinks he's willing to vote on and ones that he doesn't approve of, he won't be voting on. so i just would say that's where we are. and that's a fact, and we're going to have other cloture motions, and the goal will be to

drive this bill to passage friday, and we're not going to have finish before friday, if possible, i suppose. and that's where we're heading. and it's going to be far less votes than last time a big immigration bill came up it was 49 or so amendments voted on. we've done nine, and discussions were going on thursday, wednesday, thursday night to have another 16. and i was advocating more amendments be brought up. and i thought we had an agreement to do that and were moving that way til this great amendment, the grand amendment that fixes things came up. senator -- let me just go on and point out a few things that i think are troubling with the legislation, and we can go on, you know, senator corker, just make my points now. first of all, you said there's a

trigger x that trigger is ten -- and that trigger is ten years from now. and it's whether or not individuals who have been given legal status for ten years have been told they're going to get their permanent legal status in ten years, and it turns out that the congress hasn't appropriated money to complete the fencing as promised. it turns out that congress hadn't funded the border patrol agents that they promised, and now we're going to say you don't get your status? and they're going to say what's the problem? we did can everything we were to do -- we did everything we were to do, and you congress didn't do it. give us our green card. and people are going to say we can't deny people a green card. if they've been here for ten years plus the time they've already been here, maybe have children that have been born and are citizens. this is not a practical guarantee that this will ever happen. not a realistic guarantee that it will ever happen. and i don't believe we're going

to add, based on my experience, 20,000 agents. we probably don't need that many, but we need more, and we need a better effectiveness at the border. but that's the impact of the trigger. the legal status, the social security card, right to work anywhere in america is given within two months of the passage of the legislation. you're making promises ten years down the road that i'm saying are not likely to ever happen. in fact, i don't think they will happen. in the way you said. the secretary has the power to reallocate personnel under this bill. and it gives her broad power to do that. and she'll say she's done what she's required, or the next secretary will. and i'm concerned about that. on the cost i've just got to say, and senator schumer in the judiciary committee, they promised that the bill was paid for by the fees, the punishment,

the fines -- and i'll talk about that at some length later -- that will be paid by the people who enter the country illegally. and they claim they would have as much as $8 billion. maybe that was so, i'm not sure. they wouldn't tell how many people are going to be legalized. i asked that. twice. senator schumer, he refused to say how many people would be given green card status in the next ten years in america. maybe he didn't want us to know. if he didn't know, that's a big gap for somebody who's writing a thousand-page bill and doesn't know what's -- how many people are going to be legalized in it. so this is what he said. what we're simply doing is making sure that all the expenses in the bill are fully funded by the income that the bill brings in. this is to make sure that this bill does not incur any cost on the taxpayers, to make it revenue neutral. this is just a little point to

me, but one i care about. he said, it provides start-up costs to implement the bill, quote: repaid by fees that come back later. so what we are basically doing is setting up two pots of money that have start-up money, and it's repaid that both the companies pay when they get new workers and the immigrants who become rpi pay in terms of their fines as they go through the process. well, that's what we were told in their talking points. in their poll-tested talking points when they were drafting the original version before senator corker was involved. but it's not there now. it's 46 billion. where's the money coming from? well, they say the bill creates more revenue. and this is what the congressional budget office, our budget accounting firm, told us about it. it said before senator corker's

bill raised the cost from 8 billion to 46 billion that it would reduce -- it would increase the on-budget debt by $14 billion. it would then reduce the off-budget debt by $211 billion or something like that. so isn't that good news? so we improve our off-budget debt. well, what is the off-budget debt? the off-budget debt is the social security and medicare withholding that the newly-legalized persons will pay when they get their social security card. so they'll be paying withholding on their checks that maybe they weren't paying before. and they score that as increased revenue. and it certainly is. and in the one form of our accounting will show that as increased revenue. and that money -- in that form

of accounting, unified budget accounting, means, allows you to think you can spend it for anything you want to. but wait a minute. what is the real reality here? the persons paying their social security and their medicare withholding, and it doesn't go to the u.s. treasury. it goes to the social security and medicare trust funds. it's not available simultaneously to be used to pay for a new bill. and this is how this country's been going broke. it's the same thing that happened during obamacare. and i got mr. elmendorf the night before the vote, december 23rd -- we voted on christmas eve to pass that bill -- i got him to say you can't simultaneously strengthen social security and medicare with this new money and pay for something else with it.

he said that's -- used this phrase, it's double counting of money. that's where they're coming up with the money here. so the social security and medicare payroll withholding that people will pay when they get legalized and are given a social security card is there retirement. we've got to have that money to pay for their retirement when they get ready to draw medicare and social security. you can't spend it now and pretend we got free money. and it's clear in the cbo score just last week that's what the situation is. i'm just not happy about this counting this form, of money in that form. >> [inaudible] drink of water, i wonder if the senator will let me just respond in a generous way. >> senator from tennessee. >> first of all, i respect the leadership that senator from alabama has given on the budget committee, and i know that he

knows all of these things well, and he's very familiar that i've offered, actually, a very detailed piece of legislation to deal with medicare. and he knows that the average american today is paying one-third of the cost of medicare over their lifetime. and, in other words, they pay only one-third of the cost of their medicare program. so the fact that you have people who began paying taxes, i mean, one of the things the senator's mentioning is, you're right, we pass this bill, those who are here today that have been undocumented and not paying taxes will pay taxes. i would think the senator from alabama would think that is an outstanding idea. and most of them are younger. and the fact is what they're going to be doing is helping the baby boomers and senior population in america that that we have because americans today are only paying one-third of the cost of medicare. and you've seen, i know the senator from maine is very

knowledgeable on this, that the medicare fund is going to be insolvent in 2024. so he's exactly right. by forcing these folks who are in the shadows today to come out of the shadows for ten years and to pay taxes and not receive, by the way, federal benefits -- no means-tested federal benefits -- until we do the five things that are in our bill, by the way, the senator should know that the money for this is appropriated now. if this bill passes, the money's appropriated. it's not subject to appropriations down the road. but let me just -- i'll say one last thing, and i'll yield the floor. i know i'm being a little -- i appreciate you letting me do this. >> want to make sure who's time you're using. go ahead. >> this'll be on senator lee's time, as i understand it. but let me say this, the cloture vote tonight was not as described a moment ago. the cloture vote tonight is only

on this amendment. it's not on the bill. so for someone to say that they're losing some kind of cloture rights down the road, that's just not true. the cloture vote tonight we're having is on an amendment that has five strong border security measures that every republican has talked about for years. it doesn't mean you vote for the bill. we're talking about the amendment a. the monies are appropriated, the cloture vote is on the amendment only. so i just wanted to clear that up. and cbo that the great senator from alabama works with daily and quotes daily, the cbo has said that if this bill passes, it'll help tremendously with this deficit that we know is weighting our country down today. >> well, i thank the chair, and -- but the cloture will be on the substitute which is 1200 pages, not just the senator's amendment, most of which i would

