large and complex portfolio. i know you are constantly reviewing the allocation of personal to make sure they received the attention they deserve. the example of puerto rico, the home to 3.7 million american citizens, underscores why it is

important for the fbi, notwithstanding its transformation in the wake of 9/11, to continue to place great emphasis on the crucial role of the crime-fighting agency. it was noted at a hearing last year that the people of puerto rico are under siege. like all american citizens, my constituents are targets for al qaeda an affiliate organizations. they worry about terrorism when they board a plane, visit a chorus line with their children or travel abroad. in 1972, 16 american citizen from puerto rico were killed and many more were wounded in an airport that -- in israel. the fact is, my constituents are dying every day and they are not being killed in terrorist attack.

. they are dying in huge numbers because of the toxic makes of drugs, banks, and national criminal organizations. between 2003 and 2012, there were many victims in puerto rico. there were 1001 of the 64 murders. that is of over three homicides a day every day. that is the same homicide deaths as taxes, which is seven times the size of puerto rico.

i have urged the federal government to search resources to puerto rico to alleviate this crisis. following the visit to this this country by secretary napolitano, i have urged an update. the secretary of defense is directed to provide a report on counter drug activity to support law enforcement efforts in and around puerto rico can it in march, a lengthy killed a letter to attorney general reiterating our request that d.o.j. certification resources to puerto rico. it was clear that the fbi, the

dea and the atf needs to reduce the level of violence in puerto rico and to reassure my constituents that their national government cares about them and is working every day to protect them. director, can you please tell me takes or will take to reduce the excessively high levels of violence in puerto rico, the threat has involved in terms of its nature and severity. the time for business as usual is over. >> as we have discussed previously, i am tremendously sympathetic to what is happening in puerto rico as we go along. we have added a higher response to cover crimes.

we have full-time agents and they are -- are fully staffed. under sequestration, the possibility of allocating additional resources is very difficult. i have been a homicide prosecutor and have had some understanding of devastation -- the devastation of communities be set by crime. we are having some success. all i can tell you it is, i wish i could do more at this point. given the budget constraints, it is difficult. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for five

minutes. >> the chairman of the clinton committee -- the chairman of the ranking committee said the ira's case is -- the irs case is h build. have you found the -- is handled. have you found the rogue agent? can you tell me how many investigators are assigned to b pays? >> i will have to give back to you? >> can you tell me who the lead investigator is? ? >> no.

>> we would like to know how many people you have assigned to this situation. >> i have not had a recent brief -- briefing. >> have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by the government? have you met with any of the tea party folks since may 24, 2013? >> i cannot know what the status is. but we do expect that that has been done? >> at some point in time, that will be done. i do not know specifically -- >> with your extensive history in investigative work, don't you talk to the victims? did the fbi contact any of these same victims? when they contacted by the fbi

prior to the investigation with these groups were applying for tax-exempt status? did the fbi paid them a visit? >> i do not know. >> you do not know? some of them testified they had been visited by the fbi. >> i do not know. >> if the fbi did contact people involved in the irs scandal when they were applying for tax exempt status, why would you be looking into it and was there possibly coordination with the irs? >> you are asking me details about the investigation. >> i am not asking you details. why were people detail before the investigation started? people who were part of tea party groups targeted by the irs. >> i would be happy to take --

>> that took place before the investigation started. i would --

because this did happen. is it appropriate when the inspector general is doing his investigation, doing his audit, to give information to the people he is investigating in the course of the investigation

and not share that information with the oversight committee. specifically, may 30 of last year, the incident told doug schulman that the terms tea party and patriot were used to identify groups and put them on a list. four days later, he told the general counsel at treasury the same information, but did not share that with the committee to ask with the investigation, the committee that has oversight over the investigation. is that typically how an investigation is supposed to work? >> you are talking of circumstances with which i am not familiar. i cannot comment on what was appropriate to your investigation. >> if i could, mr. chairman, i would stop. you have had a month to investigate. this has been the biggest story in the country and you cannot

tell me who the lead investigator is. you cannot tell me the actions intestate it took, you cannot tell me -- actions be investigated to the and you cannot tell me of that was appropriate? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the director will be allowed to answer the question. if you cannot answer it today, we would expect it to be answered in writing. >> i would be happy to, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. director, with your service. i believe, and transparency and better data about the requests made to data providers will help

us balance national security needs with privacy rights. it was referred to that school will -- google sent a letter to you requesting it be required to provide reports on national security requests it received, as well as the scope. i would wonder if you would share with us your response to that request. >> that is being looked at by justice at this point. >> google did work with the department of justice to disclose in broad strokes the number of national security letters google did receive. did this harm national security in anyway? >> let me hypothesize without answering particularly. if you have those figures out there, would someone who wanted to have secure communications make some decisions as a result of that information?

