tv Capital News Today CSPAN June 24, 2013 11:00pm-2:01am EDT
>> 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 feel towards you and
those in the fbi who have been doing such a great job. >> thank you very much, senator. i have been very lucky and fortunate to have the opportunity to do this job. i have loved and enjoyed it. i thank you for the comment. >> you have done a great job. >> thank you very much, senator hatch. senator klobuchar is next. i do not see her. senator franken, he is not here. senator sessions? ..
i want to join in my comments in that regard. there are so many things that are happening now, i think the fbi needs to rise to the occasion. the fbi is such a premiere investigative agency. i have the honor to prosecute cases brought to me by fbi agents for almost fifteen years. i met with them personally for hours and weekends and nights and know how meticulously they work to do everything exactly right. when i hear people have doubts on -- great doubts sometimes about being the intick -- integrity of the average cases and the agents i know, i know it's not right. they try to do the right thing every day. if they are --
they can make mistakes, and congress sometimes creates circumstances that puts them in difficult positions, and life is tough for agents out there. but fundamentally day after day, i worked with by agents, they are personal friends of mine and remain so for decades. i just want to share those thoughts maybe you would like to comment about the fidelity of your agents? >> you're not going to find a better group of people to serve with. the testimony was most firmly felt. when i was a new person in the institution, and in the wake of september 11th, and the organization to every agent, analyst, every professional
staff worked flawlessly in response to that. it was just indicative of the capability of the organization and the quality of the people. >> well, i agree, and direct -- one of the big matters before the nation today is the irs scandal involving the actions that have been taken to target conservatives or tea party groups. so happens that i know becky garrettson on the tea party who testified before the house committee, and she was a normal housewife, american citizens who got deeply engaged in trying to make our country better. she loves this country. her integrity is high, she was trying to dot right thing, i believe that the irs did not perform and handle their applications for status and correctly. i believe it's a very serious
matter, and i'm concerned about it. you were asked last week, i believe, about this as to whether or not the victims of probably victims of abuses have been interviewed, and i believe you said no. i believe on may 14th, attorney general holder said the fbi -- said an investigation had been convinced subpoena the fbi -- is the fbi the lead agency on the irs matter? >> yes. >> and you have designated agents in charge of that investigation? >> yes, i have. >> and you were asked before whether you knew the names of those. did you tell u or how many have been assigned? >> i can say over a dozen agents have been designed. luckily, i can tell you it fa alls within the per view the
assistant director in the washington office who is in charge of the investigation at the field level and we have people at headquarter who are monitoring it. i cannot tell you who in the course of the investigation has been interviewed. let me tell you that before we initiated the investigation, if and we did, get complaints those individuals were interviewed before we even initiated a -- an investigation. they would be the victims which you mentioned. >> well, the fbi is the right agency, in my opinion, without question, should not be internal to irs, ig or others. and you have the independence to do that effectively. i believe you can do that, but i called her this morning and so happens we were discussing with a lawyer, and they said they have been talking to other
so-called potential victims and none have been interviewed. none have been contacted about an interview even an appointment set up with them. i think that's pretty slow. the first thing you do, from my experience, you interview the people and find out what conversations they had, what documents they have, the basic parameter of the problem and get busy on it. do you think -- it seems to me that you are running behind here. what would you say about that? >> well, i'm not familiar with the the day in day out details. given what you have said i'll see where it is. also in the investigations, one of the first things, as you well know as a prosecutor have the records when you do the interview you have the reck with a sit material. [inaudible conversations] i don't know what is happening at the level of who in
particular being interviewed. ly go back and check on that. >> i think you need to get that level. i think it's too slow. and i think you can always have agents -- well, we are getting or records together. we are reviewing some. >> as i understand it. >> somebody needs to find out what the problem is. talk to the people and see what the problem is. first, -- >> i tell you there's a sense of urgency with the investigation. it's not languishing. >> all right. i would share with senator grassley deep concern that the immigration bill would say for a passport which you should be aware of and they need to be on top of only those who produce issue, or distribute three or more passports have committed a crime. under the bill only those who forge, alter, and possess three or more pass passports will have committed a crime. only those who use any official material to make ten or more passports will have committed a crime. i hope you will look that the.
we would like the fbi's advice if it makes it more difficult to produce integrity in the passport processing business. would you look at that? >> yes, will do. yes, will do. >> thank you. senator klobchar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director mo leer. thank you for your wonderful service and the work you are done in minnesota. i think the nation was rivetted the work that you did in your agents can with boston. thank you for that. i notice there had atf agents there. i'm going start with that. we a hearing from the president's nominee for the head of the atf. do you think it would be helpful to permanent head of the atf. >> i think it's always beneficial for the agency to have a permanent head. >> very good. are you aware that since the position became confirmable that the congress has never confirmed anyone for the job.
>> as i understand that? >> yes. >> yes. and one of the ideas put out there if they are unto be goat -- get bipartisan support now have get to a confirmed nominee as senator durbin's idea to put it under the fbi for a number of years it goes without getting a confirmed directer. what would you think of the idea? >> it's something that would require a great deal of study, and before one were to embark on a merger. >> as i understand. i think we're at the point where we have 2400 agents who deserve a permanent head and just as your agents have a permanent head, and i'm hopeful we'll be to be get done this year. i want to put it out there for the people to think about. we're sort of left with the hope of conformation ahead. but if that doesn't happen, we have to think of other ways to get done. i appreciate that. the other question -- there have been several
questions on nsa issues. i would appreciate your comments earlier i think to chairman leahy about supporting declassifying or working to do that some of the fisa opinions; is that correct? >> i haven't been asked about the fis opinions in particular. what we're talking about is the example of where either 215 or 702 has been used. my understanding, though, is that the odmi is looking at declassification possibilities with regard to the fisa court orders. >> that's what i meant. >> yes. do you think that could work? >> i believe there was testimony in yesterday's hearing before the house with regard to the ongoing process. i would have to defer to the odni for and answer that. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the information that has been put out to show the number of terrorist attacks that have been averted. i think that's important for the public to understand exactly what is going here and get the facts right about the numbers. can you talk about -- maybe you want to defer this to another time.
the various checks throughout the process for data collection and analysis that people would understand would protect privacy? >> well, certainly, if you look at 215, the significant figures you have a data base, it just has admitted data. numbers does not have any information with regard to who. the it has the particular numbers. no content, you have just 22 persons who have access to this to run the -- not the names but but run the numbers against the data base. twenty analysts and two super visiers. and last year there were 300 inquiry, approximately 300 inquiry made to the data base. you have overlapping and the overlay of oversight from the department of justice, the ig's office, the fisa court that
renews it every ninety day and the oversight from congress. each of the three branches of government have a role in assuring that privacy interests are protected here. at the other end, you add the strong possibility and the actuality that in some cases this has been instrumental in contributing to the prevention of terrorist attacks. >> thank you very much. another issue we talked about before the form of synthetic drugs. we have had deaths in minnesota as in many other states. huge increase to the call in the poison control line. we passed legislation targeting certain of the synthetic drugs. i believe there is still more work to be done, and working on this so-called analog drug provision. i think we can do more with that, but could you update us on the general state of synthetic drug use in the u.s. and how the provisions we passed last year and what more you think we can do. >> i'm not familiar with the
last part of your question as to what more we can do. it's not our daily work. it's more dea, and particularly in the time of budget constraint we have prioritize. it unfortunately drops down further on the list. >> right. >> we are sympathetic and supportive. >> we have been working with the them on the pressure i don't see it hasn't gone away. and obviously contribute to other crime as well. i want to put it on your radar screen. working on a bill on metal fest. we have seen a lot of that throughout the country and buildings and issues. i know, you talked about high-tech cyber crime issue, and you have said you believe the fbi must change with the evolving technology to better address national and security threats. what is the fbi doing to keep up with the changes in technology? >> well, internally let me say we understand we have to have
the basic knowledge of technology to conduct investigations that the age. every agent to the extent that you need to be refreshed on where we are in order to do our job is getting greater training. our specialists we have more than 1,000 personnel around the country, there are specialists in the particular area. but we -- i think the key for us is national -- ncijtf. following the pattern of what we did after september 11th, is understanding that we can't do it alone. having a task force concept you have the major players in cyber arena participating so if there is a substantial intrusions, we immediately have those involved whether it be dhs, nsa, dod, they are trying to determine what the -- how to address it is critically important. the other thing we have done and put a great deal of focus on the
last six and eighth months is work on the private industry. providing information to the private industry based on what we have found so they can protect their networking. growing internally, growing ncijtf and building our capacity with the private sector have been the three areas we have been focused on. >> okay. thank you very much. thank you again for your service. >> thank you, madam. >> thank you, senator klobchar. senator cruz? >> thank you, miami -- maim chairman. director muller, it's good to see you. thank you for testifying. we have known each other for a long time, a dozen years ago you were my boss at the department of justice. let me say any mistakes i may make, you will be fully held harmless. >> you were clean. the not to work. let me echo the comments of both sides of the aisle thanking for your service and integrity.