be supportive of. i think maybe all of it if we could make it effective. i would say that. and, senator, you're correct. people who are paying into social security and medicare don't pay enough to produce the revenue that would take care of them for the rest of their life. and you're right and i certainly don't dispute that people who when they're given a social security card and start to work on the new, on this bill that provides them amnesty and legal status that they're going to pay social security and medicare money they weren't paying before. but it's their money. the money that's got to be used to pay for their retirement. where's the money going to come to pay for that? that's all i'm saying to you. it's quite plain. and that's why the cbo score said the on-budget deficit gets worse, but in the ten-year window the social security

account looks better. but they are not counting that the younger, average age 35 workers, will be retiring in the years to come and demanding their medicare and social security. and the money if it's spent now won't be there then. this is how a country goes broke. and i want to say, senator corker, you're one of the most knowledgeable, hard working, courageous, determined people in the united states senate to try to fix the financial path we are on. but i think, i think you're misinterpreting -- >> the senate approved the border security amendment by a vote of 67-27. fifteen republicans voted in favor of the amendment. coming up tonight on c-span2, a discussion on the federal witness protection program. then, outgoing fbi director robert mueller on operations at

his department. after that, senate debate on an immigration bill amendment that would put 20,000 patrol officers on the u.s./mexico border. >> tuesday, the senate banking committee examines private student loans and how they're regulated. the committee will hear from fdic, federal reserve and office of the comptroller of currency. live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> tuesday president obama delivers a major speech on his plan to tackle climate change. he'll announce executive orders to direct federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. live coverage from georgetown university, 1:35 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs.

weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our scheduled toes at our web sites, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> next, a discussion with gerald shur, founder of the federal witness protection program. from monday's "washington journal," this is 35 minutes. >> host: on mondays at this time we look at your money, how federal dollars are spent, what the programs are that they fund and how the services work. our guest this morning is gerald shur. he joins us from philadelphia, and he is, actually, a founder of the witness protection program. thanks so much for being with us, and to start us off, we read about the witness protection program, we hear about it in novels or on television shows. what is it in real life?

>> guest: well, in real life it is taking individuals who are in danger because they're cooperating with the federal government or in some cases state government, and they will wind up being killed, frankly, if they testify. and so we needed a mechanism where we could put witnesses on the witness stand and make sure that they will survive after they testify. that's the -- >> host: how -- yeah. how is it created, mr. shur, and what was your role in it? >> guest: well, created, i have to go back to a very early age. as a young child, i used to hear my father talk about organized crime interfering with the business that he was in. he worked in the garment business in new york city. he was a labor negotiator. and he used to come home at night and talk about how organized crime interfered with the labor negotiations, and i --

through high school i got interested in organized crime, began to research it and continued right on through college. and then was fortunate enough after i got out of law school, i went into private practice and saw a fella named bobby kennedy being appointed attorney general. and he had an interest in organized crime according to an article i read. and so i went home to my wife, here's my short biography, went home to my wife after foryears of practice and said how would you like to move to washington and explained why. she knew of my interest. she said, do you think you can get a job? i said, i don't know. she said fly up and find out on monday. i did, i got hired and was assigned to work organized crime in new york city. that brings you up to my being involved now with mobs in new york city, with organized crime. for the older listeners, you might remember the name joe ve latch chi who was the very first

member of the mafia, or what we later learned from him is the cosa nostra. he is the first person to tell us who are the members, and he was the first really cooperating witness in organized crime. so i began to work with him and then began to work with other mobsters in new york. and it occurred to me we need some mechanism to protect people if they're going to testify. and out of that and my colleagues who were assigned elsewhere in the country running into the same experience, it occurred to me we need a system where we can take an individual who's willing to cooperate and immediately relocate that person and their family. >> host: gerry shur what happened prior to the '70 if someone came forward, testified, what happened to them and their families?

>> guest: what happened was the local police or the local agents, fbi agents or dea agents, drug enforcement agency, they would sort of almost chip in and move somebody from one place to another. what there wasn't was a system where they could pick up the telephone, call washington, d.c., say i've got a witness in the office, they're willing to testify, what do i do with them, and we could say we will have that witness protected as of now. and we needed to develop a mechanism where we not only could move the family, but then what do you do with the family after they've moved out of town? after you've moved them? they need work. what do you do about licenses, social security cards, moving furniture, selling houses? all of the things that normally go on when a family moves. picture a family being transferred from one city to another in an ordinary business. it's traumatic, it's difficult,

there are many things that have to be attended to. what this program did was establish a mechanism where the prosecutor, the agents could make a single phone call and have this whole process begin to work. >> host: we're talking about the federal witness protection program with one of its founders, gerald shur. here are the numbers to call if you'd like to ask some questions or share your comments. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. and our independent caller, 202-585-3882. our guest co-authored the book "witsec," inside the federal witness protection program back in 2002. let's look at some of the numbers. the cost of the program in 2012 was $9.7 million, and here are some details. witnesses and families get new identities and documentation. they also get some financial assistance for basic living

expenses, medical care and housing. and, mr. shur, we see there are 8300 witnesses and 9800 family members that have been a part of the program since the 1970s. how much help do these people get to start their new lives? how much is hands on and at what point are they set out on their own? >> guest: it's hands on right from the beginning. the moment they agree to testify. well, i can take you through the process, actually, as if you were the witness. the moment that you agree to testify, we would have a witness security inspector who is in the marshal service come to you and explain to you how the program works. at the same time, the federal prosecutor, the united states attorney, would make a request of my office, the office of enforcement operations in the department of justice -- i should say my old office since i'm now an old man retired. but they would make a request of

my office and say that we have a witness, here is the case we want him to testify in. here's how important their testimony is. here's how many other witnesses i have in that case. so we could make an evaluation as to whether or not this witness is really important. at the same time, we would have the deputy marshal or witsec security inspector explain the program. in addition, we would have a psychologist do psychological examinations of everybody over 18 years of age in the family that's going to be relocated to determine whether or not they would be capable or they fit in, would they be able to handle the regulations, would they commit a crime in the future? are they likely to be violent? all of that would come back in a psychological report. we would have the evaluation of the headquarters of the federal investigative agency. so we not only have the field office giving us a judgment, we

have the office at headquarters, the fbi headquarters or dea headquarters. whatever agency's involved in the investigation. they would submit information. my point being is a considerable amount of data is submitted to headquarters before the judgment is made to totally disrupt a family and move them from one city to another. >> gerry shur, founder of the witness protection program. he mentioned he started his career as an attorney in corpus christi, texas, and then he served as a trial attorney in the justice department's organized crime and racketeering section recruited under attorney general robert kennedy, also as senior director of the office of enforcement in the criminal division. and as he mentioned, he's retired. joining us from philadelphia this morning. our first caller, bradentop, florida, independent line. go ahead. >> caller: yeah. i was calling with regards to