as to what communications capability they used, there are issues the need to be discussed in the course of deciding what needs to be de-classified. most of us in the government would love to be able to disclose more because it would be more understandable to people. you have been conflicting values of trying to protect the country and trying to protect that information. it enables us to continue to identify and assess conditions of terrorists. that is a conflict. >> thank you. the committee is considering a reform of the electronics communications privacy act. the committee reported reform legislation out of committee. members on both side of -- size of the aisle agree that we have

failed to modernize our law which reasonable expectations of privacy, especially in the digital age. i believe law enforcement should use the same standards to search your inbox as they used to search your home. our current law only allows a subpoena issued by a judge to turn over e-mails that have been opened or are more than six months old. the committee is considering legislation that would require government entities to obtain a warrant before having access to content. i am pleased that the attorney general holder has admitted that the privacy and has failed to keep up with technology. to you agree it is time to reform these laws to create a one standard for these contents? >> i agree it is time to relocate these laws given

communication in terms of the impact it would have on particular situations. i would wait to see what kind of legislation is proposed. >> if i have a physical letter or a piece of paper in my home, you would need a warrant. if i have an online piece of communication, it does not necessarily have the same standard. >> we would be pleased to get back to you by letter or regular e-mail. >> in terms of keeping up with recommendations on different forms, do you think we need to look at the way folks to indicate now because it is different in the past? clearly, our laws have not kept up with the changes in technology. do you have an opinion or idea of how you would like to see legislation reforms? >> we will give back to you on whatever ideas we have.

the attitude of privacy are necessary for it remains medication or piece of data related to communications. if you raise the standard too hi,-- high, we need to identify the subscriber and others in the network. if we find that they are involved in terrorism, we need to get a wiretap. we tend to confuse that which is covered by the 14th -- fourth amendment with that not covered by the fourth amendment. that ought to be kept in mind.

>> thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> thank you, director. you have made yourself regularly available to this committee. i want to tow -- tucked about geolocation and metadata. a g.p.s. device placed on a vehicle for an extended period of time is an extensive search. g.p.s. allows you to tell the specific or about where it to the phone is. can you help me define helpmetadata i -- helped redefine what metadata is? can you help me define what else is in the so-called metadata category?

>> in the case of e-mails, it would be header information. but not the subject line. that would not be metadata. >> would it include geolocation information? >> that is a question ir jones d what is steal location -- geo location and how it applies. >> jones can be applied to a number of ways in which we use

geolocation. we take a conservative approach because you did not know what will be the process of jones. i cannot say off of the top of my hand. >> is there a database of geo location data that is where house by the federal government? >> not the i am aware of. post-jones, there has been guidance given by the fbi. i would love to see that information. i have seen two on classifying documents through the freedom of information act. is that something you can share with his committee? >> i would have to look at that. if it is unclassified and internal, i would have to look at that. >> this telephone, the federal

government has no problem following this phone, who i call. i call my 12 year old daughter, the telephone i call on and how long i had. i have a bill that i have sponsored that categorizes geo location as content as opposed to metadata. if you are going to follow with his telephone is, where it is, is that contour and? -- is that content? >> it may be content. it depends on the circumstances. there is no database specifically addressed to geo location apart from any other events to give activity that is solely a geo of space location

database. >> post-jones, thus espn believe there should be a lower standard to access -- does the fbi believe there should be lower standard to access geolocation information. >> i would have to give back to you. i apologize. i know you submitted the questions. >> it is terribly disappointing to come to this point and talk about something that is in the headlines of every newscast and i gave the questions in advance. it is terribly frustrating. you are the head of the fbi, the director of the fbi. this is an accord discussion and dialogue. i know i will not get an answer. >> i will review the questions

after have had a chance to preview -- review. >> i yield back. >> i think the chairman. we will reinforce our urging that these questions be answered properly and that a meeting take place with the gentleman from utah. he has an issue that needs to have your input. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> i thank the distinguished chair. i want to thank the director for your service to this great country. edward snowden as a villain. by some, his actions have been called courageous or heroic. it is not my place to characterize them one way or another.