you spent many decades in public service focused on law enforcement, and indeed, i recall when we working together at the department of justice, almost every day of the morning staff meeting the question you would ask was essentially are we locking up bad guys? i appreciate that focus to protecting the innocent and to going after bad guys. thank you for a lifetime of service. >> thank you, sir. >> i want to talk about two topics that are both of significant importance. the first is the irs, and i want to echo some of the concerns that senator sessions raised about the groups that we know or targeted by the irs that were reporting they have yet to be contact the or interviewed by the fbi. as you know well in any investigation that is of highly politicized climate, that
involves potentially corruption and political interference from the white house the investigation is a pearl -- perilous endeavor and important to the populace. i want to ask what level of priority would you characterize the irs investigation at the fbi? >> it's a -- i would say it's a high priority investigation in that there are -- it needs to be handled with care. but it also needs to be pushed aggressively because of a very important case. the -- as i think you are aware we work together upholding all punches in term where the investigation would lead. and we would go down any path that would lead to evidence on
individuals, organizations, or otherwise. we're in the process of doing that. we have substantial, i think, numbers in terms of those who are working day in and day out on the investigation both specially -- internally and the fbi and support from the department of justice where we need the legal process. i have to get back with you in terms -- as i said, to senator sessions in terms of the pace and progress of the interviews, but i am ware of some -- i'm aware of some of the ongoing in the investigation, and i do believe that we have moved expeditiously during the period of time we had it open. which is probably about a month now. >> how many agents or other personnel? >> we have approximately twelve agents here in d.c. working on it. and agents designated around the country because of the breadth of the investigation who will be
working on it also. depending on where the investigation takes us around the country. >> i wanted to ask additionally if the scope of the investigation includes looking in to whether individuals have been politically targeted, i can tell you that we are hearing more and more ante-dote l reports not just of tea party groups or conservative groups that were delayed or targeted in c4 applications, but donors who supported governor romney in the campaign who supported republicans who found within weeks or months of their support becoming public suddenly they were targeted for audits. those are very difficult questions to answer, if there's a pattern of doing so. the audits are not general public. do you know if the scope has included whether there was targeting of individuals for political activity by the irs? >> i think you can understand that because it is ongoing
investigation, i'm leery about dell of in to much more about what is happening in the course of the investigation. all i can do is assure you, you know me, i'll push it whenever it goes. >> i would certainly urge the fbi not to narrowly circumscribe the scope because the last time there was an instance of an administration trying to use the irs to target political enemies, it was the nixon administration and lead to grave consequences. i think the fbi is well situated to pursue a serious, impartial, fair, and yet vigorous investigation of whatever the scope of conduct and illegal conduct may have been. >> okay. >> i want to talk about a second topic briefly, which is that i'm concerned that this administration's priorities in the war on terror have been
misallocated. that on the one hand, the administration has been less than invigorous in protecting the civil liberty and constitutional right of law-abiding citizens. on the other hand, the administration has been less than effective in investigating and going after real live terrorists and a concern in particular, i have is that your efforts and those of the fbi have been unduly constrainted and handcuffed. and i would point to two instances. one, the fort hood shooting, where we had with major hasan incredible evidence including e-mail with an war al-awlaki killing over servicemembers, the fbi was aware of that, and yet we failed to stop it that terrorist attack. like wise with the boston
bombing, we had considerable service with the brothers with the affiliation with the really a cad slammist views. we had reports from russia and yet we failed to stop that attack. in your views, why is it that law enforcement was not able to connect dot the with fort hood and boston and prevent those attacks beforehand? and what policies have changed under the obama administration concerning the investigation of radical islamist terrorists? grel, -- well, in neither case whether it fort hood or the boston case, when i say there are policy that inhibited us from doing our job. let me tell you in the fort hood case, prior to the time of fort hood, he was seen as a radical -- but was not known to have
engaged in operational activities. subsequently when we looked at e-mail, we didn't look at them through the operational prism. had we done so, perhaps other steps would have been taken. there were judgment calls that were made in the course of that as, for instance, whether you interview hasan. that in retrospect could have gone the other way. i don't think there were any constraints statutory or otherwise that enabled us or disabled us from doing the job. in the case of boston, yes, we were alerted by the russians to the -- he was being radicalized and going back to russia, and to fight with perhaps the chech chins. they alerted to us they wanted -- they alerted us they want us to
do an investigation we could and alert the russians when he went back to russia. we did an investigation because on what the russians gave us. the investigation required through all of the data bases. interviewed his parents, interviewed him, did, i think a racial, responsible and they are -- thorough investigation given the information we have. he went to russia, and he comes back. we are going to do in the future. that is the text alert that come not task force. have to be aidentified to a particular person. in any event, there is nothing that constrainted our investigation at the outset in 2011. in my mind if we did one or two things in retrospect we could
have done better. i don't think we would have been to be stop the particular attack. i don't believe we were any way constrainted from doing the information we thought necessary once we the information. >> thank you. >> senator franken, your timing is perfect. you are next in order. >> thank you. i apologize. i was at the health committee hearing, and i'm sorry i missed -- and i hope i don't ask things that have been asked before. my staff tells me that my questions are still relevant. first of all, i want to thank for your service, mr. directer. and you -- i believe our country is a safer place because of your steady leadership. >> thank you.
>> you will be missed. i would like to turn to the subject of the surveillance programs that my other colleagues have been discussing. mr. directer, i believe the government must give proper weight to both keeping americans safe from terrorists and americans' privacy. and part of that waiting there properly is making sure there's a enough transparency, i believe. so that americans understand the protections that are in place. based on the briefings i have received, i believe these programs include reasonable safe guards. but i believe the government needs to be more transparent with american people about the programs. ic the people have -- the american people have a right to know what is going on, and to the extend that is consistent with national security.
i believe that the government can and should provide that information, again, in a way that doesn't comprise our security. directer, do you think that the government could be more transparent to the american public about these surveillance programs in a way that is consistent with national security? >> the two on transparency. the first is transparency throughout the government and transparency to certainly the fisa court and the transparency to congress. and given the briefings, like i think there was transparency to the element. when you talk about transparency to the american public, there's you are going to give up something. you are giving signal to the adversary as to what the capability are. the more specific you get about the program, and more specific you get about the oversight, the more specific you get about the
capabilities and the successes to that extend your people have people sitting around say, okay, now i understand what can be done with our numbers in yemen and in the united states and subsequently we are going to find another way to communicate. i'm going keep in mind. there's a price to be paid for the transparency. where the line is drawn in term of identifying what our capabilities is out of our hands. you tell us it do it one way. we'll do it that way. there's a price to be paid for the transparency. >> and that is the question. in order to do the program you need the trust of the people. of course, this all changes where there is a disclosure like there has been. and we have obviously seen nsa and be more forthcoming. with that kind of transparency
i've been asking for. point ask you specifically about section 215 the patriot act. importantly by statute, the fbi has the authority to ask business records under section 215 and the directer national of intelligence, not the attorney general. the director of the fbi. last week director clapper declassified the fact that the telephone meta data can be -- based on specific facts of the particular basis for the queer is associated with a the data base was searched only 300 times. mr. director, this is the kind of information that i think the american public benefits from knowing that can build further
trust between the public and the government. do you think that kind of information could have comprise -- be comprising for the disclosure. >> i certainly would be educating our adversary and what our capabilities are. and spes thinksty, the dialogue. you have to with the leak because a leak looks at small sliver of information on a particular program. a leak does not talk about all the oversight. it doesn't talk about all of the legal constraint in how the program operates. one has to respond. there has to be response of transparency in the particular instan -- at this particular point in time. generally, no. it educates the person's about our -- as i said about our capability and makes it that much harder to prevent the next terrorist attack. i will tell you inevitably, the
communications are the soft underbelly of the terrorists. they have got the communicate and to the extend we can intercept the communicate and those communications to that extend we can prevent terrorist attacks. we're going to be sitting wait for the next one without the tools we need to prevent that attack. as i understand your view on that. let me ask a similar question: i have cosponsored bipartisan legislation to release consistent with national security. this this -- i'm asking your judgment on this. the court's opinion interpreting key provision in the patriot act and the fisa intelligence surveillance act. i think what is hard here is that it's hard for americans to debate the merit of the law when
the law is kind of secret. and do you believe that american people would gain trust and benefit from perhaps redacted version of these decisions and opinions by the fisa court on some of them? >> let me start by saying, i understand the frustration. you are right, the american people are frustrated. you may be frustrated not access to the particular legal theory espoused in the opinions. i donate -- they are looking at the possibility of releasing redacted copies of -- the lawyer spoke yesterday at the hearing they indicated they are reviewing at least the key opinion regard to 215 and 702 to
see whether it can be accomplished. i have to defer to odni in that. >> it's in the context of them already being disclosed. so -- >> well, i don't think the opinion db. >> no, the opinions haven't been disclosed. the program being disclosed. >> yes, yes, yes. >> okay. thank you, again. and since this may be the last time you testify before us, again, i want to thank you your steadfast -- >> thank you so much. >> and your service. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you director for joining us today. thank you for your service to our country. with respect section 215 with the patriot act. is it the bureau's practice to request records or tangible things related to americans that themselves are not relevant to an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence investigation or protect against
international terrorism or clan clandestine intelligence activity? >> i'm not certain i understand the question. are you talking. >> the applicants on 1215 order. >> i understand. you are the applicant and when you make the application is it your practice to request things themselves aren't relevant to the investigation? in other words do you confine your requests to those things that are related to an investigation or they -- [inaudible] >> well, in the 215 context, the application to the court and the court's finding defines relevant in the particular context, and as we talked about and discussed in the last two weeks, and so i would have to district you to -- direct you to the order and the
i know they are not published, the fact that the fisa court ruled that gathered of meta data satisfies the relevance definition within the fisa statute. >> right. right. and so under that -- with that understanding, you necessarily cover a lot of d.a. that is itself not closely tied to an investigation, you can understand why a lot of people would be concerned and have additional concerns we have not only secret d.a. gathering actives going on but also undertaking pursuant to secret law secret orders that the american people can't have access to. if -- if as we have been told it's necessary for the government to collect and store vast quantity of information including information unrelated to foreign
intention or terrorist investigations. if i may -- the meta data the telephone numbers. i want to make sure we are talking about. >> yes. for now the meta data. a lot of people have concerned about what fan any limiting principles there are that would prevent the government from ultimately storing all information about all americans. meaning collecting more and more of the meta data and holding it for long periods of time and in some time inner. tooty. does the department of justice or fbi have a view on the constitutionality and storing it so long so it doesn't perform query on the information? >> i think i understand the broader question. i would say that the justice department believes that the program in place, 215 program that has been upheld by the fee is a court is certainly
constitution constitutional. i would limit it to the set of facts, they are a set of facts with the protections on privacy that i think the department of justice as well as the fisa court believe is constitutional. >> at some point do you sympathize with those saying this is meta data you can collect it, store if are long period of time and the fact it can later be searched causes a brings about certain intrusions on privacy. if it's privacy inconstitution not in court? >> as well known better than most. it's not objected by the fourth amendment. yes, without question the privacy concerns. but i would say that are dmin use privacy concerns compared to any other intrusion as you get investigation.
do i think it would be concerning? absolutely. i believe that it's important this is upheld by not just the department of justice, not necessarily justified with respecters general but also the fisa court and congress. >> okay. i think it's important to remember, also, that the press debit you cited is candidates old. it didn't deal with the sheer volume of meta data and the technology that are at issue now didn't exist then certainly weren't contemplated then. the more youing a re-- potentially on every single american citizens and you give someone with the executive branch of government the power to search it. you give them a broad view to the live of the american people. the more data you get, the more you act the meta data even if
any one of the data point play be constitutional insignificant. don't you think you start to approximate mate a point where you start to breech a reasonable expectations of privacy? >> i certainly believe there probably is a scale. yes, the same dialogue about the telephone records which triggered the maryland case. and it is a same debate be it with meta data telephone records. you have the pretty much same piece of data in both cases. i would argue that's even see the it's not exactly the same telephone toll record the proposition espoused by the supreme court and -- the debate. >> did we have a comparable data. let me put that way. >> did we have the capacity to gather, analyze, and store inperpetuity that kind of meta data on every single american
citizens? at that point? >> it would tremendously burdensome to go so at that point. you could it and be wholly ineffective. one of the differences today prepared to -- compared to twenty years ago, it was in the telephone company's interest to maintain contain telephone toll data. the billing was based on television toll data. today it's no longer the case. in tact, the telephone companies see it as a burden, a storage burden and consequences consequently that information may not be well there today after 215. >> okay. and thank you very much, director. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator her roan know. >> i join my colleagues in thanking for your service. i extent it to your feature endeavor.