witness -- when the witness goes into the program for life, and if they become difficult, i'm a howard stern fan -- >> host: we lost david. we'll take his question though. what are the rules and requirements for staying in the program, how do you have to behave? what's the code of conduct? >> guest: first, we have to understand this is a voluntary program. the witness can choose to enter or not enter the program. the witness can leave the program anytime that the witness chooses to. they can say i don't want any more to do with you. i'm on my own. i don't want to follow the rules anymore. and there are rules that are set down. so the witness can leave if they choose to at any point in time. by rules i mean such things as they must look for a job. we will help them try to find a job. they must stay out of trouble. they must not communicate with people back home which can be very difficult when you tell a

teenager who's in love that they can't communicate with their boyfriend or girlfriend back home. but there's a set of rules that they must follow. if they find that too difficult, then they can drop out at any time they want. of course, at that time any financial assistance we give them will also stop. and i might mention the financial assistance. that is based upon a bureau of labor statistics formula depending on the number of people in the family and the city in which the people are located. so a person living in corpus christi, texas, a family of four may get less money than a family living in new york city. if we've relocated them there. just because of the differences in cost of living. this is not a reward program. and it should not be confused with that. it is only enough money to get by on until we're able to find employment for the witness. >> host: let's hear from anthony, mount sinai, new york.

democratic caller. hi, anthony. >> caller: hi, how are you? hi, mr. shur. my questions are in two degrees. one would be, um, you seem to be an expert in organized crime in new york, and i just wondered have you not noticed a somewhat -- i mean, since the kennedy era there seem to have been an infiltration of organized crime, or i should say their money and their influence in government. and i just wondered if you could step outside the box and comment on that. and also with the wikileaks or with this new mr. snowden, aren't they basically whistleblowers? and, i mean, how would you categorize them? i mean, they seem to be bringing forth indiscretions or at least, you know, violations of the constitution. and i think that, you know, they're young men with a certain degree of mores, and they're trying to rise to the challenge of pointing out to the american people that we're being somewhat led down this path of what's really, i mean, what --

>> host: anthony, i'm just going to let you go there because you're off topic, but we'll see if he wants to tackle that. i just don't want to spend too long off the witness protection program. ..

about a woman in her 30's named jackie taylor who shared her story of being a child and put into the witness protection program, allegedly because a father was in the hell's angels and turned witness. and you cannot comment on particular cases, but as she shares her child experience and talks about the challenges she faced, we have some questions on twitter. how old is the youngest person ever put in witness protection and for how long? and am wants to know what about kids in the program. do they state in? >> guest: we are now dealing with grandchildren of witnesses in the program. don't forget, the program goes back to 1970. it really started a couple of years before that. there was an official act, the organized crime control act of 1970 that started the organized-crime program officially.

before that we were not doing it we're dealing now with children and grandchildren. those kids children are affected to the extent that they may have to supply background information for employment or for security clearance. and in those instances they can call upon the federal government, the witness security marshals to give them assistance in overcoming any obstacle that they may encounter. >> host: so they are supplied with paperwork and documentation that would identify them and their new name, their new family, surname, and they could go forward with their lives with the documentation? >> yes, they would have complete documentation. we have had, for example, we have had to run -- we had something early on in the program, witnesses child wanted to get married. the witness insisted on having a wedding. insisted on inviting friends

from the old neighborhood, which are precisely the people of my want to kaelin to the wedding. we went ahead and told him that would be all right so long as it was done under our conditions. he arranged for a hotel ceremony and a bit of an affair that would occur after words. all the guests were invited to a hotel to attend the wedding. and they got to the hotel they found out there were at the wrong place. we had buses and united states marshals waiting. there were put on buses and driven to whether what really occurred, driven back to their hotel. so they never knew the new name of the person, and they never knew where the wedding was going to take place. that way we kept them secure. by the way, i should point out early on before we forget, a good portion of this program involves prisoner witnesses. today over the last several

years more people entering the program are prisoners to have agreed to cooperate. and they serve their terms in special units, prison units, prisons within prisons around the country. they serve their terms, five years, ten years, many years. then, when they get ready to be released there is consideration given again to whether not they're still in danger, are their families in danger. they would then be relocated like any other witness. >> host: gerald shur, founder of the witness protection program, quoted as story from cnn recently saying that he works with someone about to receive witness protection program eligibility and our guest asks your fare replace the united states.

were they ever going to in exotic destinations that they always wanted to visit? >> most people entering the program are very apprehensive and should be. the marshals service and others to do with the witnesses are leon will tell them, this is going to be an extremely difficult process. just transferring from one city to another, just moving your children from one high-school, those are difficult processes for people to go to, not being able to see grandma and more. not being able to attend the funeral back home. those are extremely stressful situations that the families find themselves in, and we lay that out ahead of time so that they know that is was scored three like. on the other side of it what they also know is that they will survive.

marshals service has not lost a single witness in almost 40 years that this program has been operated. after year so there will adjust and go on to us. occasionally there are problems along the way we address that problem by having a gentle chat between the witness security inspector and a child to handle that problem. but there are difficulties just in a normal transfer, in a normal life and compounded with the fact that you have to be looking over your shoulder for several months until you're comfortable with the fact that no one is going to find you. does the object. getting the witness to the point where they don't look over their

soldier -- shoulder and worry about whether they're going to survive and not. >> host: david is our next caller, an independent in virginia. hi. >> says. good morning. mr. gerald shur, as a government attorney i was involved in one of the first entrance into your program back in the 70's. one of the problems we encountered was his wife and daughter were issued social security cards in sequence, the numbers are in sequence which in itself created a security problem for them. and i was wondering if that issue has been resolved since then. >> yes. the issue has been resolved. i happen to be familiar with the case. think slightly different facts about it. it was not a mother and daughter they were in laws that were being relocated. we were told by the son-in-law

that the in-laws would never be working. it was the very first case that we had where we obtained social security cards. we had the help of an undercover agent and another agency. it was not the united states marshals service the secure the social security cards. and since the end laws were not going to be working from he secured consecutive numbers thinking about that there would never be a problem. ultimately the son and law put the in-laws names on the business he was running and used their social security numbers and mind. that helped. but that is a non issue and has never come up again. >> host: what happened after they were disclosed? >> guest: nothing. they were moved again. >> host: co-author of the book "witsec" from 2000 to inside the federal witness protection program.

our guest is the founder of the federal witness protection program. we are doing our regular segment. how it is funded and what it does. manassas is up next, democratic line. welcome. >> caller: good morning. mr. gerald shur, this is our first time. i am a retired investigator for the state of louisiana. i was part of the witness protection, victim witness protection in louisiana. and we did this under the local district attorney's office, but i find that they have a lot of flaws with the victim witness program. they have a lot of trouble with their victims and their witnesses because they were problems with certain things to get the case solved, and i found that they were wasting a lot of

money. how do you control the spending as far as trying to get the victim of a witness to court? >> guest: every witness that is the program must sign what is called a memorandum of understanding. in effect, it is a document that lays that everything that the federal government will do for you and more importantly will not do for you. and so the witness knows ahead of time precisely how much money they will receive for up to six months, and they know what kind of assistance that will receive so long as they, in turn, are willing to make efforts to find a job and cooperate with the service and, of course, ultimately testified. we don't have many problems in the federal system now, have not had for many, many, many years. the first year or two, yes. when we first started the program lots of things were new.