welcome to enhance -- a court of law will come to a conclusion. it is clear that he has become a lightning rod that has sparked in poor and debate in this country -- sparked an important debate on legitimately held security concerns and the concerns for privacy and liberty, which i essential for the preservation of of our democracy. in that spirit, i just wanted to get a sense of some of the particulars, to the extent you can discuss them in an open committee hearing, related to the recent acquisitions -- acquisition connected to the verizon metadata. that was based on a conclusion

by yourself, the fbi, and other relevant actions, that the metadata for all verizon customers for a three month period that was relevant to a counterterrorism investigation or a foreign intelligence acquisition. is that correct? >> if you are talking about the finding of relevance, i would have to refer you to the fisa court. yes, there was an order that was issued. that was one piece of the order. there are other aspects of it. this information was accumulated and satisfied the relevant standards. >> in order for the fbi to come to the conclusion that it can

legitimately pursue this information, i presume you have to conclude it is relevant information. >> yes. access to this information is limited. there has to be a showing of reasonable and art cicilline -- and articulable suspicion. there is a limited search of the data that is done to answer that particular question. that process satisfy the relevant standard under the fisa court. once you pursue information based on the reasonable standard, what is the process for attempting to acquire contour and information connected to that metadata? >> you have to go to an

additional legal process, for instance, subscriber information if you want to obtain and wire interception. here is an additional legal process you would have to go through. >> would be fair to say it would be the fbi position that this type of metadata information should be made available pursuant to a court decision and other service providers beyond verizon? >> i cannot talk to specifics of the program. >> is there anything you can say as to why verizon or verizon users were deemed particularly relevant in a broadway, -- broad way? >> it goes into the details of the program.

i cannot get into it in an open session. i dunno if it was talked about hearing declassifies session on tuesday. in an open session, it would be difficult for me to respond. >> in terms of the sequestration impact on the fbi, i believe the fbi has increased its efforts in relation to privacy and the illegal property space. that is a step he left taken. piracy impacts our each economy in increasingly important ways. i do not think they will be impacted next year. >> across the board, my expectation is we have to

consider drastic reductions across the board. >> the chairman recognizes mr. pope for 5 minutes. >> we will talk about a constituent from houston, texas. she and her husband started two groups. the fbi domestic terrorism units inquired about their attendees for an event. january 2011, our enterprises

were audited in 2008 and 2009. in january 2011, true the vote, the irs questioned their nonprofit application. the king street patriots were visited -- when to the fbi after the request about questions, how are they doing, in thing you need to tell us. october 2011, the irs questioned their application. they wanted to know who their facebook people were, all of their tweets, who they were tweeting to, every place they had ever spoken, who they were speaking to, the names of the participants, copies of

transcripts, everywhere they intended to speak. they ask about 300 questions, including who is doing the training, what are the backgrounds of the trainers. then they asked who your lawyers were in the background of the lawyers and the qualifications of the lawyers. i will furnish you the 300 questions. to read more visits by the fbi june, november, december to the king street patriots. then the irs in february 2012 questions the non-profit status again of true th ev -- true the vote. i sent your office an inquiry saying if this group was under investigation for criminal defense -- criminal offenses. i get a letter back saying they

are not under criminal investigation. they finally get another question from the irs from utah in march of this year. april of this year, here comes the atf again, another unscheduled visit to the business. i have read the civil rights law. it is important. you have a civil rights division in the fbi. i understand the law. you cannot start with a certain group because of them beliefs. the irs has already said, we targeted certain tea party groups because they were tea party groups. my question, without going into

details, in the hypothetical case, irs carnitine groups with this information you have seen -- the irs targeting groups with this information you have seen, does that appear to be something? is a complaint was filed with the fbi, the fbi will investigate a civil rights violation. >> that would be part of the ongoing investigation of the circumstances related to the irs that was initiated a number of weeks ago. my expectation is that this would be a piece of that investigation. you also indicated the fbi who visited these individuals. i will go back and looked at the accreditation for that particular visit to follow-up -- predication for that particular

visit. >> thank you. i yield back my time. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> mr. director, i want to thank you for your service to our country. i want to touch on three different areas. i want to start with the rosen affidavit that says if there is probable cause that a reporter has committed a crime as an aider or abettor or as a co- conspirator, why would he phrased be added that they wanted to contemplate a prosecution? >> i do not know why a person with a value those -- value that

statement. >> i was a prosecutor. i cannot remember ever having extra wording to an application for a search warrant. i am vexed by the words, "at the very least." and also requested an order citing the five reasons. do you know which of the five categories that would need to be shown for a non-it is closure order was testified to -- for a non-disclosure order was testified to? which of the five categories or at play? >> i am not familiar with that application.