i appreciate the fact this kind of data particularly under section 205 could be helpful and connecting the dots. and it's hard to figure out which dot might be the critical dot to help you form a plot. i have a question about to the best of your knowledge, what are the costs ever collecting and storing data gathered under suction 205 and 702. both in your agency wells nsa. >> i would think you have to turn to nsa i'm not familiar with the cost. >> what about to your department? >> we don't have the storage. nsa stores the 215 can da that. what about the collecting price? >> the collecting? >> yes. >> it goes directly to nsa. the data go nsa while you're the applicant for the collection of the data, it's nsa i should ask about what the costs attended to
the data collection? do you know how long the data collected under it is kept? >> five years. >> do you think it should be longer? >> no. i also don't think it should be shorter. [laughter] part of your department's fbi's purview is prosecution and india country, and you talked about that briefly in your testimony. and the department of justice recently issued a report on investigations and prosecutions in any country doesn't 2011 and 2012. it's a report mandated by the triable law and order act of 2010. it seems while there has been a noticeable increase in number of violent crimes prlted, those figure do not reflect the one-third of all reported indian country crimes were closed administratively by the fbi before they ever reached the
former rereferral stage. more over approximately 80% of the investigations that were administratively closed, were violent crime-related. can you shed some light on the reasons why so many fbi indian country was investigations are closed before rereferral to doj and ways your department can better address and investigate violent crime in indian country? which is still a very big problem. >> i understand it's a very big problem. i know, the department of justice and particularly the attorney general this is one of the substantial priority which is why you see an increase of prosecutions i'm not certain if there has been an uptick in the number of miterrive closures why that is there. it may be consistent with the fact we have done additional prosecutions with additional
prosecutions there's addition until scrutiny with the underlying case which resulted in administrative closure. i would be speculating. i have to get back to you after looking at the issue. >> yes. considering it's a major issue in indian country and to realize that in this report so many of the cases are closed. i'm curious to know why. so could you provide that information to our committee? >> yes. >>. >> particularly with regard to the use of drones by the private sector. do we have any special or specific legislation governing the use of drones by the private sector? >> i'm not aware of any. >> do we think we should be thinking about general legislation to protect individual's privacy with regard to the use of the drones? >>ic there are a number of
issues related drones. you have to be debated in the future as it become more precedented. i believe as to which the drones in air space and the concerns you have on that. but also the -- we already have a certain extent the body of law it is still in the stages the debate and the -- is worthy of debate and legislation down the road. >> especially as the hearing we had in one of our committee's, i think it was this one, where the drones can be very, very tiny but store a lot of data and could be camera on it and -- i think it's a concern for many of us. with regard to the d.a. that is
collected under section -- the millions and millions of pieces of information collected nsa indicated that there were 3 fishings query made with regard to the d.a. they have to forward those query to you and 10 to 12 cases where referred to you? >> all they -- they were refer to them us when they have a number that comes out of the query. >> i think as a person i'm having difficulty understanding what the processes what nsa does with the information and ten to twelve cases they see some further investigations that
occurs. what happens to the other cases that other numbers that were queried by nsa? >> well, when you talk about or ten or twelve cases, these are cases where the identification is a number lead to a terrorist case or other information we had in terrorist case. as you have nsa on a number of yemen, for instance, and they want to know who from the united states is in contact with that number. you have the number in yemen. you take that number in yemen and run it against data base of numbers to see whether there is any number in the united states that is contacting that number in yemen. then that number comes out. we mentioned a couple of examples here, say, san diego, they were refer to say there's a number this san diego that is in contact with this number in yemen which is terrorist-related. we get a national security letter or other paper to
determine who has that number. who is the subscriber to the number. once we get the subscriber to the number, we build the information. but absent that capability, we would never identify that person in san diego who is in contact with the terrorist group and yemen. and that is what we did not pick up and in 2001. it was on the number in yemen and the individual ended up being in the united states, and had we had that program in place, we might well have picked up on that. >> so in your view, despite of the fact there are literally billions of pieces of information collected and, in your view, the the possibilities
justify this kinds of breadth of data collection? >> given all the precaution and given all the constraint on the program. given the oversight of the program, yes. but it's the program that as a whole not just the fact of the accumulation of the records, but how it is handled, and what kind of information is it comes from. i asked earlier today, why did we miss boston? why did we miss fort hood? there can be one piece of information that comes out of it that would prevent the tack. people say we are not sufficiently attempted to the e-mail traffic for the extend it provides it. you never know which dot is going to be the one that breaks the case. and to the extend you remove the dot from playing field. we don't have the lot dots to connect that.
>> i understand that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator flake. >> thank you, and i want to echo sentiment of my colleague and thanking you for your long, dedicated service. i was fortunate to be on judiciary committee in the house and had interactions there. i enjoyed the association we've had and your candor always here. i appreciate that. i feel kind of like i grew up with ten brothers and sisters when the dessert plate is passed around and it's gone. in this case the questions asked and answered. i have questions regard to the information being held and how long you pretty much answered those. there was one thing i want to ask with regard to -- , i mean, this 215 has been around since '00 in some fashion, probably '01 or '02.
i think since 2007. >> how has the legal interpretation internal interpretation rely on your own memo you interpret to produce 215 and what you are able to ask and what kind of standard is applied. has it changed over time since '07 or perhaps before? >> prior to '07 -- i'm not certain what year it happened, but it was placed within the fisa court, i think, beginning in '07, and while yes, the justice department has made application and to the fisa court, the fisa court interpreted 215 to allow the program. it's not just the justice department. it's the fisa court has an issued an opinion saying this is the appropriate interpretation of 215. >> all right.
one question on the -- you hold it for five years. say, if it has not, queried, or minimized during that period you get rid of it. >> yes. >> but that -- >> nsa hold it. >> nsa, yes. but that, which has been queried and dually minimized where appropriate, i would say siewm that can -- assume that can be queried again and again. and last year was queried 300 times. it's the same information basically that -- the same data base, the same meta data that queried again and again. >> the data base is -- as a result dismissed from the data base and it picks up new numbers. it's a rolling five-year period. anything older than five years. >> yes, it enables us to go back. you may have a number called in, for instance, out in san diego
made the call to the yemen telephone number back in, i think, earlier 2002. you needed that number that data base from a year before in order to tie in that particular number to the terrorist number in yemen. so it gives us that data base for a period of time, which has a relevant information in it. if you go to one of the providers and they keep it for six months and keep data for twelve, eighteen months. something along the lines. you wouldn't be able to get the same data from the telephone carrier. they have no data retention responsibility as you get when we have the five-year data base. >> thank you. just in conclusion, your service -- september. >> yes. >> what advice would you give to this body in terms of what
changes are needed moving forward and how we hand situations like this? obviously this came as a shock to most cubs that this kind of data was being collected in terms of -- and you have concerns and i share them about too much information being out there what is the proper balance for this body to inform or keep citizens aware enough that their civil liberties are protected, but also giving the appropriate federal 's the tools they need to thwart attacks. is there any advance you would give that you haven't given before? >> no, i would -- the only thing i would say is that there are level of transparency, in the particular case, where not necessarily
always the case. the it was not only the department of justice, not only the inspect are general, we had inspector general report on the particular programs, but the fisa court, and congress and various committees in congress and to the extend that each of those entities are broadening loop and no one able to question to a certain extent assuring that the entity have the coverage. the american public has to put faith in the constitutions. you always are going have those areas rares of classified area it doesn't make any -- in the military arena or the intelligence arena like this that disclosing the secret will make a separate -- [inaudible] there is always going to be a level of frustration. the only thing i would say is that there are going to be additional terrorist attacks on the most debabilitying things in
this position is try to ignore [inaudible] and immediately attacked. and we always believe worry about the day. >> thank you, thank you for your service. >> thank you for your service. i have enjoyed working with you other the years. i recall in particular when you arrived at the fbi after 9/11, i took note of the fact that the computer system at the premere
investigative agency for law enforcement and the united states of america on 9/11 was sort of archaic as anything anyone could imagine. the computer system you inherited at the fbi had no access to the internet, had no word search capability, and enable to transmit materials and documents. the photograph of the suspected terrorists on 9/11 were sent to the fbi officers across america overnight mail because they couldn't be sent by the computer system that you inherited. we had many conversations, some attempts, some missteps, tell me today where are we twelve years later in term of the computer system in your agency? >> the last couple of years, got over the -- in term of the computer system. we have a computer system that has been operateble for a last two years.
it's cutting edge in term of case management. many of the other programs, we are not only upgraded but are now incorporating and much more effective network. but i will tell you one of the frustrating aspect of the job is trying to adapt new technology in an institution that has yew anemic -- unique business practices and trying to modify those business practices at the same time and upgrade the business practices at the same time you are trying to adopt a new technology particularly with an contracting mechanism reason the federal government a five year -- new technology will come along. and the fact of the matter is there is little room in the contract for any ability to change to adapt to the change at the time. but if you had seen -- , i mean, i have remember being
in the intelligence -- what we call scion the september 11th and the papers stacked up and in boston back in the same place. there's not a piece of paper to be seen. and also the bureau after it occurred utilizing the various technologies and laboratory as well as up there i think testimony to the fact we come a long way. >> let me say for the record in addition to bringing into the ground toy the position which you have in addition to helping keep it safe with an extraordinary degree of success, i think your legacy is going include this. the information technology available in your the department is now meeting 21st century
standards where you inherited it, as you said, it was quote, a creation of unique business practices. i think you are being kind. >> can i add one thing? we are okay today. technology costs money. and with sequestration this is an thash too often gets overlooked and perhaps cut. it should not be because you cannot run an constitution like ours unless you stay current in the latest technology. >> sequestration is the way it's been characterized within the way it's been implemented is a pervasive problem. i met with the director and talk about the impact of sequestration and doing on checks on employees for security learnses. we reduced the number of checks of those current employees when it comes to security. we are dealing with one former contract yule employee who disclosed things, which were
very important to the national security. speaking that have issue on section 215, which you have been queried about quite a bit. i offered an amendment over the years to try to limit the meta data collection in term of suspicious. that was the original standard it was eventually changed to fisa reforce. -- reauthorization. yesterday the department of justice -- i hope you are aware of this released publicly, according to reports we have standards of researching the -- quote reasonable suspicious based on specific and articulated fact that the information is, quote, associated with a specific form of terrorist organization. the standard they released yesterday, which they are not going use -- now to going to use is stricter than the standard i was proposing over the years for the limitations on 215. can section 215, do you believe,
be revised to require connection to a suspected terrorist without affecting the ability to obtain the useful information? >> a little bit confused, because the -- i wouldn't call it select telephone number that is run against data base has to identify as being i don't know say -- meet the reasonable suspicious standard with regard to terrorist attacks. that particular phone number. the appropriate standard for that particular phone number? ..
you would have access to government agencies to access those records for government purposes if there is a suspicion. would that meet the needs of collecting the information to keep it safe? >> not in the same way the program does now for several reasons. first of all you'd have to go to a number of telephone companies, get legal process and go to a number of telephone companies. then you have 0 hope those telephone companies have some records retention capability. i can assure you've it's not five years. >> not today. >> not today. >> could be required of them.