for example, the very first witnesses who were taking in the program. my very first, the first five witnesses who were sitting in my office. i said to the deputies, you know, we ought to take them out to an area where we can show them a house. of course he comes from an area outside of washington d.c. we ought to show him my house, show him what it looks like, take him around to the local grocery store so that you can see the safeway is there and then when he is transferred elsewhere, some of this is where you from the consent, i was from annapolis, md. i like to shop. i'm from there also. oh, i like the safeway. that's the setup. the witness is driven out. the marshals taken. just past my house which is safe and i give them my address. it got to my house and point to mike 2-story home and say to the witness and his wife, this is we're going to live, this is your house. anybody ask you, white brick

house, four-bedroom colonial. his wife says, what? we live in a house like that? never. so sometimes the witnesses are difficult to deal with. i mentioned that to my wife and she said, maybe we ought to consider moving. but we are perfectly happy there. they did move elsewhere in the debt live happily ever after. >> host: victims entering the state or federal program. how are victims tell with compared to other people who enter the program who are themselves criminals? >> we have very few innocent people entering the witness program, well over 95 percent of people who have been involved with crime either have committed crimes or knowingly dealt with criminals, bribing somebody,

knowing that there were dealing with criminals. i would say that that probably two to 3% to the of that eight to 9,000 people that have entered the program are what we would call truly innocent people for them it is more difficult than it is for the other witnesses who are gaining some benefit in that they have been involved with crime and maybe have gone to jail and have been released after words and their being relocated. maybe they have done probation and there being lit relocated. but for the truly innocent person it is extremely difficult. but on the other side, what happens if we don't relocate them? they cannot testify. if we put them on the witness stand they're liable to be murdered. so you get to a horrible choice of having to ask someone to testify, take a murderer or murderers off the streets and

endure this sacrifice of having to move to another community. >> host: our next caller also from louisiana, in morgan city on our independent line. >> caller: how are you doing? mr. gerald shur, i have a question. >> host: turn down your tv and then keep going. >> caller: yes. okay. my question is, do people get relocated to other countries outside the united states? >> guest: we tried that on one or two occasions. i did not like the idea of relocating people outside the united states because for one thing if they needed assistance, who are they going to call? if they are in a foreign country they stand out because, obviously, if they're speaking english, americans, they stand out. so i tended not to relocate people while want people to be

relocated outside the united states. on the one or two occasions it was done and it was successful, but not something that we ordinarily do. >> host: steven in palm city, florida, independent line. go ahead. >> caller: what a fascinating subject. thank you very much. i would be curious to know, you don't look as if you're wearing a disguise. are you in a great deal of personal danger by disclosing all of this information? >> if i could find an effective disguise to disguise this week that i have, i was certainly use it. but no. in fact, i am not in danger because the number of years that have gone by, i don't know where anybody is hidden. there is no information that i can supply to anyone. there was a time when we were in danger. in fact, my wife, there was a plan to kidnap my wife at one time. my wife was a schoolteacher.

and a colombian narcotics gang intended to kidnapper or me, but i think there were more target the herb. i was supply information about where a particular witness was relocated. as i indicated, i never knew where witnesses were relocated. that was by design that i would never know so that i could never give up that information. in her case, i would just tell you the way it came about. i was in my office, received a telephone call monday to report to a secret room in the department of justice. i walked in. they're is a tableful of agents from different federal agencies and they are there to tell me that there is this plot to kidnap my wife. a person had been arrested you have my name and address in his phone book and indicated that that was his purpose. my wife was teaching. i immediately called the school

and the principal's office and got my wife on the phone and said to her, someone will be coming up to see you shortly. go along with what they say. talk to you later. that was the conversation. she understood. a few moments later, within the hour, a deputy u.s. marshal, young lady appeared to be a recent college graduate looked like showed up at the school, went to my wife's class from and from there they went to the principle had a mother debbie explained to the principle the situation and said that they believed there was no danger whatsoever in the school. the danger was going to and from the school and therefore the deputy would like to stay with my wife in the school. but to my cities kids.

at 02 must of the semester. add this m looking person served as her assistants. the principle put up the story that the woman that was helping was a graduate who wanted to see whether or not she wanted to go into teaching and she was assigned to our class. so only the principal knew the true story. what no one realized she always wore a long jacket because she was covering her gun at someone. my wife recalls a phone call that she received in which my wife here said airbus, no, i cannot talk to you right now, i am busy grading papers. i will get back to you. we did have that situation. we ourselves, in effect, were in the witness protection program.

when i left the part of justice to go home, deputy marshals would follow me, call me on my cell phone, tell me i was not being followed, and then i would proceed to my home. we temporarily moved to a hotel outside of the place we were living. we recognized that person was. had a chat with them the next day in our office. that threat when away. in fact, it was very simple. as simply told them that you have now become my daughter's insurer. feel very comfortable when she gets some safely because if she falls down and gets hurt on the way, you're the one i'm going to all responsible.

>> host: this was someone in the program. >> guest: that was someone in the program. >> host: gerald shur is our guest, co-author of the book "witsec," and said the federal witness protection program. if you would like to comment on the witness protection program are as stardust questions are republicans stylus up. democrats, independents. for arizona go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: experience was for their wood off the witness program. both of them actually ended up dead. mainly because they had a hard time handling their relocations. and at one time i think it was just trying to be a little too brave. one had to do with -- both of them were with drug smuggling.

one of my cousins. they actually tried to kidnap my entire on two different occasions to keep it quite. he finally came back. he and is draw a friend. and within one month you was dead. that was all there was to it. and the other one was a name you might be familiar with. i used to fly a lot. and here in arizona i met a man by the name of bury seals. if that name is familiar to you. i think when he was shot and killed. so i will get off the phone and let you answer that one. you should be familiar with it. when. >> guest: i don't speak to specific cases, but can tell you this. all witnesses are offered psychological assistance, psychiatric assistance when they are relocated. and if we see something that

would suggest they should see a psychiatrist we arrange that. if they wish to on their own, we arrange that also. the witnesses are told, by the way, that when they see a psychiatrist that is the one person they may tell the entire truth of their background because we feel that is necessary for them to receive the kind of help that they may need. >> host: dan white's on twitter and asks if your plants debts follow them? >> do their debts follow them? well, all witnesses are expected to pay what debt sale. and we ask them to make payments on those debts. they are responsible for the debts that they have incurred before relocation. in the event that a creditor wishes to sue the witness, we have arrangements by statute and

by practice in which the creditor can file suit against the hidden witness, can actually file suit against that person and treat them just like any other bidder would be treated. so we can do that safely. keep the witness a live, and it lets the creditor receive whatever legal remedies there would otherwise have. >> host: one last quick call in. pennsylvania republican. go ahead. >> caller: yes. my question is on september 11th, the date of the disaster in new york city, we learned that there had been a lack of communication and cooperation between state and local -- >> host: is this about the witness protection program? >> estimate talking about the witness protection program and. >> host: make your question very short.

