we went to the fbi and interviewed fbi counsel in detail. we also amongst us had worked quite a bit on issues related to nsl's previously. of the things we focused on was the so-called gag orders or nondisclosure orders. in the criminal world, when there is an organized crime investigation, there is often nondisclosure orders on the order of 45 to 60 days. we found out that they are either permanent or come up for review for the first time in 50 years under current law for nsl's. that is very different from the way that grand jury subpoenas or investigations on the criminal side happened. the lack of disclosure and the long, long period of secrecy is one thing we were concerned about. >> does not create -- doesn't that create a real problem in some cases for the person receiving this nsl, the gag order? >> it poses problems for the e-mail providers and phone companies who received the msl -- nsl, where they are not in a position to describe the activities they're taking. that can lead to situations where, among other things, the facts might

even though the fbi investigation has not been concluded. and shockingly, the department made this decision and she has not heard a word from the fbi. so i want to know, general holder, what you have to say to ms. englebrecht. those spending thousands of dollars to defend themselves against the internal revenue service for daring to exercise their constitutional right to participate in the political process. and i would like to ask you whether you agree to make sure that your department consults personally with every victim of this type of intimidation by the federal government. and what count of accountability can expect from abuse of power. and you made similar concerns. >> i actually ordered the investigation into these matters. and the treasury inspector general and the fbi indicated that this is a matter that is an open inquiry in the matter is still going on. and what is actually going in in the investigation comes as the blood not been made privy coming to something that is open. it is something that is preceding. >> is there a potent

we went to the fbi and we interviewed fbi counsel in detail. we also amongst us had worked quite a bit on issues related to nsls previously. based on that, one of the things we focused on was the so-called gag orders or nondisclosure orders. in the criminal world, when there's an organized crime investigation, there's often nondisclosure orders on the order of 45 or 60 days. we found out that they're heather permanent or come up for review for the first time in 50 years under current law for nsls and that's very, very different from the way that grand jury subpoenas or investigations in the criminal side happened and so that lack of disclosure and the long, long period of secrecy is certainly one thing we were concerned about. >> well, and doesn't that create a real problem in some cases of person receiving in nsl, the gag order? >> so it poses problem for the e-mail providers, phone carriers receiving the nsls where they're not a position to describe the activities they're taking leading to situations where among other things the actual facts

in investigating threats, the fbi also relies on what is called national security letters which requires companies to supply limited information without disclosing orders to the subject of the investigation. these are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, is not tipped off. we can and should be more transparent and how government uses this authority. i, therefore, directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite. so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. we will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government. this brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past months. the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215. let me repeat what i said when this story first broke. this program does not involve the content of phone calls or the

eye which was attacking, cyber attacks against big names like sony pictures and fox news, even the fbi and the cia. so the next few months of reporting very hair-raising, i had hackers threatennenning to destroy the -- threatening to destroy the company i was working for. i watched my sources get paranoid. i was able to meet some of them face to face through convoluted names of encrypted communication, and i learned a lot of these guys were young men, unemployed and quite isolated in society. extraordinarily intelligence but also -- intelligent but also often lacking an extraordinary amount of common sense. it was full of contradictions. so, for example, this is jake davis who i met face to face before -- while he was still part of the group and before he was arrested. online he was the leader of one of the cofounders and this witty, charismatic kingpin in the community. but face to face he was a scrawny young man. he was actually not particularly good at socializing and quite shy. of course, he's not like that anymore. this was a while ago. i also learned about a web site called forte

that is what matters most to the fbi. >> thank you. that is very helpful. >> thank you madam chairman. i want to compliment you on how you put together your statement here. you have put cyber security at the top. this is the one open hearing we have every year. those of us on the panel spent a couple afternoons a week on that. the american public does not have an understanding of how important this threat is. i noticed you put it ahead of terrorism. you put it ahead of weapons of destruction. you wisely did that. you said that the industrial control systems and data acquisition used for gas and oil pipeline and electrical distribution provides an enticing target for malicious actors will i could not agree with you more. is a real understatement of what the situation is out there certainly, they are attractive targets. more importantly than that, we have in our armor as you know. we do our best with firewalls. this is something that we have to get more diligent about. i bring this up because in my state, in idaho, there's nobody doing m