>> could be. it could be. i'm not saying it cooperate be done, but -- couldn't be done but you're asking me if there's a distinction between the program run today and how you propose to perhaps amend it. there's some downside in terms of the time it would take to serve it, the time to get it, and in every one of these cases time is of the essence. you do not want six months or a year to get the information to prevent the next terrorist attack. >> been very patient with your time. thank you for your service, director mueller. well-you the best. >> thank you. >> so i'm your last. >> aptly so. aptly so. >> good to see you. three topics i want to touch on. the first has to do with the investigation into the conduct of the irs. the background to this is that
the tax laws allow you to form up as charity under section 501(c)(3), but if you want to lobby, you have to form up under 501(c)(4). and then, if you actually want to electioneer. you have a form a so-called superpac. the difference between a 501(c)(4) and a superpac is that a super pac is required to disclose its donors. so, what developed was a pattern of folks filing as a 501(c)(4), but then going out and electioneering as if they were a super pac, and the problem with doing that is that there's a place on the form when you file for a 501(c)(4), that requires you to assert and avery
under roget that you will not seek to influence elections and so forth. we had a hearing in the committee -- appears to be almost a layup case for 18usc1001, false statement violations, based on what appear on the surface -- again, this requires investigation before you can make any final determination but appears on the surface these are flagrantly false statements made under oath to a government agency with the purpose of misrepresenting the intentions of those forming the 501(c)(4). that never comes to the fbi. because there's an agreement between the department of justice and the irs that unless the irs has put a case together and forwarded it we're not going to look at it and i think the
501(c)(4) applicants were taking advantage of that and the irs was feeling intimidated because there was powerful people in this country on both side0s of the aisle behind a problem, behind the 501(c)(4) problem. so i hope that as you're looking at the irs question, part of what you're looking at is whether or not something that, as you and i both know, a plain vanilla prosecution, a false statement case, is something that the fbi should turn away from because the irs has not yet referred it, when it's kind of out in the plain right of day. and i hope that you will consider that question as the irs investigation moves forward. it may not be the kind of question that leads to a charge. it may not be purely investigative. but i think it's an important policy question. and i think at it important for the american people to know that when people are doing something
that appears on its face, again, subject to rigorous investigation and proof but appears on its face to be a flagrant false statement, the answer from the government, yeah, about it wasn't referred to news the right way -- isn't a very convincing answer to what appears to be a fairly blatant criminal act. not major but blatant. i'd like to ask your comment on that if you will consider that. >> i'm not familiar with any such agreement. i have to look at that and then discuss and see -- >> only have a question for the record and you can get back to me later. the second is we met recently with some of your folks, some of the department of justice folks, and the office of management and budget. to try to figure out how our prosecutorial investigators, law enforcement resources, should be structured to focus on the
cyberproblem, and in the time i've been in the senate, six years now, i watched that administrative structure morph, really almost every year, to something new, something different, and i've been out to nci, jtf and your facilities and i applaud and am impressed by how hard the fbi works to keep track of who is coming in the doors and windows, attacking our country and companies, and trying to get alerts out as quickly as they took the companies being attacked and having their intellectual property stolen. but it hasn't resulted in a lot of prosecutions. and as best i know, there is not a single case that has ever been prosecuted of a pure industrial espionage cyber security attack from outside the country on an american company. there's always been something
involved -- a cd that got stuck in somebody's pocket but the pure hack, i'm not aware of a case that has been made yet, and that's a question i ask pretty frequently. i think this is a boom area. i'm delighted and pleased that the administration in a time when most other parts of the government are being asked to cut, is actually investing more in cybersecurity at the fbi, the department of justice, at the nsa, the department of defense and other places, but it's a huge vulnerability, i believe, and i know you're on your way out but i hope that oneoff your departing messages to the bureau will be, we need to keep looking forward to see what our structure should be to take on this threat in the years ahead. i don't think we're there yet. i think we made immense progress. we're in a state of constant flux as we try to adapt to the problem, but when you look at a problem that is described by very senior officials as us
being on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth by illicit means in human history, basically because the chinese are raiding our corporations and stealing our intellectual property in a nutshell. that's a pretty serious problem set and it's only going to get worse abuse it has transnational sabotage and multi national criminal components as well, and i hope that you guys have an open mind and have somebody detailed to looking for it and saying what does this look like down the flood how should this be structured so we're after it. we had a drug problem. we started a dea to handle it. what is this structure of this down the road? i know it's a mad scramle scrams hard to pop your head up out of the day-to-day fight and plan ahead, but i think that would be a good legacy for you to leave,
that was a -- look forward and let's see what this thing should be like five or ten years from now. >> i venture to say, everybody in the bureau knows the focus has been on cyberand, and we have to put our own house in order first, and we are doing that. we're not there yet but we have to adopt over the next several years an organization that lends itself to addressing itself with more specificity to particularized threats that have been priority tooized, which cyber will be substantial one. we now have counterintelligence and cyberbecause they're like that. and our organizational structure has morphed into a threat-based organizational structure as opposed to a program organizational structure. we have to continue to do that. one of the focal points outside the fbi, the nci, jtf, my firm
belief that for us to be successful we have to have people at the table right at the outset, and determine whether it's national security or criminal. but you need to have all the facts and information on the table, regardless of the classification side, because there may be something up there that will help you on a criminal matter down below but have everybody -- the relevant players in the government working at the nci, jtf or some comparable facility, and then lastly, with the private sector. once we have our act together administratively, and add -- my own belief is, generally collocation, with the exception of ansa because of what they have initialing wrist of us could be relatively collocated. then in i my mind you need the partnership in the private sector to come together and equip themselves to share information and then set up cop
-- conduits between the government and the private sector and share information in the weighed we have not been teen or had to in the past. so i think we're moving toward the structure but we have way to go, and i can tell you with my successor will be a -- we'll have some discussions on this. >> good. the last point we've addressed it a little bit -- that -- i'd like to macthe pint that it do think that we overclassify. it's much easier to classify than it is to declassify. the whole variety of ropes why -- reasons, some good and some not so good for laughing programs -- classifying programmed programmd classifying ferrells but a lot of the discussion about the nsa scram the fbi support of them, could easily have been said beforehand without compromising the programs in any significant respect, particularly the
multiple checks and balances. the number of guards at the door to the vault before anybody can get any kind of information, both houses of congress being briefed in on programs like this, inspectors general being independently accountable to review programs like these. the internal oversight of the executive branch, apart from the independent inspectors general and the rigor and frequency of the audit that is done for those programs. the fact that regular-line, united states district court judges are brought in on detail to serve on the fisa court and they have to sign off on these programs. you have a strong an array of
protections under our system of separated government as one could possibly create, i believe. i don't know that a single stone had been left unturned in terms of putting eyeballs on to making sure that these programs were carefully used and never abused. so that kind of story i think is one that doesn't hurt us to get out first. before this incident people now the were ways in which we were protecting ourselves and we could have said generally that, without getting into the details of the programs, when we look into programs that affect americans' privacy, we good all in on making sure there aren't shortcuts and making sure only qualified people get it, and so i think the lesson from this going forward is that, as much as there's a public interest in classification of a lot of this information, there's also public interest in declassification and
the declassification has exactly zero national security risk associated. just kind of got swept up with a bunch of other stuff because the program is classified, and we depend on you to do this because senators aren't declassifiers. the acknowledge way that the senate intelligence committee can declassify anything is it's so difficult to use, it's never been used. so i'm speaking through you now to lesser people as well, but i do think that a more persistent focus on what could be declassified and what would help for these foreseeable events of disclosure would be a good policy to pursue. >> i understand your sentiment. i do believe there's a price to be paid. we tend to think that people know and understand the internet around the world. but you have persons who want to undertake terrorist attack who don't have a full understanding of the internet and to the extent we expose programs like
this we'red of indicating them about how the internet works actually worldwide. we are educating them as to what our capabilities are, and the brighter and smarter of them will be educated and find other ways to communicate and we will not pick up communication we want. now that's not to say that the scales shouldn't be on the other side. it is much easier to explain to the public when you don't have restrucks quite obviously of classification. all i'm saying is i do think there's a price to be paid. not always there are occasion when we can declassify things but i would not underestimate the price to be paid by a substantial disclosures. >> if agree. we have to be very sensitive to that and have to be particularly sensitive to that when talking about the operating mechanics of a particular program. but when we're telling the american people, re aren't going
to rates the question of what we're doing but we want you to know that when we do anything, here are the procedures we use. you would never tell anybody about an ongoing investigation, but we tell everybody about the warrant requirement, about minimization, about the things that protect american security, and that process is also classified when it comes to these nsa programs. that's where -- >> i got you. >> -- make some ground. this is the end of your last appearance before this committee, so let me thank you very much. you have been a terrific director of the federal bureau of investigation. before that you were a terrific member of the department of justice and a terrific united states attorney. you have made an awful out love people proud, sir, and we're very glad to have had the chance to work with you. >> thank you for that but it's the men and women of the fbi that make the place one. you and i know from having been
and based on the 14th 14th amendment, equal protection. and that their admissions policy was -- the court today decided that the first process, which is -- the second one that elaborates was one in which the law had not scrutinized to the highest level possible whether or not there was race neutral alternative and gaining the same results without using race, and so the court indicated sent it down to the fifth circuit. >> how did it progress to the supreme court. >> abigail fisher was a type of student who did not reach that 10% requirement. she then applied for the second class, which takes different
issues. for example, whether or not a student is in a single parent household, english language spoken in the household. she still wasn't admitted but she said one fact is it would be racial factor that prevented her admission and she sued. >> does this decision have broad implications or kicking the can down the road. >> if we're kicking it down the road, where it will fall and remain there because at this point, what justice kennedy said in reading the decision that he wrote, said, we're going back to a time in which the reviewing courts, when they decide whether or not race can be taken into account, have to look at whether or not there's some other race-neutral alternative that would produce the same benefit of diversity.