>> the you ever recall discussing the rosen investigation with the attorney general .? >> no. >> if there was probable cause that a crime was being committed, was there discussion of indicting rosen? >> not that i know of? >> if you had more than probable cause, why would there not be discussion of indicting? >> you have done any number of affidavits yourself.

the lawyer is this what the agent nose in the course of the investigation so that you can get the approval -- knows in the course of the investigation so that you can get the approval. >> you were not part of any conversations with respect to whether an indictment should be considered. you do not know whether or not the conversations took place. you were not far down. >> i was not. >> does the bureau have a policy with respect to shopping judges? if you go to an article 3 judge in you are denied, is there a policy at the bureau on judge- shopping? >> thought that i am aware of. -- not that i am aware of.

>> there was a report of the bureau investigating solicitation of prostitution overseas. would you have jurisdiction in that? >> i do not know of of the top of my head. i will have to get back to you. >> if the state department tried to influence the investigation, is that something be bureau would have jurisdiction over? >> i am not certain. going back to the question of activities overseas, if there was a disclosure of secrets, we would have a reason to be involved. as to the second question, i cannot say. >> i think it may be a crime to travel for the purpose of

soliciting under age sex. >> i believe that would be covered. i have not done this work for some time. >> finally, with respect to benghazi, this is not a trick question. the closer you get to a crime scene, the better your coin to be able to investigate and process it -- the better you are going to be able to process it. the bureau did not get to benghazi for how long? >> for two weeks. >> why did the bureau not get to benghazi for two weeks? i want to ask you one more question. if and benghazi was not safe enough for the premier law enforcement agency in the world, how is it safe enough for us to send diplomats?

>> another question that is not in my bailiwick. i understand it is not a rhetorical question. >> it is not a rhetorical question. but i cannot answer it. >> it is a good question, but the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for five minutes. >> by the time we get here, there is some kind of rhetorical question. my friend from south carolina brought a very good point. there are some things that people look at and they say, this does not make sense. it contributes to the disconnect that happens with folks who get up and go to work every morning. they see what is happening up here and they say, it does not pass the smell test.

i want to go in a different direction. how our country wants to be safe. our people want to know and the government in putting out for them and know that there is legal sharing and not overreach. the hard work between the police and law enforcement agencies and the justice department. there needs to be a balance. this is something called the joint national intelligence group. there is a pilot program to coordinate information shared by foreign and domestic intelligence communities. we have been hearing from state and local law enforcement that the fbi is taking control of standing of the pilot program and they have been excluded. is that your understanding of what is: on? >> who would be excluded? >> the local and state agencies.

>> i know there was some concern that this was a new vehicle. we have explained sufficiently that this is not anything new. it is greater integration of the intelligence capacity around the country. >> you are saying this is an existing program. >> i am not certain which program the director of national intelligence is talking about. >> the joint regional intelligence coup. >> yes. it certainly includes state and local law enforcement. there are parts of that particular undertaking and you have to differentiate different parts of that undertaking. there are various divisions and districts in charge of intelligence collection.

>> tell me a little bit more about this program. it seems to be more of a pilot program. there was into this stuff that was already there. where is this being located out of? >> i guess you'll sweat confused in terms of what programs you are talking about. i would be happy to can that to you on this. >> we will move on. i appreciate getting back to me. you are in your last little bit. i would open this up to say, is this out of date. would it be helpful for law enforcement to have a clear standard of collection?

if so, what do you believe that with the? >> yes, i think it is outdated. as i indicated before, i would caution against raising standards for obtaining basic nine- -- non-fourth amendment data. i would look at it to be updated. i also have some concerns about raising standards that would impact our ability to conduct cases, whether it be terrorism or other was. >> i have a law professor who said he was surprised there was a fourth amendment existing today. in an environment, where it seems to be meetadat -- metadata, we have a pretty hard

line to focus. we are protecting civil liberties, yet giving access where need be, where people would understand there would be a reason to investigate. >> given the new technology in the ability to communicate in any number of ways, the statute needs to be upgraded. as the concern comes, you can identify terrorists by looking at the accumulation of non- fourth amendment protected data. for a terrorist looking to kill americans, it may be worth that balance. on the other hand, you want to protect against the abuse of that collection of data.