ramos out of time. i'm sorry. the caller did touch on. less talk about the coordination moment. >> caller: it's absolutely excellent between -- you're dealing with so many federal investigative agencies and the coordination is absolutely superb. that is why there is the success rate of not a single witness in this program that has been killed that as follow the rules in the 40 years of its operation so the coordination was excellent. information was passed freely from one agency to another when it affects a witness in the program. >> host: gerald shur, founder of the witness protection program now retired joining us from philadelphia this morning. thank you so much. >> guest: i would like to point out one more thing, the benefit of the program which i did not get to, and that is the

tens of thousands of criminals that are in penitentiary's now as a result of this program. for the 10,000 or so witnesses, almost 10,000 witnesses in the program, there are tens of thousands of defendants that have been convicted that would otherwise be out on the street committing crimes. so the program has proven to be extremely beneficial. all types of cases from terrorism to counterfeiting to murders and senate. thank you. ♪ -- >> host: thank-you. >> on the next washington journal we will be joined by republican representative of kansas, a member of the energy and intelligence committee and will talk about the administration's climate change plans l.a. is done in as a leader edward snowden. it will focus on the diplomatic aspect of his search for asylum with democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut, a member of the foreign relations committee.

the move will discuss the project on government oversight. >> there are about 1400 monuments on this battlefield. the 1880's in the 1890's. the men who fought in this battle of getting older. we want to make sure what they did here is rendered. and it will do that by building monuments. in modern times, 20th and 21st century we have other ways of measuring things like that, but back in those days that is of a commemorative this service. this is a monument to the soldier, to their leaders. the monuments really help us interpret the story. most of the monuments are union monuments. a union victory, northern state,

a union victory. and quite honestly we might find that there was not a lot of money in the south to build monuments, especially in northern states. >> live all day coverage of the anniversary of the battle of gettysburg sunday starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern with historians, scholars, and authors, kent masterson brown, brooks simpson, ethan refuse, and harold holzer, howard coffin, alan boole's though, and joseph plethora. scott hartwig, geoff shearer, hurry jones, and carol riordan. at 8:00 p.m., the commemoratives ceremony with keynote speaker and dramatic readings from eyewitness accounts followed by a candlelight procession to the soldiers cemetery and more calls

and reach for civil war institute director peter carmichael all day sunday on american history tv on c-span three. >> on monday's white house briefing spokesman jay carney said china made a deliberate choice in releasing former in as a contractor to edward snowden from hong kong. carney called actions from the chinese government a serious setback in u.s.-china relations. here is some of the briefing. you can see it in its entirety anytime on c-span.org. >> with regard to your question about the chinese government, we are just not buying that this was a technical decision via hong kong immigration official. this was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive, despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the u.s.-china relationship. >> repercussions in u.s.-chinese relations? >> i'm not going to speculate about the repercussions, but the

chinese of emphasize the importance of building mutual trust, and we think that they have dealt that effort a serious setback. if we cannot count on them to honor their legal extradition obligations, then there is a problem, and that is a point we're making to them very directly. >> spoken to the president about this? >> i have no president of communications report out to you, but obviously we are communicating with our counterparts at the appropriate levels. >> other repercussions for russia in the u.s.-russian relations if they do not -- >> i don't want to speculate and outcomes here. again, as you know, we understand edward snowden is believed to be in russia and we are, of course, in discussions with russian authorities about that. as i just noted, we have a strong cooperative relationship with the russians, and that relationship has resulted in the past and as returning criminals to russia. you know, we are expecting the russians to examine the options

available to them for is returned to the united states. >> how frustrating is it said the president at first china lets him go and other russians. >> i would not to be -- would not want to speculate about anything that has not happened. i would simply say that our frustration and disappointment with hongkong and china is reflected in the statement i just made. >> fbi director katie said the nsa phone records collection program was important in at least until terrorism investigation since began. his remarks came in testimony during the senate judiciary committee. this was his last appearance before the committee before he steps down in september. this is two hours in 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning.

feedback from my mind. go ahead. today the judiciary committee welcome this robert mueller for what is likely to be his final appearance before this panel as director of the federal bureau of investigation. as we know, he began just days before the terrorist attacks, of september 11th 2001. i remember being down in your intelligence center at the fbi building right after that and going over. but we didn't know about that attack. lead the bureau and shifted his primary focus for national security and counterterrorism still carrying on the historic

mission of fighting crime. that transition, important financial security crisis said expected some problems. the national security letters, the latest revelations about the use of the patriot act. there remain concerned. as a country we have yet to strike the right balance between intelligence gathering needs and the fbi and the civil liberties and privacy rights of americans. i also want to make sure that the shift necessary in the fbi is focused is not unto the ability to investigate fraud and violent crime and a significantly affect the everyday lives of american. these are concerns. but i think one thing that the director knows and the public knows, i have never questioned the integrity, the dedication,

the consummate professionalism. it's a very difficult time. studying about the need to protect american civil liberties in their rubber sitting there on the 300th anniversary of the bureau and the director is very strong statement about the civil liberties of americans. there was no surprise, a public servant would agree to put his long awaited vacation travel plans on hold when the president asked him to stay on board for nearly two years. he devoted his entire life to public service. for just talking about how senator feinstein knew him bearing the time when she became their san francisco with the tragedies the developed. they're grateful to the and his

family for their continued sacrifice. and i'm going to mention in this regard director miller, year -- i know what she has put up with. you have a wonderful family. but i hope you will tell also how much i and the others appreciate what she is done to make it possible. some big shoes to fill. as the fbi prepares for its first changed since the september 11 the tax, we ought to review closely the brought intelligence . the national security challenges, but also have to make sure the responsibilities under the fbi and oversight that they do not violate the privacy

rights and civil liberties of law-abiding americans. the protection of national security and americans' fundamental rights and not mutually exclusive. the recent public revelations illustrate the need for close scrutiny by congress for the government's relativities. increasing is transparency. bipartisan basis in 2009 and 11. reintroduce the bill tomorrow.