so if we're taking race out, say wearing going to the court and say that is what we're going to do. so where is the 300 years of racial discrimination against people of color when we're saying we're not going to put -- what we are talking about is based on affirmative action. >> justice beginsberg -- ginsburg was the only one to dissent and she read her dissents from the bench. what was her argument? >> the high schools -- she even says, but for the de facto race discrimination we wouldn't need the 10% high school program. so, why deny the black student -- that the reason for having these programs in the first place. >> what what did we see happen
next? >> what would happen next is the admission programs around texas, waiting for the fifth circuit to determine if there is any other way to get the same level of diversity without using race as even one single factor in all of the process. >> other major cases are expected this week. we'll cover those rulings on the c-span network. thank you for you help today. >> thank you. >> debate continues in the u.s. senate where members voted an amendment to put 20,000 officers or the u.s.-mexico border and constructing an additional 700 miles of fencing. next, senator corker of tennessee, debates senator jeff sessions' measure. this is 45 minutes. >> madam president, delay this afternoon is not on the
amendments i think most senators may have thought when they left town on thursday, friday, in fact, friday night, we were told the program for the fourth amendment would be filed and presumably we would be debating this afternoon. what happened was we went into the night. we soon found it one filed until noon almost friday, and it wasn't filed as an amendment, but it was filed as a complete substitute for the whole bill. so, this is a vote this afternoon to give majority leader reid control over the debate. it's his motion to shut off debate on a 1200 page, substitute 200 pains more than the bill we were looking at last
week, and no one -- i haven't had a chance to read the bill to see how the language falls throughout the legislation, see what other changes may have been made, over the weekend. i have been trying get through this, but it's not ease easy, and i'm sure my colleagues have not been able to do. so so by filing clothe expire blocking any further amendments unless he personally approves them -- that's the parliamentary situation we're in today. we're in a situation in which the majority leader will approve personally any and all amendments that get voted on. so he has 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 should
be run. a newly elected senator from any state ins the should be able to come to the floor and get an amendment voted on without having to have the personal approval of the majority leader. this trend has accelerateed in recent years whichs really damaging of 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. just yesterday on one of the sunday programs, bob woodward, the famed writer who dealt 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. why is that? got big decisions to make. the senate has decisions to make, so to accomplish that goal he has filed cloture immediately on this new substitute bill. he filed it to shut off debate, and that's the effect of what we're doing here. so, why is there -- the past legislation of this importance by friday? i'm not aware we have any big business happening july 4 recess. we can stay here until the july 4th recess for that matter. and a writer noted yesterday, quote, there's no urgency. can we at least let people read it for a week?
close quote? the last thing i think the loyal opposition of the run republics would be to be enablers in the majority plan to rush through the bill before people know what is in it. why should we enable that? if this bill is so good, why is wrong with having the americans be able to digest what is it in. we have an obligation to read a bill before it's passed. i senators have not read the 1200 page substitute bill they shouldn't vote to cut off the vote, and vote against that. let me say what the problem is here. this is a new technique. senator lamar alexander said some time ago that, well can, the truth is the senate doesn't do comprehensive work. that's a very serious comment after the failure of this last
bill and obama karr and its massive power and overreach. so, what has happened? what happens is, senators get together, basically 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, 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 david ways. running tv advertisements. right now i suppose still promoting this legislation as something it's not. so, the talking points are designed to be very popular. the talking points are designed to be very much in accord with
most people's views 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 says. that's what sold. because nobody can articulate and explain the details of it. who people's eyes glaze over when you talk about it, and 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 we have an obligation to study it, ready, vote on the bill, and not the talking points. a few weeks ago, former attorney general ed meese, reagan close friend, wrote a letter to the editor oses of the "wall street journal" and said, quote, legislation as important as this lawmakers must take the time
read the bill, not rely on other 's characterizations of what it says. we cannot afford to have congress pass a bill to find out what is in it, close quote. so, at this point in the legislative process, a yes vote on cloture tonight means senator reid will have gained complete control of the process. no amendments will be vote on. he does not approve. his goal is to drive a train to pass by this siding, public policy, public interest, -- beside the point. so the vote this afternoon is to proceed again to the altered substitute -- the entire substitute of the gang of eight legislation, and the flawed framework of this bill remains
the flawed framework of the bill remains middle amnesty, which will never be revoked. that will occur instantly -- within weeks, with no enforcement measure ever effectively having to occur in reality, will not have to occur. according to the june 7th june 7th rasmussen report, the american people want enforcement first. by a 4-1 margin. the gang of eight initially promised that their bill would be enforcement first but that's not what the bill said today. 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 "meet the press" saying, quote first people will be legalized then we'll make sure the border is secured. and then we'll make sure the border is secure.
this is important. this is in important because in 1986 and senator grassley voted for the '86 bill and saw the enforcement never occurred. so under the substitute immigrants can still receive amnesty not when the vote is secured but when secretary napolitano tells the congress she is starting to secure the border. so, it occurs when secretary napolitano, who is now enforcing our laws, tells congress she is starting to to secure the border. within six months of enactment, under the legislation, secretary napolitano need only submit to congress her views on a comprehensive southern border strategy, and southern border extension strategy.
her views 0en the strategy and notice she has begun -- give notice she has begun implementing her plan. at that point, which likely occur earlier as secretary napolitano indicated during her testimony before the judiciary committee,she may begin processing applications for and granting legal status and granting amnesty, and grant work and travel permits, grant social security account numbers. the ability to obtain driver's licenses and many federal state pock benefits, all without a single border security or enforcement action having been taken. madam president, i ask i be notified after 20 minutes and how much time has been consumed at this point?
>> the senator has consumed 11 minutes. >> if i could just -- while -- i had a time of 12:50 that i had actually accommodated the senator from alabama who was coming down at 1:00 and i understand he showed up 20 minutes early and i applaud you for being prompt and early about i wonder what is happening here and that we had planned to be down here ate 12:50. reed i.e.d. be glad to go back and forth -- >> well, didn't understand that. i'm sorry, senator corker. i thought dish didn't realize you're taking the floor at that time? i certainly yield and will wrap up if you felt you had time -- >> i think we had an agreement with -- to manage the floor how we would come down -- i'd by more than glad to take a moment or two and let you finish and go on. but i just want to make sure
that this is something that is going to allow me the opportunity to speak. actually, the senator has been so involved, madam president, i'd love for him to listen to what i might have to say and then respond, because i think there have been a lot of myths out there that seem to be continuing. >> madam president, i will conclude by five till, and i would yield to the senator at that time. i think that will get us on the right track. now that there was discussions and i was told earlier that would be the time i would have, and then i recall that the floor -- they want you to come early and i didn't realize you were in on that agreement. so, that's perfectly all right, and i'll accommodate the representations you have been given.
senators have been talking a good bit about the enforcement that would occur under the substitute that's been offered, but the substitute does not change the fact that no reduction in illegal immigration is ever required. doesn't have a results-oriented aspect to it. in the beginning, the proponents said the bills promised the secretary would maintain 90% effectiveness in an apprehension of illegal border crossings. we don't hear much about that anymore because all the bill requires now is that the secretary submit a plan for achieving and maintaining that rate, not actually be achieved. even if this was a real requirement, it wouldn't matter because it does not account for those who have evaded detection
at the border. secretary napolitano all but acknowledged the effectiveness rate is meaningless because by definition homeland security has no idea how many borders go completely up detected. so, it's not subject to real enforcement. mr. president, i appreciate my colleague, senator corker, and those who set forth their goals to produce legislation that would be good for america, and i appreciate the vision that has been stated, but having been involved in this matter 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, but i want to see the system actually work, and i'm aware that this bill is
an authorization bill. it may authorize border patrol options, may even authorize fencing, but until congress appropriates the money, the way it's set up. it will never happen and i'm confident all the promises made in the legislation on the line and in the additions that have been made to it, will not be accomplished in their entirety 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 has stated, and that we'll still have illegal entries from the border. so i thank the chair and yield the floor and reserve the time that has been reserved for a senator grassley.
>> madam president, i'd like to speak on the subject -- >> senator, without ox. >> madam president, first of all, i want to acknowledge -- >> time is -- is in the senator proceeding? >> i thought you might ask me that. >> senator may proceed. i. >> thank you. >> madam president, the senator from alabama has done an outstanding job in talking about the many frail frailties that exist in the base bill. i want to say that the vote tonight is 0 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 border security measures would
be put in place and she would implement those after 180 days. candidly, madam president, that caused people on both sides of the aisle to be somewhat concerned about what kind of border security measures would be implemented. the base bill as the senator from alabama just mentioned, leaves all of that discretion 100% 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 matter of fact almost every member on our side of the aisle, other than they 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, five triggers that are tangible.