depending on many court decisions on what is metadata and what is protected, i am concerned that we are in a situation where someone who does not understand this situation, it may be balanced and we may be comparing apples and oranges. thank you for your service. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman from idaho is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, director, for being here. thank you for your service. i was a criminal defense attorney. i am confused about the answer from the demonstration about the rosen investigation. how many times as an fbi director or as an attorney in your law enforcement practice have you had the opportunity to

investigate somebody who you did not intend to prosecute? >> as i said before, that happens all the time. >> i want to be specific about this. not that you cannot prosecute after the investigation, but that the purpose of the investigation to find out if you need to prosecute somebody, but to actually look into somebody's private communications whom you do not intend to prosecute. do you understand my specific question? >> i think i do, but we are passing each other. there could be a husband and wife team avoiding taxes. you have problem cause to believe the wife was -- >> you have probable cause to believe both are committing a crime. you determine after the investigation that one committed the crime and one did not commit the crime, right?

>> that is an option, yes. >> tell me how often a prosecutor and it somebody who they did not intend to prosecute, who they do not intend to file charges against. it seems to me it is much broader than the fourth amendment. you are going beyond the extent of the fourth amendment. >> you know the dialogue between the defense counsel and prosecutor as to whether or not the person will be prosecuted in terms of testimony. we do not prosecute a person if they cooperate with us. we will investigate during a period of time and they will be considered better as a call operator dial- co-operator -- as a co-operatives. >> i have never heard an investigation where you went

after an individual when there was no intention of finding out whether that person would be prosecuted. >> i am not certain i said that. i was not in the position to make that determination. >> that is what was said in this committee. >> i would have to look specifically at what the attorney general said. >> going after somebody you do not intend to prosecute. i am having a hard time with that excuse. >> there are a number of occasions as a prosecutor where we have the capability, may be the intent at the outset to make a determination for whatever reason what we want cooperation. we make a determination. there are competing interests. >> when you make the determination of the investigation has occurred. the problem that we have with this investigation is that mr.

rosen was never intended to be prosecuted. this was a cushion expedition that in, the fourth amendment, which was unnecessary. that is why they have to go around shopping for a different judges who would have approved of this subpoena. >> i do not perceive it as a fishing expedition. previously in these investigations, we focus on the bleak -- the leaker. we have to show the information went from this person to the person who ultimately publish it. that is part of the investigation. you get the facts as to how that information got from the individual who had the security. >> when you go to the judge, you tell the judge you are intending to prosecute this person, that this person has violated the law

in some way. you have reasonable suspicion that this person has violated the law. how often have you submitted a subpoena to a judge is saying is that somebody violated the law when you have no intention to ever prosecute that person? you did not think your investigation would lead to prosecution. >> i would have to think about it. under those circumstances, i would have to think about it. >> will the gentleman yield? i think the gentleman. he is asking an important line of questions. if the allegations made in the case regarding mr. rosen saying that there was probable cause that he was an least an aider, abettor, and that he was a flight risk in u.s. the the record be sealed for 18 months, if though -- if those were the

facts, why wouldn't you prosecute the individual? >> that would mean we have a competing interests. >> what was it? >> the seventh amendment. >> that goes back to the question asked by the gentleman of items -- from idaho. if there was that consideration, why would it be appropriate to go before the judge to say all these things about the individual to get a search warrant to go through this e- mail with this without his knowledge? why not tell him temple -- why not tell him? >> there were discussions that went on with the united states attorney in the department of justice. >> i will grant the gentlemen additional minutes if he wants to ask more questions. >> i yields.

-- i yield. >> this concludes the hearing today. director, thank you. you have at -- answered a lot of difficult questions. i will join all of my colleagues. virtually everyone of them thank you for and your service. if they did not, it is because they neglected to do so. i think there are some questions that remain that you were not able to answer. we will submit questions to you in writing. we would find it important to have those additional pieces of information. all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. with that and with our thanks, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> several lively sense to tell you about this one. our coverage of the faith and freedom coalition starts at 9:00 a.m. speakers include jeb bush, paul ryan and mark sanford. on c-span 2 at 9:30 a.m. eastern, the house committee on health talks about prescription drug abuse.

in a few moments, a look at today's headlines, plus your calls and tweets live on "washington journal." the house will consider in the house -- will consider the appropriations bill. later, a discussion on the tax code with the chairman of the ways and means committee and senator max baucus, hence the finance committee. in about 45 minutes, we will be joined by the chief economist for moody's analytics to discuss economic indicators including unemployment numbers, wholesale, and gross domestic product. we will look at the policy implications as the census bureau annual population

estimates. our guest will be with the census bureau and from the pew research center. "washington journal"journal is next. next.