>> in the olympics, you would have state department nomadic security officials, fbi, and other u.s. security officials who are cleared into the various venues or cleared into a command center or integrated into the on the ground security. i am no longer in government so i don't know what the status of that is. but i would dare say, given the public commons we have seen, that the u.s. government probably is not getting a lot of fromances for individuals the state department, from the fbi and others to be on the ground at particular sites. that is different from security for individual teams and such. i would venture to say that we are doing the best of what we can on the ground. and what you've seen and have started to see publicly is contingency planning, which would be led by the state department, to try to determine what happens in the worst-case scenario. that is why you have seen reports of movement of u.s. military assets and personnel in this regard. so you would have the state department leading that planning, trying to determine how to best get citizens in and out in case of

this did not go over well at the fbi. and the fbi, unlike the 215 program, which is a few hundred orders a year, queries a year, this is thousands and thousands and thousands of requests. so this is really part of the daily bread-and-butter of fbi activity. there was a real interagency squabble over this, and the bureau one. and the president actually sound a lot like, in his speech, sounded out there that like the fbi director did in the discussion that "the new york times" reported on or some of the immediate report on a few weeks ago and said it shouldn't be hard to get these phone records for the fbi in a national security investigation than it is for a u.s. attorney or an assistant u.s. attorney to get bank records in a criminal fraud investigation. i think this was an area that was a little lower profile and doesn't relate to them but turned into a significant interagency dispute. and again the intelligence community came out of it pretty much where it would want to be, i think. so i'm going to stop there and, if yo

so what us did the fbi, what are my expectations for the fbi? i actually spoke to all employees, all 37,000 employees by video on my first morning because i always liked it when a new boss said, here is what my expectations are and i said i'm going to tell them. i spoke to everybody and i said i have five expectations for you and i want to be clear about them. the first is, i expect you will find joy in your work. you do good for a living. no matter what you do in this organization you're part of protecting the innocent, rescuing the most vulnerable. making sure predators don't continue to harm. that is good. you get to do good for a living. if you can't find joy in that and there is something wrong and you need to find a way to get to a place where you can get joy for doing good for a living. surely you're not here for the money. surely you want to be part of work with moral content that should give you great joy. it is something we don't talk about law enough in law enforcement. i want you to find joy in your work. second, i told them i expect

we don't talk as much art the national security letters but using them the fbi can obtain detailed information about individuals' communication records and financial transactions and credit reports. do that without judicial approval but the thing that's troubling to many is the recipients of nsls are subject to permanent gag orders. we're fighting for additional safeguards on this controversial authority for years. to limit the use. to ensure that nsl gag orders comply with the first amendment. and to provide recipients of nsl was a meaningful opportunity for judicial review. something that most americans would assume already exists. and the review group makes a series of important recommendations to change the way national security letters operate. we haven't seen as much about these recommendations in the press vice president generated that much -- as much attention but they should. and i think that we have to look at it. and the report also recommends creating an institutional public interest advocate at the fisa court. i strongly support that proposal. i'm concerned that merely allowing to

joining them at the hearing with heads of the cia and fbi. directors of john brennan and james comey. >> if you want to talk about national security, let's talk about drones that violate international law. director clapper, you are fired, too, for lying to congress, for lying to the american people. >> the committee will come to order. let me say at the outset that we hold this hearing to provide information to the public on the intelligence communities assessments of threats facing our nation. i ask that everyone in this room remove any signs you may have, and refrain from any disruptions are in the hearing so that the committee can conduct the hearing, and people sitting behind you can see. i will ask the capital place to remove anyone who disrupts this proceeding. this committee meets today in open session to hear the annual report from the united states intelligence community on the range of threats to the nation's security. and let me start by welcoming the witnesses. they are the director of national intelligence, james clapper. the dir

we have had the fbi before our committee and we have had a about what, if we follow the directions of the review committee, and evidently, the president agrees with the fbi director, it would inhibit our opportunity to go after terrorist. it may put more requirements on going after terrorists then you would before a grand jury for a common criminal in the united states. what was the other point? will not require core permission for security letters. he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunication firms. guest: i don't know why he is making that recommendation. we all want to wait until the president makes his statement before we react to it. that gets back to some of the concerns that i said that i have. that would target being breached and everything and 70 million people in america having some of divulgedancial stuff to other people and be used for fraudulent purposes. more privacyhat is concerns they are then the government controls the. host: more from the new york times. instead of taking bold data out of government hands, mr. obama will leave it in plac