what these triggers say, that if these five things are not implemented, then those who are here, undocumented, who become temporary status, do not receive their green card. then we go through those five -- let me go through the five measures that have to be nut -- put in place before that occurs. first, there have to be 20,000 more border patrol agents, deployed and trained and on the border. that's a trigger. that's a doubling. that's 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 have deployed -- bought and deployed over $4 billion worth of technology on the border which will give our border patrol 100% awareness. this is a list that they've been seeking for years, and before
anybody can achieve their green card status, this list has to be bought and deployed. fourthly, we have to have a fully implemented exit and entrance visa program, something that, again, republicans have pushed 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 the shoppinger in business 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 usually when it completed, always when i completed the 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 it met the needs, but it was very tang -- tangible when i completed and was paid. so this amendment seeks to put five very tangible elements as triggers. these elements are elements that run runs -- republicans for years have pushed for, and so it's my hope this evening that republicans will join me in putting in place the toughest border secured measures we have ever had in this station now. , in the senator of alabama talked about the length over the amendment. the helping of this amendment is 119 payment pages -- 119 pages long, because of senate procedured had to be added to the base bill, which made it also 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 the bill have bon through its provisions. so the amendment that we offed them on friday, that's given people 57 hours to look at, is the amendment sis 19 pages long. for those who are listening in, the legislative language we write pages such that they're triple spaced, 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. so ask senators to be given an amendment on friday that deals with five basic things and a few others, to ask them to read the amendment over the weekend -- again, the equivalent of 25 or 30 pages really -- is certainly not something major to ask when you're serving 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 happen if the bill passes, but it's estimated the cost of these border security measures and other measures in the base bill would cost about $46 billion. mr. president, that only happens if the bill passes. and i think you've seen that the cbo score on this bill is 197 billion. 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 republicans have pushed for, for years, but we have $197 billion coming back into the treasury. mr. president, i've ben here six and a half years, and never have
i had the opportunity to vote for something that cost 46 billion over a ten year period and we received 197 billion over ten years period and we didn't raise anybody's taxes and it promoted economic growth. so those people who are talking about the cost of this, i 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 aids. and let me say to the senator of alabama. gov brewer arizona was just on the television shep read the amendment over the weekend. it only takes 30240 minutes and she took the time to read it, and what she just said on national television is this amendment is a win, a total victory for the state of arizona, then she knows more
about border security probably than any governor in and person in the united states of america. so let me say onemer time what we're voting on tonight. we're voting on a very tough 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 the temporary status into green card status. so it's totally up to us. but the fact is, if you vote for this amendment tonight, you're voting that all five of those provisions have to be in place, tough border security measures, the very tappingible, the entire
american population can see if they're in place or not until they're in place people do not move to green card status. if you vote against this amendment, which i'm getting the indication the senator from iowa and others may be thinking about, what you're saying is i'd rather not have these five tough measures in place. i'd rather let janet napolitano, the head of homeland security, decide what our border security is going to be. i don't think that makes anybody in this body particularly comfortable. people take about the fact that congress needs to weigh in on this border security measure, and we have with this amendment. so, 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 dust quo, leave it to the administration -- which i agree has not done the things they should do to secure our border -- then vote against this
amendment. vote for janet napolitano to secure our border. i have a feeling that people on the side of the aisle will see the light, and to the people on the other side of the aisle that may resist this, i say what this amendment does is it balances 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 sew, we're going to put in place very tangible triggers, triggers that cannot be moved. you can't move the goalpost because of interpretation. they're there, concrete. if we meet them, people will have the path away to be the productive citizens they want to be. so this ought to satisfy people on the other side of the aisle that acknowledge 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 in the united states senate to read the amendment, to see how superior is it to the base language -- i applaud the folks who created the base language but this is an effort to improve 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 ask this body can, 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. all kind of votes. i'd love to see a vote on the portman amendment. my understanding is, some of the people who disagree with this bill don't want to see a vote on the portman amendment. the portman amendment will actually make this bill even better. so i hope we'll hear on the portman amendment and we'll do that after a vote in cloture tonight on a border security amend i know strengthens 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. >> senator from alabama. >> the senator would surely acknowledge his amendment was
filed friday noon when probably 90% of the senators had left town. it wasn't his 200 page amendment. that is his interest. all kind of special interests from senators interests have been added to the bill, and it was filed as part of the overall bill. so you would knowledge -- acknowledge that the replacement 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. >> may i respond? >> yes. >> mr. president, in responding to the good senator, senator one of the best temperments in the united states senate. senator from alabama, one i enjoy working with. i would respond that there's no question that our amendment 1, 19 pages long, and that it does incorporate input from other
senators. what i would say is the senator was a great jurist in 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 has had to do it many, many times. when you have an amendment that touches many parts of a bill o 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 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. it'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 amendments. he has seen that base text now for a long, long time. 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 concern s. that's what you do to when you try to write a piece of legislation that solves the problem. it is 119 pages. it was added to the base text, that's true, and i would have to say on any measure, for somebody who carolina about border security, it's much stronger than the base language. >> mr. president, i'm going to talk about what the amendment does, and it -- the senator hasn't seen quite as much -- although he is an experienced and very able addition those senate but hasn't perhaps seen how, over decades, promises about enforcement of the border don't occur, and that's important. i would just go through the -- the amendment you have offered and make some comments why i think 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 -- 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 everify which stricken strengthens the bill.
i hope we'll have a plethora of amendments offered, disease baited and voted on this week, and i would say to the good for from alabama, who i cherish serving with, i have not brought one single amendment from being voted on. i don't know if the senator from alabama has blocked any but i say let's let it roll. i'm all for that. 100%. >> i appreciate the senator saying that. but it's not going to happen because when you give cloture tonight, senator reid will be in complete control hoff the voting
it was 49 or so amendments voted on. we have done nine, and discussions were going on thursday wednesday/thursday night. they have another sixteen, and i was advocating more amendments be brought up. i thought we had an agreement to do that. we are moving to the great amendment. the grand amendment that fixes things came up. let me just go on and point out a few things i think are troubling with the legislation, and we can go on, you know, just make my points now.
first of all, the trigger is fen years from now, and it's whether or not individuals who have been given legal status for ten years have been told they are going to get their affirmative legal status in ten years. it urn it is out that the congress had the appropriated money to complete it. turns out congress hasn't funded the border patrol agents that they promised, now we are going to say you don't get your status? they are going to say, what is the problem? we did everything we were to do, and you congress didn't do it. give us our green card. people are going to say -- we can't dpn the people the green card. they have been here ten years plus plus the time they already have been here, maybe have children that have been born and are citizens. this is not a practical guarantee it will ever happen. not a real guarantee it will ever happen. i don't believe we are going to
add based on my experience, 20,000 agents. we probably don't need that many. we need more and a more effectivenesses at the border. that's impact of the trigger. the legal status, the social security cards right to work anywhere in america is given within two months of the passage of the legislation. you are 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. power to do that. and she'll say she's done what she's required over the next secretary will, and i'm concerned about that. on the cost, i to say in 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 later. but there will be paid by the people who enter the country illegally. they claim would have as much as $8 billion. maybe that's -- they wouldn't tell how many people will be legalized. i asked that twice. the senator schumer 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 writing a 1,000-page bill and how many people will be lisle eased in. what we're simply doing is making sure 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 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're basically doing is setting up two pots of money that have start-up money and repaid that both the companies pay when they get new workers, and the immigrants who become rpi pay in term of the findings as they go through the process. well, that's what we were told, and they are talking points. and the poll tested talking points when they were drafting the original version before senator corker was involved. but it's not there. it's $46 billion now. where is the money coming from? well, they say the bill creates more revenue, and this is what the congressional budget office or budget accounting firm told us about it. it said before senator corker's
bill raised a cost from $8 billion to $46 billion, that would reduce -- it would increase the own budget debt by $14 billion. it would then reduce the off budget debt by $2 11 billion or something like that. so isn't that good news? improve our off budget debt. what is the off budget debt? the off budget debt is the social security and medicare withholdings that the newly legalized persons will pay when they get the social security card. so they'll be paying withholding on the check and maybe they weren't paying before and score it as increased revenue. it certainly is, and then the one form of our accounting will show that is an increased revenue. that money in that form of accounting unified budget
accounting means allows you to think you can spend it for anything you want to. wait a minute, what is the real reality here? the persons paying the social security and medicare withholdings 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 has been going broke. it's the same thing happened during obamacare. i got the night before the vote december 23rd, we voted on christmas eve, political capital pasta 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 as phrase. it's double counting the money. that's where they are coming up with the money here. so the social security and medicare payroll withholding that people will pay when they legalized and given a social security card, is their retirement. we have to have that money to pay for their retirement when they get ready to draw medicare and citizen. you can't spend now and pretended we have free money. it's clear in the cbo score just last week that's what the situation is. i'm just not happy about this accounting this form and money in that form. i wonder if the senator will let me respond in a generous sway. >> senator in tennessee. >> first of all, i respect the leadership that senator from alabama has given on the budgeted commie, i know that he
knows all of these things well and very familiar that i've offered a 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 the medicare program. the fact that you have people who began paying taxes, one of the thing that senators 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's 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 we have because of americans today are only paying one-third of the cost of medicare. you have seen, i know the senator from maine is
knowledgeable on this that the medicare fund is going insolve -- insole vent in 2024 he's right by forting the folks in the shadows today for ten years and 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 is appropriated. it's not subject to appropriations downtown road. but let me -- i'll say one last thing and yield the floor. i appreciate you letting me do this. >> i want to make sure his time is being used. okay. go ahead. >> this is on senator lee's time. let me say this, the cloture vote tonight is not as was described a minute ago. the cloture vote tonight is only on this amendment.
it's not on the bill. someone to say that they are losing some kind of clotheture rights down the road, it's just not true. the cloture tonight we are having is on an amendment that has five strong border security measures that ever republican has talked about for years. it doesn't mean you vote for the bill, we're talking about the amendment. the money is appropriated, the cloture vote on the amendment only. i want 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 will help tremendously with this deficit that we know is weighing our country down today. >> 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 swob supportive of all if he with make it effective. i wouldn't say that. and senator, you're correct. people who are paying to 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 given social security card and start to work under the new -- thunder bill that provides them amnesty and legal status that they are 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. with is the money going to come pay for that? all i'm saying to you it's quite plain. the cbo said the score gets worse but in a ten-year window
the security account looks better. they are not count 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, boant -- won't be there then. this is how a country goes broke. i want to say, senator corker is one of the most knowledgeable, hard working, courageous, determined people in the united states senate to try to fix the financial path we're on, but i think -- i think you are misinterpreting that. the senate approved the border security amendment by a vote of 67-27. fifteen respects voted in favor of the amendment. coming up on c-span two, a discussion with the founder of the federal witness protection program. then vice president biden and members of congress attend the
capitol dedication of the frederick douglass statute. later homeland security janet napolitano joins a forum on u.s. cybersecurity threats. on the next washington journal, we'll be joined by republican representative mike pompeo of kansas. he'll talk about the administration's climate change plan, and the latest on nsa leaker edward snowden. we'll focus on the diplomatic and we'll discuss u.s. intelligence contractors with scott amy with the project on government oversight. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tuesday president obama delivers a major speech on the 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-span 3. there are about 1400 monuments and markers on the battle field. the peek mown monument building period is the 1880 and the 1890. the men who fought in the battle are getting older. they want to make sure what they did here is remembered. they are going to do it by building monument. in moderate times we're other ways of commemorating things like that. back in those days that's how they commemorated the. soldiers and the leaders. the monopoly monument help us interpret the store. they are placed oob the ground where the units fought. most are union monument. it's going to be a union
victory, the war is going to be a union victory. by the time the war ends, there's not a lot of money in the south build monuments. especially in northern states. live all day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. starting at 9:30 eastern with historian, scholars, and authors. followed at 5:30 with with the calls and tweets for gettysburg historians. ed at 8:00 the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker, dramatic readings from eye witness account from the battle followed by a candled light procession and 9:15 more calls and tweets for civil war
institute director peter carmichael. all day sunday on american history tv on c-span 3. next a discussion with gerald, founder of the federal witness protection program. from monday's washington journal. this is thirty five minutes. he joins us from philadelphia. he's actually a founder of the witness protecter pram. thank you for being with us. to start us off we read about the witness protection program, we hear about it on novel or television shows. what is it in real life? >> guest: in real life, it is taking individuals who are in danger because they are cooperating with the federal government or in some cases, state government, and they are
-- wind up being killed, frankly, if they testify. and so we needed a mechanism where we could put witnesses on the witness stand and making sure they will survive after they testify. >>how was it created? what was your role in it? >> guest: well, -- it was created -- i have to go back to a very early age, as a young child, my -- 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 used to come home and talked about how organized crime interfered with the labor negotiation. through high school i got interested in organized crime and began to research it and continued through college. and then was fortunate enough after i got out of law school, i
went in to private practice and saw a fellow 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, my short biography, went home to my wife after four years of practice and said how would you like to move to washington and explain why and she knew of my interest and said 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. i got wound up working in the organized crime and racketeering section and 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, who was the very first member of the mafia or what we later learned from him is the -- 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 other mobsters in new york, and it occurred to me, we need some heck noifm protect people they are going testify. and out of that, and my colleagues who are assigned elsewhere in the country, running in to the same experience it occurred to me we need system where we can take an individual who is willing to cooperate, and immediately relocate that person and their family. >> host: what was done prior to the founding of the witness protection program? the 19 70s? what happened if someone came forward, testified, twhoopped them and their families? romney: >> -- >> guest: what happened the agents, dea agents with 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 a telephone, call washington, d.c., say i've got a witness in the office. they are willing to testify, what do i do with them? 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 have moved out of town? after you have 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 the program did was establish a mechanism where the prosecutor, agents, could make a single phone call and have this
whole process begin to work. >> host: we are talking about the federal witness protection program with one of the founders, jerrold shore. here are the numbers to call if you would like to ask comments or ask questions. our guest coauthored book "quit sec "inside the federal witness protection program in 2002. let look at some of the numbers. the cost of the program in 2012 was $9.7 million. and here is some of the details. witnesses and families new identity and documentation. they also get financial assistance for basic living expenses, medical care, and housing. and jerry, we so' there are 8,3,000 witnesses and 9,800 family members that have been
part of the program since the 19 70s. . how much help do the people get to start the live? at what point they set out on the own? >> guest: it's hands on from the beginning. the moment they agree to testify. i can take you through the process, actually. if you were the witness. the moment you agree to testify, we would have a witness security inspector, who is in the marshall 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 qualify my office, the office of enforcement operations in department of justice. i would say my old office. i'm an old man and retired. but they would make a request of my office and say we have a witness, here is the case we want them to testify in. here is how important their testimony is. here is how many other witnesses i have in that case.