the american people deserve to know how laws are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance. they also deserve to know whether these programs have proved sufficiently effective to justify the breath. right now have to say a remain skeptical. i firmly believe we need to maintain close oversight from the authorities the scope of protection 702. statutory focus now is a possibility they may in further

legislation accept this comes as improvements. the boston marathon bombing in april properly relate to enjoy terrorism taskforce of the boston police department's, questions raised. a comes at the expense of the regular law enforcement efforts. preliminary data shows that in 2012 the overall violent crime rate in the u.s. rose for the first time since 2006, and that think we should look at why and

if the fbi is able to work with their state and local partners in this. and now the fbi is at the forefront of using forensic science in its investigations. has had problems in the past, and i like for to working with the fbi developed comprehensive legislation in a forensic matters. so i think the director for being here. but when i think you, director, i also think the hard-working men and women in the fbi. i no you're proud to serve with them. they're proud to have you leading men. i like george your testimony. senator grassley. >> director casey, thank you for your service and extending that amount to time the you're willing to serve the people of this country. they do, chairman, for calling the

hearing, and i welcome the director back, particularly because this will likely be the last hearing that he will appear before the committee. over the past 12 years the director 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 occurred. cooperation between the fbi, federal agencies, and partners and state and local law enforcement has been improved. however, there are still problems of the fbi that need to be addressed such as retaliation

against those who speak out and blow the whistle on the internal problems. that said, for a second time i think the director for his service, and i am sure that he is looking for so much that he served time off. unfortunately we still do not know who will be replacing director robert 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 reports that the president intends to nominate the former deputy attorney general during the bush administration. no official nomination has been received. it is unclear what the intention of the white house's. with the release of his possible nomination. whenever the nomination, it does not change the fact that the president has not formally nominated anyone to succeed

robert mueller. the president needs to send a nomination to the senate and in short order, otherwise we will not have enough time to properly vet the nominee and is sure that the new director is in place prior to the departure of robert mueller. given the fbi role in counter-terrorism, taught turn to of counterintelligence and criminal law enforcement and may delay means the bureaucracy will be left to an acting director. i would like to hear from director robert mueller about the transition planning, how he intends to hand things over. national security programs operated by nsa and utilized by the intelligence community.

the foreign intelligence has stated, started a debate about whether these borings -- program strike the proper balance the chancelleries in their security. as a result of the lease of affirmation demonstration shows to release additional details explaining how the programs operate. various safeguards and programmatic oversight. more oversight is needed of the federal government. given the classified nature of these programs, congress seems to be extra vigilant in conducting oversight of these programs. i get opporunity 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 that people better understand how the 702 program and section 215 work which includes the necessary declassification of affirmation to assist congress in determining where the law was followed at some level of transparency. the american people understand how to work. they're is a lot of distrust in government these days and certainly it is understandable given the scandal at the irs in this sequel -- secrecy surrounding the use of drones in subpoenas seeking reporters e-mails and telephone calls along with the efforts to legislate in spite of constitutional protections and celebrities. is the only way the american people would have confidence in what the government is doing. continue to believe a major problem causing the leaking of classified information is the

lack of whistle-blower protection for members of the intelligence community. the final version of the whistle-blower protection enhancement act was signed into law last year failed to include protections for the intelligence community, and i offered those. these provisions originally included in the senate-passed version, but did not passed the house. specifically it would have provided a protective method for employees to report concerns through a protective channel within the intelligence community. i believe the existence of such a channel would help stop a would-be leaders from releasing classified information, so i would like to hear from a director robert mueller about whether he would support such a provision. another critical national-security issue to address is cyber security. the house has passed four separate bills addressing the issue. the senate continues to address the topic in various committees. all of the proposals recognize the need to strengthen the

nation's cyber security defenses where they differ is out to do it. the fbi plays a front-line role in addressing and investigating several security, so the director might inform us about what barriers exist and are preventing efforts to combat cyber attacks against our computer systems. regarding traditional criminal matters that the fbi, i remain concerned about the number of cases for individuals that may have been convicted based upon faulty fbi crime lab reports. the chairman and i sent a number of letters regarding the unpublished results of the 1996 review of the fbi crime lab. today we have not received a briefing on this request. the department of justice continues to focus only on post expecting review of criminal cases and not provide answers to the committee as to what happened during his previous review.

i would like to hear what the director says about the matter and what has been done to bring justice to the sentence that may be innocent as a result of faulty crime more lab work. i will ask the director about the fbi plans for using unmanned aerial systems are drones at the last oversight hearing. attorney general holder, i asked about the department's use of drones and in direct response the attorney general indicated that da and atf had purchased drones and were exploring their use in law enforcement absent from this response was an indication of how the fbi was using or seeking to utilize drone technology, so i will ask the director whether the fbi has purchased or will consider 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 by bryan terry murdered. it has now been two and a half years since the murder. the fbi has cited the ongoing investigation as a reason for not providing information. however, at some point to the fbi will have to answer questions about this matter, and that is a matter of courtesy and humanity to the family to do that. finally, i remain concerned that whistleblowers at the fbi continues to face retaliation and i will ask the director of the final outcome of to was a blur cases brought by employees at the fbi that i have been tracking for years. the first is that of agents turner who blew the whistle on fbi employees removing evidence from the world trade center site following the september 11th

attack. the second this employee robert kolb is who blew a whistle on time and attendance fraud at the new york city field office fbi, the deputy attorney general found special agent turner was subject to adverse personnel actions. why has the fbi appealed and five special agent turner's case for nearly a decade and what action was taken against those persons who participated in the retaliation? and in regard to this case, what is the current status and if there has been a ruling, why is my office not provided a copy? thank you very much, director, for your service, but also for helping me get to the bottom of some of these things. >> thank you very much. director, we will, of course, put your full statement in the record.

as i said, you're last appearance here. you served with the distinction of only the sixth director of the federal bureau of investigation. which a great career starting service as a u.s. marine in vietnam and through to the presence. careful statement for the record, but the floor is yours. go-ahead. >> thank you, general perry good morning and thank you for the kind comments about my wife here deserves very much of the credit, i must say. i and she appreciate the thinking of her. and a ranking member, thank you for your comments. and thank you for giving me the opportunity here to testify on

behalf of the men and women of the fbi. and on behalf of them let me begin by thanking you for your support of the institution over the last 11, 11 and a half years since september 11th. any progress that we have made it during that timeframe is attributable to a number of entities. one of them being this particular committee. we live in a time of diverse and persistent threats from terrorists, spies timesaver criminals. at the same time we face 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, the fbi, evolve to counter these threats. even during a time of constrained budgets. today i would like to highlight several of the appeal as highest priority as a security in 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 arrests over the past year, we face a continuing threat from homegrown violent extremists. these individuals present unique challenges because they do not share a typical profile. their experiences and motives are often distinct, which makes them difficult to identify and to stop. at the same time, foreign terrorists still steeped -- steeked to strike us at home and abroad. today they operate in more places and against a wide array of targets than they did a decade ago. we have seen an increase in cooperation among terrorist groups and an evolution in their tactics and in their communications. while the core of terraces more decentralized and weaker than it was conveyed remains committed to attacks against the west. affiliate's and surrogates, in