they never went to the fbi. compared to the congressmen who did take the money, they became national heroes. some people thought it was a sad commentary. that turning down a broad makes you a hero. host: that was a quote from larry pressler. we want to show you a bit of that hidden fbi video from john murtha. there is some video from the late 70s come and john murtha. [video clip] >> introducing legislation is only legitimate to the guys in your district because otherwise you'd got a real problem. >> he can buy something there. talking about a residence of some sort. >> is this commitment -- and business commitment that makes it imperative for me to help him. let me tell you something. there is a lot of things i've done up here with environmental regulations, with all kinds of waivers of laws and regulations, if the district people say that son of a bitch, let me tell you something, this guy is on the take. once they say that, what happens? then they start going around looking for the goddamn oney, so i want to

. >> cia director john brennan and fbi director james komi also testified at the hearing. it and watch it anytime on our website, c-span.org. today is the final day in office for federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. his successor, janet yellen is expected on capitol hill the next couple of weeks. frank thorp between early but the new chairwoman will make her first appearance before congress in front of the house financial services committee set for fabric 11th. we will keep you posted at c-span.org. jason furman, the head of the president's council of economic advisers says he believes the country has moved past the fiscal drag on the economy. he spoke this morning at a "christian science monitor" breakfast and address a number of goals outlined in the president's state of the union address. he touched on the debt ceiling which will be reached by late february if congress fails to act. this is one hour. >> thank you all for coming. our guest today is jason furman, chairman of the president's council of economic advisers. this is his first visit with the group although we

authorities to monitor and eavesdrop on political disadvantage and opponents of the government's, the fbi tried to get evidence that martin luther king was having an adulterous affairs and then threaten him or even trying to encourage him to commit suicide. there were decades of abuses that come from the system and i think it is wisely invested that if a human being can exercise power in the dark with no accountability or transparency that it's not likely, but it is inevitable that there will be used. just three weeks ago we reported that one of the things the nsa is doing is monitoring people not who are engaged in terrorist activities or members of terrorist organizations, but who would express the u.s. government calls radical ideas, radical ideas to have been targeted by the nsa and it is collecting information about their business with pornographic site or sexual if chats with people they are not married to and its planned to use that information to publicly humiliate and discredit those people to prevent them from effectively communicating their ideas to the world. in the pure insta

i think he's professional, a former fbi agent. i take what he says very seriously. i've not seen any evidence to suggest what he said. >> the future of spying in america is going to be something that congress is going to take up. how much authority should these intelligence agencies have? do you think these programs that allow the government to collect bulk metadata, should they be here to stay? >> we have to change these programs. the president challenged us to do it. i have spoken on the floor of the senate for years about this program but only in the most circumspect way. i couldn't be specific or tell the details we now know. but the fact is we have to change them. if we have a suspicion of a person in area code 312 in chicago connected with terrorism, we don't need to collect all the phone records of every person living in the 312 area code. that's just unacceptable. the government shouldn't hold that information. the president has challenged congress and the attorney general to come up with an alternative to keep us safe but to not create an opportunity for th

we know a lot of these details because the fbi were kind enough to record them for us. [laughter] he wants something on a par with gettysburg. and so his, one of his main aides, wyatt t. walker, says to king don't do the i have a dream thing. it's trite, it's a cliche. you've used it too many times before. and that's the first line of the book. and, indeed, king had used it many times before. he first recorded using it in '62. it's thought that he probably used it in '61, a couple of years before. he'd used it in june at a rally in detroit and even a week earlier at a fundraiser for black insurance executives in chicago. so this was not the first time that, by a long stretch, that he had used the "i have a dream" refrain. and king worries away at this speech. he seeks counsel, he has a lot of input, much more than he would generally. and what we know is that when he goes to bed at 4:00 in the morning the morning of the march, "i have a dream" is not in the text of the speech. that we know. and according to clarence jones, his lawyer and his speech writer, it was not in