so we can make an evaluation as to whether or not this witness is really important. at the same time, we would have the deputy marshall wit sec security inspector explain the program. in addition, we would have psychologists do psychology examinations everybody over 18 years of age in the family that is relocated to determine whether or not they could be capable or fit in. will they be able to handle the regulations? would they commit a crime in the future? are they likely to be violent. all would come back on a psychology report. we would have the evaluation of the headquarter of the federal investigative agency. so we not only have the field office giving a judgment, we have the office at headquarter, the fbi headquarters or dea headquarters. whatever agency is involved in the investigation. they would submit information. my point being is a considerable
amount of data is submitted to headquarter before the judgment is made to totally disrupt a family and move them from one city to another. >> host: founder of the witness protection program. he started career as an attorney in corpus kristy, texas and served in the racketeering section. secretary jewell served in the criminal division. and as he mengted, he's retired. join us from philadelphia this morning. let's go to the first caller, david bradenton, florida. , independent line. go ahead. >> caller: i was calling in with regards when the witness goes in to the program for life if they become difficult and i'll give an exam i'm a howard stern fan. -- >> host: we lost david.
what are the rules and requirements for staying in the program? >> guest: we have to understand it's a voluntary program. the witness can choose to enter or not enter the program. the within can leave the program any time that the witness chooses to. they can say, i don't want anymore 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 within can leave if they choose to at any point in time. by rule, 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, may must not communication with people back home; which can be very difficult when you tell a teen in love they can't communicate with their boyfriend or girlfriend back home. there are set of rules 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 texas, a family of four, may get less money than a family living in new york city if we relocated them there. just because of the differences in cost of living. this is not a reward program. 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, new york, democratic caller. hi anthony. >> caller: hi. how are you? my questions are two -- in two degrees. one would be, you seem to be an
expert in organized crime in new york. i wondered have you noticed a somewhat i think the kennedy era there seem to be an infiltration of organized crime or money or influence in government. i wondered if you step outside the box and comment on that. also with the wick i can wikileaks or the mr. snowden, are that aren't they basically whistle blowers. how would you categorize them? they seem to be bringing forth indiscretions or at least, you know, violation of the constitution. and i think, you know, they are young men with a certain degree of moret and trying to rise to a challenge of pointing out to the american people we are being somewhat led down the path of what is really -- , i mean, what we -- >> host: i'm going to let you go there. we are off topic. i don't want to spend too long off the witness protection program. >> guest: right. i would comment to the extent.
it would relate to the witness program. i do not think that of the -- there are about 2.5 million federal employees. i don't think the government's secrets are ought to be dependent upon each individual employee deciding on their own whether or not they should provide a government secret to the rest of the world. for example, if a person were to decide we will give the name and address, the new name and the address of every relocated witness and print that in the newspaper, that would be highly dangerous and lead to the deaths of witnesses or the member of their families. so i draw the line at individuals on their own deciding to go public with information that is classified. i don't think we want every federal employee making that decision. >> host: mr. -- the a woman in the 30s named
jackie taylor who shared her story of being a child and put to the witness protection programly because her father was in the hell angel and turned witness. i know you can't comment on particular cases. as she shares her childhood experience and talks about the challenges she faced. we have some questions on twitter radical how old was youngest person ever to be put in witness protection? how long. january wants to know what about kids in the program? do they stay? >> guest: we are now dealing with grandchildren of witnesses in the program don't forget the program goes back actually we say 1970, in fact it started a couple years before that. there was an official act, the organized control act of 1970 that started the organized crime program officially before that that, as i said we were doing it. we are dealing with children and grandchildren. those children are effected to the extent that they may have
the supply background information for employment or security clearance. in those instances they can call upon the federal government on the witness security marshall to give them assistance in overcoming any obstacle nay may encounter. >> host: so they are supplied with paperwork and documentation that would identify them in the new name, the new family, a surname, and could go forward with the lives with the documentation? ? >> guest: yes. they would have complete documentation. we've had, for example, we have had to run -- reran an undercover wedding early on in the program. a witness' child wanted to get married, and the witness insisted on having a wedding. and insisted on inviting friends from the old neighborhood, which are precisely the people that might want to kill them to the wedding, and we went ahead and told them that would be already all right as long as it was done
under our condition. he arranged for a hotel and ceremony, and bit of an affair that would occur after wards. all the guests were invited to a hotel to attend the wedding. when they got to the hotel they found out they were at the wrong place they had buses and united states marbles. they were put on buses and driven back to where the wedding curred. driven back to the hotel. they never knew the new name of the person and never knew where the wedding was going take place. that way we kept them secure. by the way, i should point out early on before we forget, a good portion of the program involves prisoner witnesses. today over the last several years, more people entering the program are prisoners who have agreed to cooperate, and serve their terms in special units. prison unit, they are prisons
within prisons around the country and they serve their terms, can be five years, ten years, many years, then when they get ready to release, there is consideration given again to whether or not they are still in danger, their family is in danger, they would then be relocated like any other witness. >> host: founder of the witness premise protection. he was quoted in a story from cnn n recently saying that he works with someone about to receive within protection program el jinlt, and our guest asked them what is your favorite place in the united. if they say hawaii or got family in texas or florida that's where you don't send them because you know they talked about it with people before. what was the reaction of the folks you helped place in the witness protection program over the years? where they were going to exotic destinationed they wanted visit? >> guest: most people entering
the program are apprehensive and should be apprehensive. i asked marshall service and others who deal with the witnesses early on to 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 or junior high school to another. those are difficult processes for people to go through. not being able to see grandma anymore, not being able to attend a funeral back home of a relative or visit someone in the hospital. those are extremely stressful situations that the families find themselves in. and we lay that out ahead of time. they know what it's going to be like. on the other side, they also know they will survive. the marshall service has not lost a single witness in the almost forty years, forty years or so the program has been operating. so they will survive, and we tell them that after a year or so, they will adjust and go on
with the new lives. occasionally, of course, there are problems along the way. like the time a child wanted a car and told the parent that, you know, if you don't get me the car, i'm going tell everybody who you really are. we address that problem by having a gentle chat between the witness security inspector an the child to handle that problem. but there are difficulties just in a normal transfer in the normal life, and compound it with the fact you have to be looking over your shoulder for several months until you are comfortable with the fact no one is going to find me. and that's the object. getting the within to the point where they don't look over their shoulder, they don't have to worry about whether they are going to survive or not. >> host: david is our next caller. an independent in virginia. hi, david. >> caller: yes, good morning.
>> guest: yes. >> caller: as an government attorney was i was involved with one of the first entrance in to your program in the '70s. one of the problems we encouraged, he, his wife, and daughter were issued social security cards in sequence. the numbers were in sequence, in itself created a security problem for them. and i was wondering for that issue has been resolved since then? >> guest: yes, the issue had been resolved, and i happen to be familiar with the case. i think we have slightly different facts about it. it wasn't a mother and daughter as it were inlaws that were being relocated, and we were told by the son-in-law that the inlaws would never be working, and it was very first case that we had where we obtained social security cards, and we had the
help of an undercover agent in another agency, wasn't the united states marshall service secure the social security cards, and since the inlaws were not going working, he secured conservative -- consecutive numbers thinking there would never be a problem with it. ultimately the seasonal put -- son-in-law put the inlaws names on the business he was running and caused them to be disclosed. that's a nonissue. has never come up again. >> host: what happened after they were disclosed? >> guest: nothing. they were moved again. >> host: coauthor of the book, "sec" a book from 2002 inside the federal witness protection program. our guest is the founder of the federal witness protection program. we're doing our regular your money segment looking at federal program how it's funded and how it does. >> caller: good morning.
this is my first time hearing about you. i'm a retired investigator in the state of louisiana, and i was part of the a witness protection -- within protection in louisiana. and we did this under the local direct attorney 'office, but i find they have a lot of flaws with the victim witness program. they had a lot of trouble with their victim and witnesses because they were promised them certain things to get the case solved, and i found they were wasting a the love money. how do you control the spending as far as trying to get that victim or that witness to court? >> guest: every witness that enters the program must sign
what is called a memorandum of understanding. in effect, it is a document that lays out 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 a period of up to six months, and they know what kind of assistance they 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 testify. 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 -- one of the very first witnesses we were taking in the program, by very first, i mean, in the first five witnesses. we were sitting in my office, i
said to the deputies, you know, we ought to take him an area where we can show him a house. this is where she comes from outside an area of washington, d.c. we ought to show them around house, take them around where the local grocery store is so question see the safeway is there. when he's transferred elsewhere and somebody says where are you from? he say i was from maryland and where did you shop? i'm from there also. the safeway. okay. so that's the set youup. the witness is driven out actually march said where should we take them? drive them past my house. that's safe and i give them my address. they drive to my house and point my two story home and said to the witness and his wife. this is where goir tounge live. this is your house. anybody ask you red brick house forbedroom colonial. me, live in a house like that? never. [laughter] so sometimes the witnesses are a little difficult deal with.