particular the arabian peninsula , 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, cyber, the cyber threat has evolved significantly over the past decade and cuts across all of our fbi programs. cyber criminals had become increasingly adept at exploiting weaknesses in our computer networks and once inside daikon expo trade both state secrets and trade secrets, and we face persistent threats from hackers for profit. organized criminal cyber some tickets and will recall how activist groups. as i said in the past, i do believe that the cyber threat may well eclipse the terrorist threat in years to come. and in response, we are strengthening our cyber capabilities in the same way

that we enhance our intelligence and national security capabilities in the wake of the september 11 to tax. the subdivision is focused on computer intrusions a network attacks. the fbi special agents work side-by-side with federal, state, and local counterparts on server task forces and our 56 field offices working together to detect and disrupt computer intrusions. we have increased the size of the national cyber investigated joint task force, which brings together 19 bought enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies to stop the current attacks and prevent future attacks. and cyber crime requires a global approach. through our 64 legal attache offices overseas we're sharing information and coordinating investigations with their counterparts. finally, on this particular point, we recognize that the private sector is and the essential partner to protect our critical infrastructure and to share threat information. we have established several

noteworthy outreach programs that we must do more on, shifting to a model of true collaboration be restructured partnerships within the government and in the private sector. turning to the fbi criminal programs, we have a great range of responsibilities from complex white-collar fraud to transnational criminal enterprises and from violent crime to public corruption. and 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 continued to exact a high toll on our communities and it threw safe streets and safe trails task force identified and target the most dangerous of the criminal enterprises. at the same time, the bureau remains vigilant to stop child predators'. our mission is threefold. first, to decrease the vulnerability of children to exportation, second to provide rapid and effective wrist bonds to crimes against children and

they're coming to enhance the capabilities of state and local law enforcement task force operations such as the innocent images initiative and the innocence lost initiative. but now, let me pause for a second and spend a moment discussing the recent public disclosure and highly classified national-security programs. the highest priority of 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 the intelligence community to protect privacy interests, even as we must conduct our national security mission. the fisa court has approved these programs that have been conducted consistent with the constitution and the laws of the united states. the programs, as we heard yesterday, have been carried out with extensive oversight from congress, the courts, and

independent inspectors general. in these programs to remain classified, so there are significant limits on what we can discuss this morning in an open session. i do know that there have been classified briefings on these programs for some members of the os/2 of weeks and i hope that most of you, if not all of you, were able to attend. you were unable, which suggest and encourage you to do so. as to the person who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. these disclosures have cause significant harm to our nation and our safety. we are taking all necessary steps to hold accountable the person responsible for these disclosures. but as this is a matter actively under investigation, i 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. the fiscal year 2013, the fbi budget was cut by more than $550 million to sequestration. in fiscal year 2014, that cuts will total more than $700 million. the ongoing hiring freeze will result in 2200 vacancies at the fbi by the end of this fiscal year. with another 1300 additional vacancies in 2014. i have said and you have said that the bureau greatest asset is 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 reductions. we're going through a thorough review of every dollar spent. i am sure that we can find

savings. we would like to work with the committee to mitigate the most significant impacts of the cuts of this fiscal year and those that we anticipate for the next fiscal year. the chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, i would like to thank you on behalf of the bureau and all 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. again, thank you personally and on behalf of the fbi and for your efforts and your contributions and dallas-fort to answering any questions you might have. ..

>> under section 215, i think that the people that i know, it has been sufficiently effective to justify this is a very expensive scope.

last week i asked about this with general alexander and if he could provide specific information. there is a lot of data obtained that was critical. he promised that he would provide that so let me ask you this. with the phone records obtained through section 215.

it has been critical to the discovery of terrorist threats and if so, how many times. >> the answer to that is yes, i would say that for most of the occasions, it has been a contributing factor as to what is going on. this was an individual yesterday out of san diego that we had opened in 2003 based on an anonymous tip. >> the information was from the tip. >> we close it down in 2003.

in 2007, the nsa was up on the telephone line in east africa. they have a number, but they could not tell what calls were made to that telephone line in east africa. they basically came up with these number of telephone numbers in san diego. it was a reckless predication. it was solely based, initially, reopening of that case, that person has been convicted. but that is one case. >> is impossible to say how many has been critical?

>> well, let me go back to september 11, the intelligence agencies were on him, tracking to the far east. they are affiliated, they are known to be affiliated with terrorists.

and someone was calling this number in san diego from yemen. you know, the ig report afterwards, they report had we had this information, we very well may have stopped the attack >> the 9/11 commission, i realize before you order time, the cia and the fbi are sharing information.

the follow-up in washington, that moment made such a difference. we can look at a lot of things that i assume that we are doing a lot better today. -- and of course we know that the president was told in august of a serious concern about this. and i realize the mistake has been made before 9/11. we are trying to pose that. i just want to make sure that we are collecting the information. i was concerned about the nsa, although they were complaining about this as though this was critical to everything.

although, yet, as you know, there have been several billion phone calls, sometimes you don't have anything unless you have a tip from someone about police work that makes you look back and wonder what once were worthwhile. i worry that we get so imbued with the technology that the technology of the world, that it doesn't begin to help as much as just connecting the dots. >> you are moving dots from the playing field. now, he may make that decision

that it's not worth it. those are fewer dots for him to connect. the database retains those records and identifies that secular person who is in communication with the terrace member overseas. >> we have very conflicting testimony on the boston marathon bombing that even though the boston police had officers on the joint terrorism task force, they were not given all the information that the fbi had about what the russian security had to say.

>> yes and no. let me explain. the boston task force laster had probably close to a thousand threats related to counterterrorism. everyone on that task force has local threats. the question that i think from this point of view involves the hierarchy of the boston police department. this because it was resolved, it was not an immediate threat. it did not did through the task force to the higher levels of the fbi. but their other participants in the task force. i don't care that it -- i don't think it is fair to criticize the task force concept and something like this.

the work that we did was first-rate. we have developed is over a period of time and it is expensive. identifying who is responsible for this, it is so attributable by us and the relationships that hand. >> i apologize for taking extra time. >> please go ahead. >> you don't need to apologize. during the last hearing during may of 2012, the senator has asked the question whether or not president obama discussed potential successes with you. he responded at that time that

you had in the past but not recently. now, i don't expect to get any information on the content of this discussion he might have with the president. but i do ask since the hearing, have you discussed potential successions with president obama two. >> well, yes. i generally don't like to get into conversations. but i would say yes. >> you have a transition plan in place for how much time is needed to implement the plan in order to provide this transition? >> we have been preparing for the last 2.5 years. we have already repaired extensive materials and we are prepared to start the briefings as soon as a person is sworn in.

we had been looking at this person also there can be some overlap, so if a person comes in and have key components, we are ready to support them. in the same way when i came in before september 11, the fbi supported me. >> how much time is necessary for that? >> well, it's a learning experience. we will get the briefings and the like. but it will take maybe a month to really get one's feet on the ground. in that month, i will tell you that something will happen. whatever you plan, something else will come up and your attention will be diverted. it is hard to say a specific timeframe. >> 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. >> i'm not in a position to be

able to -- >> let me go on to another question then. this involves the "fast and furious." i said that i know that the fbi doesn't talk about ongoing investigations. however, eventually the fbi has to talk about the brian terry murder investigation, despite eventually had to talk about this i'm going to answer questions about concerns that the terry family had. of course, the indications of an attempted cover-up have been fully investigated. so i'm asking you now, would you be able to answer this before leaving office? >> we will make every effort to do so. >> okay. just one question in regard to

this. on october 20 of 2011, i wrote you to ask what time the fbi arrived where the border patrol agent brian terri was murdered. there are conspiracy theories out there that the fbi warned fbi informant was out in tech canyon before agent brian terri was shot. you believe there is any truth to those theories? >> no, i don't believe that there is any truth in those theories. i would have to go back and make certain. off the top of my head i don't believe there's any truth yet. but i would have to make sure that there is nothing that we would be supportive of those things. >> okay. i would like to have that in writing. >> okay. >> in recent responses to questions i asked attorney general eric holder following these last oversight hearings, the department of justice advises the committee that atf has acquired unmanned aircraft

systems and the department indicated that those agencies were drawing up plans and procedures and the responses did not indicate whether the fbi had acquired any drones and whether there were future plans for drone technology use by the agency and if so, for what purpose. >> yes, sir, for surveillance. as the fbi have any agreement with any other government agency >> i'm not certain, i don't think so. all i'm saying is the issues with drones, by any agency, what

happens in the air space to the extent that it relates to the airspace, that there could be some indication back-and-forth. >> instead of asking question, i think that i can assume, since you do use drones, that the fbi has a set of policies and procedures and operational limits on the use of drones and whether or not any privacy impact exists. >> we are in the initial stages of doing that. i will tell you that this is very small. we have very few and we are exploring not only the use, but the necessary guidelines. >> does the fbi use drones for surveillance on u.s. soil this

is in regards to the distributing illegal passports and engaging in other criminal activity that facilitates false passports. the immigration bill before the senate would weaken this current law. under the bill, only those who produce issue or distribute three or more passport will have committed a crime. under the bill, only those who possess or use three or more passports will have committed a crime. even more outrageous under the bill, only those who use any official material to make 10 or more passports will have committed a crime. will these changes in current law on counterterrorism or counterintelligence efforts of the fbi? >> i am not familiar and even

less so with the proposed idea. i would have to get back to you on that particular question. >> i'm not certain that we had that much experience. other groups such as al qaeda or hezbollah or other spies, they can more easily operate within the united states. >> without analyzing the bill, i'm not in a position to comment on this. >> okay, i will yield. >> thank you very much. senator feinstein?

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you have made several marks as to the integrity director mueller, i first met you and i was mayor. i think it was 30 years ago. and you are a united states attorney in san francisco. i have watch your progress. i have watched you serve two presidents. one republican and one democrat. i have watched your extraordinary integrity. i have watched you remove the fbi from certain interrogation, having to do with this. when you didn't think it was appropriate.

>> i wanted to just have a talk with you about these two programs. i go front and center with them as chair of the intelligence committee of the senate. and, you know, we have looked we have tried to provide the oversight. to see that they follow law. we had a classified briefing. i will say one thing about it trade for 47 members and we have had the former chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court bear explain how the court proceeds. as you do, i believe that most of these programs are legal and carefully overseen. senator leahy mention the ones that collects phone record data.

not the names, but the data. not the content, but the data. only 22 people have access to it. and it was approximately queried 300 times only the past year. you yourself have mentioned that it was responsible for 10 to 12% of the 50 cases where the nsa has said it is helpful. i'm asking you now for quantitative judgment. i have made mine. how do you judge them as highly worth it or not worth it. >> this was the key to preventing a terrorist attack. how can you differentiate that from this or others that may come up the capabilities of

terrorists are the weakest link. if we are to prevent terrorist attacks, we have to be in their communications yes, it is critically important that we have that link. then the question is, when you legislate it and you have this, how do you appropriately get oversight at the justice department, and the national security division, and the inspector general's office and

through court and through congress. i think that anyone who looks at these programs wants to make sure that they are legal and effective and of appropriate oversight because of the civil liberties concerns. would you identify is are you going to take the dog off the table and make them unavailable there were two conspirators were going to participate in a it showed that there were going to be more people. and it seems to me that if we weren't able to protect it and the new york subway, with

hundreds of people, thousands of people being killed. that there would be no question as to its value and worth. i have come to believe that the only way we prevent these attacks is intelligence. how do you get good intelligence? how do you get it when likely one of the conspirators is in another country connected with a terrorist group. and one is in this country prepared to carry it out. to me, the value of those programs is substantial was this

part of the records of the phone companies? >> keith alexander and others are looking at the possibility of restructuring the program in this way. in my mind, there are two or three disadvantages. first of all, there is no potential requirement on a telephone conversation at this point. so maybe less. some may be more. in that database, there will be numbers that the suspect numbers included overseas. it would require you to go to three or four or five or six particular carriers, it will require them to come and pick up what they have collected and are keeping their and get back to you. the point being, it would take a long time. when you are trying to prevent attacks, with the information in

this is almost instantaneously see can prevent that attack, you cannot wait three months or six months or year to get that information be able to collate and put it together. those are the concerns i have about an alternative way of handling this. >> them ask you if it is 10 or 12 cases were 10 or 12%. >> 10 or 12 cases. >> i am not sure whether all of them are 215. >> 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 in the use of the drone. and the very few regulations that are on it today. in the booming industry of commercial drones. you mentioned that you use it for surveillance.

what are the privacy strictures on the use of drones by your agency today? >> well, it was a particular incident where you need the capability. you know, i will have to go back and check in what we keep in terms of the images and the like. it is very narrowly focused on particular life cases. and that is a principle limitation that we have. >> i would like to get that information. i think it would be helpful to the legislation. >> i would be happy to do that. >> thank you very much. >> senator hatch, you are next. >> thank you so much, madam chairman. i came here today to thank you for your service. i also want to thank senator

feinstein for her kind remarks as well. she has done an excellent job on the intelligence committee. up until i left a few years ago, i believe it was the longest serving person on the intelligence committee and i have been fully aware of the matters. all i can say that i want to pay tribute to general alexander and others in the intelligence community and the fbi for the work that they have done to protect the country. to ferret out these problems that could have been very disastrous i also want to personally thank you i've been drinking member on this committee. i just have to say that i don't know that we have ever had an fbi director as good as you are.

>> it is meant very sincerely. i have watched you over the years. i have watched the fbi do their job. in many ways, people don't even know about it. it is a thankless job in many ways. you have given almost 12 years of your life to this type of work. i want to personally tell you how much i personally appreciate you and the fbi and those who have served over the years. i wish you the very best when you do hang it up here. i think all of us -- i just think that you are truthful. and i won't take any more time. but i just wanted to make sure that i let you know just how deeply i fee