i mentioned that to my wife and said maybe we ought to consider moving. but we were perfectly happy there. the witness would not have. they did move, they moved elsewhere and lived happily ever after. >> host: our last caller talked about victims entering either a state program or federal program. how are victims dealt with compared to people who enter the program who themselves criminals? >> guest: we have very few innocent people entering the witness program. well over 95% are people who have been involved with crime. either i committed crime or knowing dealt with criminals like bribing somebody. i mean, knowing they were dealing with criminals. i would say that probably 2 to 3% of the 8 to 9,000 people that entered the program are what we
could call truly innocent people. for them it's even more difficult than it is for the other witnesses who are gaining some benefit in that they had been involved with crime, and maybe they have gone to jail and have been released after wards and being relocated. maybe they have gotten probation and being relocated, or but for the truly innocent person, it is extremely difficult. but look, on the other side what happens if we don't relocate them? they can't testify. if we put them on the witness stand they are liable to be murdered. you got a horrible choice of having to someone to testify, take murder or murders off the street, and endure the sacrifice of having to move to another community. >> host: roy is the next caller from louisiana. he's in morgan city on the independent line. >> caller: hi, how are you
doing? i have a question -- >> host: turn down your tv, roy. and keep going. >> caller: yes. my question is, do people get relocated to other countries outside the united states? >> guest: we tried that on one or two occasions. i didn't like the idea of relocating people outside the united states because they -- for one thing, if they needed assistance who were they going to call? if they are in a foreign country, they stand out because obviously they speak english, american they are americans, they stand out. i tended not to relocate people or relocate people outside the united states. on one or two occasions it was done and successful. but not something we ordinarily do. >> host: steven in palm city, florida, independent line.
go ahead. >> caller: hello. what a fascinating subject. thank you very much, c-span. i would be curious to know. you don't look -- aren't you in a great deal of personal danger by disclosing all of this information? >> guest: if i can an find an effective disguises to disguises the weight i would use it. no, but in fact. i'm not in danger because the number of years that have gone by i don't know where anybody is hid. there's no information 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 is a schoolteacher, and columbian narcotics gang intended to kidnap her, or me, but i think they were more targeted at her, so that i would
supply information about where a particular witness was relocated. i indicated, i never knew where witnesses were relocated. that was by design. i would never know so i could never give up that information. in her case, in fact, i'll tell you the way it came about. i was in my office, i received a telephone call one day to report to a secret room in a department of justice, i walk in there, and there is a table full of agents from different federal agencies, and they are there tole me there's a plot to kidnap my wife that a person had been arrested who had my name and address in his phone book, and he indicated that was his purpose. my wife was teaching, i immediately called the school and called the principal's office, got my wife on the phone, and said to her someone will be coming tout 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. marshall, a young lady she appeared to be a recent graduate showed up at the school, went to my wife's classroom, and from there they went to the principal, the deputy explained to the principal the situation. and said they believed there was no danger at 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. while classes were on. the -- my wife refused to relocate. she said i owe too much to the kids. it's toward the end of the semester. i can't leave. i offered her that opportunity, and she said, no. and the marshall service agreed to have this young looking person serve as her assistant in
effect. student teacher-type. the for principal put out the story that the woman that was helping mrs. shur was a graduate to see whether or not she want god teaching. only the principal knew the true story. of course, nobody released she always wore a long jacket because she was covering the gun and so on. my wife recalls a phone call she received on her cell phone that is the deputy received in which my wife hears her say to her boss, no, i can't talk to you right now i'm busy grading papers. i'll get back to you. and such. so we did have that situation -- we ourselves in effect were in the witness protection program for a brief period of time. i continued to work when i left the department of justice to go home, deputy marshalls would follow me part of the way, call me on my cell phone tell me i wasn't being followed and proceed to my home.
we temporarily moved to a hotel outside of the place we were living. so that we could not be found there. so that went on for a few months, and yes, there were occasional dangers. there was a time when my daughter, who was a teenager picked up the phone and someone on the other end said have you ever thought about death, tell your father it's time you should. we recognize who'd the person was. i had a chat with him the next day in my office, and that threat went away. the chat was simple. i simply told him you have now become my daughter's insurer and you should feel comfortable when she gets home safely because if she falls down and gets hurt on the way you're the one i'm going to hold responsible. >> it was someone in the program is >> guest: it was someone in the program. >> host: the coauthor of the book "wit sec." if you would like to comment on
the witness protection program or ask our guest questions, republicans dial 202-585-3 881- mesa, arizona jerry, democrat go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i've had the experience twice where they went off the witness program, and both of them actually ended up dead painly -- mainly because they had a hard time handling the new locations. at one time it was just out of just trying to be a little too brave. one had to do with -- both of them were drug smuggling, and one of my cousins said they actually tried to kidnap my aunt on two different occasions to keep him quite. he finally image from --
he and his girlfriend. within a month he 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 him a lot. here in arizona, meat man by the name of barry seals. it the name is familiar to you. i think he went off of it when he was shot and killed. so i'll get off the phone and let you answer that one. you should be familiar with that. >> guest: i don't speak to specific cases, but i can tell you this, all witnesses are offered psychology assistance when they are relocated. if we see something they suggest they should see a psychiatrist. witnesses are told by, by the way, 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 they may need. >> host: dan writes on twitter and asks if the clients debts follow them? >> guest: the debts do. the debts follow them. all witnesses are expected to pay what debts they owe. and we ask them to list out what debt they owe. we ask them to make payments on those debts. they are responsible for the debts 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
the person, and treat them just like any other debtor would be treated. so we can do that safely. keeps the witness alive, and lets creditor proceed whatever legal remedy they would otherwise have. >> host: one last quick call, michael from pennsylvania. go ahead, michael. the question? >> caller: yes, my question is on 9/11, the date of the disaster in new york city, we learned that there have been a lack of communications and cooperation between state and local -- >> host: is this the witness protection program? >> caller: yes. i'm talking about the witness protection program. >> host: make your question very short. we are almost out of time. >> caller: [inaudible] it >> host: we almost out of time. i'm sorry. >> caller: thank you. >> host: okay. the caller did touch on -- >> guest: i got a feeling.
the coordination is absolutely excellent in the witness protection program. between you're dealing with so many federal investigative agencies and the coordination is absolutely superb. that's why there's the success rate of not a single witness in the program has been killed that has followed the rules. and the forty years of the operation. so the coordination is excellent. information is passed freely from one agency to another when it effects a witness in the program. >> host: founder of the witness protection program, now retired joining us from philadelphia this morning. thank you so much, sir. >> guest: well, i would like to point out one more thing. the benefit of the program, which i didn't get to nap is that tens of thousands of criminals that are in penitentiaries 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 been convicted that would otherwise be on the street committing crimes. the program has proven to be extremely beneficial. in all types of cases from terrorism to counterfeiting, to murder, et. cetera. >> host: thank you from philadelphia. on the next "washington journal" we'll be joined by republican michael pompeo. he'll talk about the climate change plan and the latest on nsa leaker edward snowden. we'll focus on the diplomatic aspect of search for asylum with democratic center chris murphy of county. a member of the foreign relations committee. and we'll discuss u.s. intelligence contractors with scott amey with the projects on oversight. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m.
eastern. tuesday the senate appropriations committee hears from gary and marry joe the security and exchange commission. live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. gloria browne thank you for joining us. a number of rulings handed down from the supreme court as the term winds down this week, we're focus on one. what did the court decide in fisher v. university of texas affirmative action case? >> abigail fisher had challenged the failure of the university of texas to admit her and he said she said it was based on 14th amendment equal protection affirmatory action. and the admissions policy which uses race as one factor was discriminate story, and the
court today decided that the first part of the admissions process, which used to take 10% of the high school classes around the state was fine. but the second one that allowed race to be one component was one in which the lower courts had not scrutinized using strict scrutiny to the highest level possible whether or not there was a race neutral -- without using race and the court sent the case down to the fifth circuit. >> how do it progress to the supreme court? >> well, abigail fisher was one of those high school students who did not meet that 10% requirement. she identified under the second process which takes a number of different issues or concerns in to account, for example, whether or not a student is in a single parent household, i think [inaudible] all of the different sober owe
economic factors as well. she was admitted but she said because one factor was race that it was the racial factor that prevented her admission and she sued. >> does the decision have broad implications or is it just kicking the can down the road? >> well, if we're kicking the can down the road we're kicking down the road toward a whole where it will fall and remain there. because at this point when justice kennedy said in reading the decision that he wrote that we're going back to a time in which the reviewing court when they decide whether or not race can be taken to account, have to look whether or not there's some other race knew tal alternative that would produce the same and indicate the benefit of the university. we are we are going to the people and say that's going to be what we're going use. so where is the remedy for the 300 years of racial discrimination for people of color?
when we're saying we're not going use race if we can help in what we are talking about as the basis of affirmative action. >> justice begins berg was the only one to descend. she read it from the bench. what was her argue ?ment. >> her argument was basically that 10% of the high school is a race conscious program only not allowed to use race. but she even said but for the [inaudible] texas practiced for hundreds of years you wouldn't need the 10% high school programs. so why deny that race is a factor by not using the record race when you know that's the reason for having the programs in the first place? >> what can we see happen next? >> what will happen next is that the admissions programs around the country will hold their breath waiting for the fifth circuit to determine if there's any other way to get the same level of i diversity without using races as one single factor
in all of the admissions process. >> decisions in other major cases are expected this week. we'll cover those ruling on the c-span networks. gore ya browne-marshall thank you for your help today. >> thank you. the supreme court term comes to a close at the end of the month. next week we'll have oral arguments in some of the high profile cases. tuesday july, 2nd, at 9:00 p.m. oral arguments in cases related to same-sex marriage. on wednesday july 3rd, the case of fisher v texas challenging affirmative action in texas. the supreme court sent it back. the oral argument at 9:50 p.m. eastern. vice president biden and congressional leaders last week honored abolitionist frederick douglass at the statute
dedication ceremony. it's just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states senate, the honorable john boehner. [cheering and applause] >> good morning. it's a proud day for all americans, it's a specially so for the leader and residents of the district of columbia. you have long labored to see this day come. so we offer you our gratitude and our congratulations today.